The New Rolling Stone Album Guideby Nathan Brackett
It is often difficult to assess the many new emerging music genres without some guidance from a well-respected voice to help differentiate the good from the mediocre, the classic from the fleeting. The New Rolling Stone Album Guide provides readers with such direction, categorizing the new sounds with insightful analyses and critical judgement. The New/i>… See more details below
It is often difficult to assess the many new emerging music genres without some guidance from a well-respected voice to help differentiate the good from the mediocre, the classic from the fleeting. The New Rolling Stone Album Guide provides readers with such direction, categorizing the new sounds with insightful analyses and critical judgement. The New Rolling Stone Album Guide celebrates rock's diversity and it's constant metamorphoses. Continuing the useful on-to-five-star ratings of The Rolling Stone Album Guide, published in 1992, the new volume gets a fresh makeover with the addition of new artists, as well as updated entries, without compromising the indispensable material in the original guide. In addition, a new introduction addresses the changes in the music industry and explores the brouhaha surrounding internet music downloads. Rolling Stone editors Nathan Brackett, Joe Levy, Christian Hoard, and Jenny Eliscu write new entries and update existing material with flair and authority, making this volume the guide to own. With clarity and accuracy, the editors feature records from the seminal bands and DJs that epitomize the beats of the Nineties and the icipient sounds of the 21st century. Some highlights: *Radiohead *Wilco *Beck *Air *Chemical Brothers *Dixie Chicks *Blur *Eminem *Third Eye Blind *Pavement *Dave Matthews Band
- Publication date:
- Edition description:
- Product dimensions:
- 7.32(w) x 9.22(h) x 1.99(d)
and post it to your social network
Most Helpful Customer Reviews
See all customer reviews >
The new guide is a step back from the 1992 edition. There is far too much material on rap artists and over the hill heavy metal bands. As a 50 year old reader, I have no interest in teen pop stars like Britney Spears. Did we need a review of frauds like Milli Vanilli? In addition here is a list of some of the musicians deleted from the last guide that I would have been interested in reading new reviews of: Joe Ely, Nanci Griffith, Bruce Cockburn, Linda Thompson, Clint Black, Bela Fleck, Nitty Gritty Dirt Band, Holmes Brothers, Ricky Skaggs, Robert Cray,The Chieftains, Shawn Colvin, Leo Kottke, Chris Isaak, Maria McKee, James McMurtry, Pat Metheny, Pete Townshend, Texas Tornadoes ... Folk, country, and bluegrass have been shortchanged. How can you review American music and miss Doc Watson? There are interesting new reviews of Dylan, The Byrds, Neil Young, Van Morrison and Springsteen but reviews of some figures like Hendrix are almost unchanged. The writers should have given us an entirely new book. It's not bad, but it could have been better.
All stars earned by this title are for its decent overview of rap and hip-hop. As for pre-history, artists such as the Beatles and Bob Dylan are given reviews which must have been penned by a sophmore in high school. Artist selection was a bit arbitrary as well, as in the choice to exclude George Harrison and Cpt. Beefheart while including many lesser acts. The book does justice to Jay-Z, Tupac, Radiohead and other contemporary artists, but reviews of artists who are more than 20 years old by 'critics' who are less than 30 years old can be skipped.
While I realize that country is not among the top most listened to genre's of music in the United States, I was shocked to see some of the biggest names in Country music left out of this book. George Strait? Reba Mcintyre? Alabama? It includes some popular stars today, (Tim McGraw, Dixie Chicks) but did anyone stop to think that these artists would not be who they are today without the influence of earlier country artists? The book itself, however, is fairly good and I am enjoying reading it, despite most of the contributors feel the need to completly rip apart anything that isn't considered classic. This isn't for music fans, (it will only anger you) but more for historians, critics and die hard music buffs.