The New Rolling Stone Album Guide

I'm a little puzzled by previous reviewers who've fumed about the alleged omission of such bands as NIN and Metallica from this edition of the guide, when in fact they're right here: NIN on page 587 ("When Todd Rundgren came up with the title 'The Ever Popular Tortured Artist Effect' back in 1983, he couldn't have known that he had just summed up the future appeal of Trent Reznor...") and Metallica on page 538. In fact there's quite a variety of music to read about in this guide: rock, pop, r & b, country, blues, jazz, disco, punk, funk, reggae, rap, and genres too esoteric to come to mind at the moment. Maybe my musical tastes just aren't narrow enough to get upset over a perceived slight to my favorite band(s), but I subscribe to the old saw that any music you haven't already heard is new music, and this book is the most entertaining roadmap I've picked up this year to new music in the English-speaking world. So what if a RS reviewer gives one of your favorite albums three stars? Aesthetic judgment isn't an exact science and besides, it's the writing in the RS Guide, which has been giving me weeks of entertainment, that counts. For example: "John had the vision, Paul had the heart, George had the spirit, and Ringo had two fried eggs on toast, please." "Look on his works, ye mighty, and despair." (on Bob Dylan) "When Simon and Garfunkel broke up in 1970, the custody battle was simple. Art Garfunkel got the voice, the hair, and the honor of starring in Sherilyn Fenn's finest film, 'Boxing Helena.' Paul Simon got the songs." "Rock & roll had pretensions long before it had a David Bowie, but Bowie invented whole new levels of theatrical posing, stylistic diddling, and sexual provocation, doing for pretensions what Jimi Hendrix did for electric guitars." And there's plenty more where those came from. I love this book. It's hilarious, and if it isn't always "true", it's true enough.

This new edition was very welcome. I compared it to the 1992 edition and was pleased to see both some consistency and some deviation from the previous editons and reviews of the same albums. In the 1992 edition, "Yes" was torched and burned. This edition has a much more realistic and positive appraisal. On the negative side, there is very little said about Nirvana, and maybe too much written about giant bands like the Beatles and the Rolling Stones. The 1992 version had many unexpected omissions, like the Cure- love them or hate them, they were a prominent and influential band. The latest version has no entry for Captain Beefheart or Emerson, Lake and Palmer, but many entries for lesser known and influential recent bands, many of whom are likely defunct or reconstituted. There are more hip hop and rap music reviews here, too. I have to say some of the reviews are extremely funny, sarcastic, isightful, very well written, and thus entertaining. The review of Lou Reed's work is very pungent- as it should be given the subject. The review of the body of the work of the Cure and the New York Dolls (who have since reformed and it can no longer been stated that they have gone "tits up" into demise), is great. I laughed out loud while reading them and appreciate the clever and witty word play used in this new edition. Maybe we should have a companion booklet which rates the reviews! This book needs to be updated in 2009, too.

First of all - do not think of this as a reference book. There are far too many omissions and even more curious inclusions. (I'm not going to debate the mix of artists - it's simply curious.) With that in mind, if you treat the book as a collection of essays on popular music, you will find countless hours of reading pleasure. In particular, the essays on major classic rock acts are exceptional - and exceptionally free from the Wenner-driven star gazing that has marred RS's record reviews from day one. One could read chronologically from Elvis through Beatles, Stones, Dylan, Beach Boys, Who, Neil Young, Led Zeppelin, Bruce Springsteen, and on (with the glaring exception of Metallica) and get as clear a picture of the development of rock and roll as anyone has gathered in one volume anywhere. New insights pop up everywhere (David Bowie and Prince, for instance, much stronger in comparison to their peers.) For long time RS readers, amusing transitions in taste will appear (especially evident in the CCR section which gives credit to the rhythm section for much of the band's impact. During their recording years Rolling Stone hated CCR's rhythm section. You couldn't read a paragraph about the band that didn't mention how stiff they were.) This book has provided my bathroom reading for the last two years. Rock and roll is way too wild and ferocious to lend itself to a definitive collection of criticism. There are far better compilations of discographies out there, but there aren't any better collections of essays on popular music. An uncut diamond of a book.

I understand that omissions have troubled a lot of people. I bought this book because the former edition was so dated and because I wanted to know more about recent music. I find the reviews helpful and I have learned a lot. I was hesitant to purchase it after reading negative reviews, but I think the overall product is excellent

RS still has a ways to go on their hip-hop coverage in the magazine, but this Album Guide is a big step in the right direction -- especially considering how lame the last one was on rap. Tupac, Eminem, Biggie, Wu-Tang and Jay-Z all get thoughtful write-ups, and there are some welcome surprises on smaller artists -- for instance, the pretty decent Nappy Roots blurb. More authoritative than even the Vibe guide to hip-hop.