5 comments about New Rolling Stone Encyclopedia Of Rock & Roll: Completely Revised And Updated.

1. As the former Acquisition Manager for the Hard Rock Cafe memorabilia department I found this book to be an invaluable resource time and again. I am still involved with the memo world as an online content specialist and use this book virtually everyday as I don't think anyone can remember everything verbatim no matter how involved they may be with music and/or it's history. The information contained in the RS encyclopedia offers a quick reference to chronological listing of each artists discography and the text usually supports that with info regarding more significant artist career movement. As always, no amount of information is ever too much and this volume at times does leave a little bit to be desired, but as a quick reference and informative overview guide it is definately commendable and it includes a greater number of artists than any other reference book I am familiar with . The only other book I find to be more useful with regard to specific chronological movement of an artist's career is entitled "Rock Movers and Shakers" by Dafydd Rees/Luke Crampton, 1991, it may be out of print but is still available second hand, however due to the degree of content on the artists included therein, it does not cover as great a degree of entries as does the RS Encyclopedia. Another good resource/review guide are Trouser Press Rock Publications. Individual biography/autobio offer the most detailed resource providing they are penned by a respectable source.



2. This is a book that belongs on every music lover's book shelf. It is the type of reference book that any rock lover would like so, you can be sure it will be appreciated if you give it as a gift. If you don't know what to get a friend for a gift, this is a sure bet. The book is comprehensive in that it has entries on even fairly obscure performers. You can look up just about anyone. Years ago, the Holy Modal Rounders were performing at my college and the band drifted into my dorm room where a few friends of mine and the band partied. Of course, I wanted to find out more about them and they were listed. Everyone, from the pioneers of rock 'n roll, to rock stars of the 90s are included in this book. No matter what era of rock and what rock style you are in to, the artists are sure to be incuded. Each band has a complete listing of personnel, so if there have been changes in the band, all personnel are listed and the dates of the changes are noted. I recommend this book to you and to your friends (for gifts).



3. As an old rock and roll fan I found this encyclopeadia very good. It is written very lucidly, in popular manner, with love. The selection is always in such kind of publication arguable, but I found this selection very good. Although... I found some big omission. For example: there are not Prodigy. Some omissions like this are the reason for giving "only" four stars. Anyway, I think this is the best rock and roll encyclopaedia in last decade.



4. A greater disservice to this book is impossible then to solicit a dusty clerk from the american library association to mummify it. Their reviewer may be stirred from the torpor of academicism by moderating a high school debate or ladies reading club, I can't imagine this volume finding a place on the shelf of any such person. He probably thinks Ted Nugent is cool.



5. If you believe that rock and roll essentially died with the advent of MTV, and that rap, pop, disco, funk or anything besides rock and roll does not belong in an encyclopedia of rock and roll, don't buy this book. However, if you are perfectly happy with the state of rock music today, and Ice Cube is just as much rock and roll to you as Led Zeppelin, and you've enjoyed the state of rock music in general since LiveAid, buy this book, you'll love it. Basically, this book should be entitled "We really needed the money, so we took our great book from 1983, added anything resembling music that had transpired since then, but essentially kept the title to fool you into spending your money on something you thought was exclusively about rock and roll like our old book. Sorry". Shame on you, Pareles, Romanowski and everyone else associated with this book. Rock music IS truly dead, just let it be. This book just reminds me of everything that has gone wrong with rock music since '83, and is not worth the paper it is written on. Buy the '83 edition, end of story.

5 comments about The New Rolling Stone Album Guide: Completely Revised and Updated 4th Edition.

1. reviews are off the top of head throwaways...and you'll be disgusted to find that METALLICA and NINE INCH NAILS have no entries. go look! unbelievable!



2. Think about a classical music guide that omits Mozart, claims that Bach is a mediocre composer, and tries to make you believe that Richard Clayderman's recordings are underrated masterpieces. The guys at Rolling Stone try to remind you how cool and intellectual they are, and how stupid and naive their readers are. The previous editions are less pretentious and much better. Don't waste your time and money with this one.



3. The previous Rolling Stone Album Guide is a book I will always have some respect for because it introduced me for the first tim ever to music that was never or rarely played on commercial radio in Australia. It was very informative and some of the information in it still sounds quite interesting over a decade after I first read the book - despite the fact that I can most definitely see gaping flaws in its judgment, especially of commercial music of the eighties, which clearly is very derivative of earlier music and camouflaged to feel more original.
   
   After the 1992 guide and the earlier, also interesting 1978 guide became impossible to find in stores, Rolling Stone failed to update their guide until 2004. As I see it, it is a pity they left it so late and did not follow the same strategy as when writing their previous guide. There clearly are too many critics (versus only one 1978 and four in 1992) used to write the guide, which means it lacks coherence. Moreover, the justifications for the ratings given to most albums in the "New" Guide are extremely weak compared even with what they produced in earlier guides - all of which made sense to me even if I have increasingly veered away from the methods they used and use to judge these albums. On the "New Rolling Stone Album Guide", even that basic ability is completely absent and one is left thinking seriously about every single word in the book.
   
   Moreover, whilst I without any grudges accept the need to prune out many artists who were present in earlier guides, it must be said that a pretty poor job was done of doing this. As often as not, bands of considerable relevance and influence (Captain Beefheart) were pruned rather than those who were nothing more than blatant commercial fads (Spandau Ballet, Britney Spears). There is also very little effort to embrace many modern trends in music, for instance the brilliant Godspeed You Black Emperor were mentioned in the text without actually having an entry to review their recordings!
   
   Moreover, whilst my experience makes me have not the slightest doubt that ratings of albums can and should be revised with time, the way this is done compared with previous guides is too cliched and predictable to be in any way effective. It's as if Rolling Stone's judges have trouble even thinking for themselves about how good albums are - or that if they did do so, the Guide would be even more insonsistent.
   
   Whilst I can have a soft spot for earlier editions, this book is really laughable in 2007. Read instead Joe S. Harrington, Piero Scaruffi or even Richie Unterberger. If you want something that is a genuine record guide, try The MOJO Collection, even if its latest edition suffers from the flaw of being much too British. Rolling Stone's newest guide is just too dated - not in its tried-and-true ratings system, but in the way in which it is written which cannot deal with the now-lengthy history of popular music.



4. This new edition was very welcome. I compared it to the 1992 edition and was pleased to see some consistency and some deviation from the previous reviews. In the 1992 edition, "Yes" was torched and burned. This edition has a much more realistic and positive appraisal.
   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 but many entries for lesser known and influential recent bands, many of whom are likely defunct or reconstituted.
   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!



5. 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.

5 comments about The Rolling Stones: 365 Days.

1. I'm so happy with the great deal that I got on this book from Amazon.I also own the companion book on The Beatles which I purchased used,but this book was brand new and sealed in plastic and there were no remainder marks.Enough about the deal,now about the book itself-it is very thick and there are many fascinating photos,many of them in black & white just like The Beatles book.The Stones book definitely portrays them as being much darker than The Beatles,as it focusses on the more lurid aspects of their career and that's a shame because in spite of the drugs and the sex there really were a lot of bright moments in their career.Some of the photos of Mick Jagger are definitely not flattering and one wonders why they were published at all.I know that he's often not considered to be very attractive,but he obviously does have a sex appeal and thankfully there are better photos of him throughout the book.I didn't buy the book just to look at pictures of Mick Jagger.I bought it because I'm a huge fan of the group and I'm so glad that there was accompanying text and not just pictures.Two of the photos that stand out are The Stones on the same stage in Britain with none other than Tony Bennett(he was the compere at an awards ceremony and he also presented awards to The Beatles and a similar photo is shown in The Beatles:365 Days)and the very lovely Marianne Faithfull in lingerie.She was to The Stones(particularly Mick Jagger)what Patti Boyd was to The Beatles(likewise,George Harrison).The Beatles book features a nice photo of beautiful Patti,but unfortunately,it's not as provocative as Marianne's.Despite the book's focus on sensationalism,it really is an entertaining read and a worthwhile purchase.I recommend purchasing it with The Beatles:365 Days if,like me,you love both bands.Some people are fans of one group and not the other(it usually seems that more people prefer The Beatles),but they were both great and it's nice to see their careers commemorated in this way.



2. Need a present for that Rolling Stones fan in your life? Then look no further as this book should fill the bill quite nicely. With about 460 pictures, this collection will satisfy even the most jaded Stones fanatic. Why? Because the bulk of these photos are from the 1963-1969 era (1-203) with the 1970-1979 decade (204-296) being fairly represented and the 1980-2006 years (297-365) breezed through at the end. With the majority of these shots never having been seen before, you'll get more enjoyment out of this book then those other ones that are filled with rehashed stories and sprinkled with stock concert and album pictures. Add to this a quick note about each photo and a pertinent quote and you've got yourself a gift that's sure to please. Of course, you could just do what I did and buy it for yourself. While the Rolling Stones still haven't gathered any moss, they certainly are gathering more shelf space.



3. This is a fantastic book for fans and, at this bargain price, it is a steal. There are 365 mostly black and white photos from the beginning up to last year and many of them I have never seen, and I have plenty of Stones' coffee table books already. The text describes the photo and gives a bit of a plot line about the time the photo was shot and there are plenty of quotes from the fellows and others to underscore things nicely. My one request would've been some Exile recording session shots, but that's simply being greedy and I won't let my greed drop a star off of this otherwise excellent purchase. If you don't own it, do yourself or a loved one who is into the band a favor and buy it.



4. Watch Video Here: http://www.amazon.com/review/RA4RLLN7E0LRI This very thick picture book is much larger than I had expected for this low,low price.
   It's packed with photos, lots that aren't that common .Some color,but mostly in black and white.
   I am very happy with this purchase and it will take some time to go over all the pictures and the information about them.
   Recommended for fans.



5. A very detailed book about the Stones. So many pictures. They don't come any better than this!I recommend it for all Rolling Stones Fans

5 comments about Rolling Stone: The Complete Covers.

1. The book is a graphical historical document, showing all the covers from Rolling Stone magazine until the time of its edition. It could be argued that this is nothing more than a marketing gimmick to leverage off the work of photographers of the stature of Annie Leibovitz. But in fact, just like the Rolling Stone magazine has been since its beginning, this is about the history of music since 1967 until 1997. The deaths and triumphs of everyone are in it: Morrison, Hendrix, Lennon, Cobain, alongside Madonna, U2 and all your favorite stars.



2. Seeing many of the covers again (I was a subscriber in the seventies) is like going back in time - and seeing many of the covers for the first time makes me wonder why I stopped being a subscriber.
   I bought this book after having seen an exhibition of Annie Leibovitz, and to me she is still one of the greatest.



3. This book is a virtual history of American rock'n'roll. Each cover says something about the times, such as the now rather melancholy shot of Nirvana, form early 1994, on the verge of a huge comeback, just months before Kurt Cobain shot himself, or Annie Leibovitz's moody 1971 study of John Lennon, then deeply into his Working Class Hero phase. Rock'n'roll stars compete for cover space with politicians and film stars, depending upon what the issue or the hot stuff of the day was - Warren Beatty and Jerry Falwell both feature in political and pop-cultural contexts (the shot of Beatty is from 1975, when he was promoting Shampoo, a film set just days before the Kennedy assassination) and the text is sprinkled with plenty of choice quotes form both camps, making this a book to be slowly savoured for its pictorial and historical content time and time again.



4. The covers of Rolling Stone Magazine have been controversial, memorable and are a marker for musicians that they have made it. Some covers have created a stir such as a teenage Britney Spears posing in a provocative outfit, a topless Janet Jackson with a pair of male hands covering her and the last photograph session of John Lennon in which he is naked on a bed next to a fully clothed Yoko Ono. Most of the covers are simple photographs of everyone from Bob Dylan to Richard Nixon and even Dr. Hook who sang a song called "Cover Of The Rolling Stone", but they are some of the best works by the some of the best photographers in business like Annie Leibovitz and Herb Ritts.



5. from the very first opening of the cover you know its gonna be a high-classmagazine cover book. It features new artists, and old, with very rich photos and informative captions on many. Very rich color, so rich you forget you're looking at a book on magazine covers. Features Trent Reznor, Marilyn Manson, Green Day, Hole, Nirvana, the Wallflowers (hense the back) and more for those who like the artists. Others such as Elvis, Madonna, The Rolling Stones, Bob Dylan (hense the cover) and Sharon Stone, exploring all the intimate stories behind some of the MOST famous covers. Documents every, or almost every cover in the history of the infamous Rolling Stone Magazine in their run. An essential for cultural info buffs and makes a nice present.

5 comments about Like A Rolling Stone: The Strange Life of A Tribute Band.

1. I picked up this book over the weekend and could not put it down until I was finished. Author Steven Kurutz captures "the sights, the sounds, the smells, of a hard-working rock band on the road" to quote "This Is Spinal Tap", with both hilarious and sometimes pathetic outcomes.
   
   In the book, Kurutz travels cross country with two leading Stones trib bands, Sticky Fingers and Blushing Brides, and in documenting the highs and (very) lows, he manages to capture the humanity in what is becoming a dying industry - Live Music.
   
   While reading this book one realizes that both Maurice Raymond and Glen Carroll (the Brides' and Fingers' Micks, respectively) are doing their thing not only because they crave the attention of being a faux Mick Jagger, but because they genuinely love the music of the Rolling Stones, even if it is being played to a handful of people in a dive bar.
   
   And that being said, which is more rock and roll to you: A drunk singer shouting over too loud guitars to 50 sweaty drunks, or 100,000 people at the EnormoDome who paid $300 to watch the Stones on the JumboTron?
   
   I choose the former.
   
   If you're gonna buy one book on rock and roll this year, this is it!



2. Steven Kurutz is a first class writer who can weave a fascinating tale about a long misunderstood facet of American society: the tribute band. Anyone who has any desire to learn the machinations of this particular pop culture phenomenom would be well served by reading this book!



3. Kurutz loves his rock and roll, and LIKE A ROLLING STONE revels in the good ol' days when rock was king and musicians drank and did drugs like there was no tomorrow. His affection for rock shows through in every line, and before you know it you're right there in the van with Sticky Fingers, the east coast's most popular Stones tribute band. In one way or another it's been around since the 1970s, and its present leader, Glen Carroll, is an irresistible subject, sort of like the Falstaff of the tribute world. Yes, he drinks too much and yes, he's a liar, and no, he's not really a good singer, but Kurutz' writing is so persuasive I wanted the book to come with a DVD so I could see Sticky Fingers in action at one of the rundown nightclubs or frat houses they're booked to entertain in.
   
   Sometimes it's life at the top, but more often Sticky Fingers' erratic financing make for tensions within the band. All of this is really intriguing, but the problem is of course, that it's really not enough material to make a book out of, and one gets the feeling Kurutz did all this research and then halfway through realized he had enough for a great magazine article, but that he was going to have to add more storylines if he wanted to get a book out of it. Thus we go back in time and meet with the original tribute band, the Broadway cast of "Beatlemania." Thus we go on the road with a second Stones tribute band, the damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't Blushing Brides from Canada. Thus we are introduced to other sorts of tribute bands including some with real success stories, Dark Star Orchestra (DSO) which does the Grateful Dead, and ZoSo, the "ultimate Led Zeppelin experience." And in doing so, the focus of the book inevitably shifts away from Glen Collins and it becomes more about hardcore dollars and cents.
   
   The cash nexus is never far from concern, yet what makes these tribute bands so endearing is that these guys aren't in it for the money--no, not really--they're doing something because they love it. And don't let me forget, also because evil life has got them in its sway.



4. Yes, rock and roll, much like the priesthood, tends to weed out all but the most hardy and dedicated. If you have ever taken a serious whack at the game, then you owe it to yourself to read this book. You'll laugh, you'll cry... Well, okay, you won't cry, but you'll certainly identify with the ups and downs, triumphs, failures, dysfunctions, stresses, joys, and fiascoes that are a part of that life. And if you threw in the towel a long time ago, you might just pat yourself on the back.
   
   There are a lot of books about famous rock bands, but not too many that describe what it's like to be an average working musician, whether in a tribute band or not. The "tribute band" aspect lends an extra degree of absurdity to the whole business, especially today, when rock seems to be going through another one of its periodic death throes. (Believe it or not, a lot of us thought rock died around 1975. Shortly thereafter, disco was declared dead. Then punk also kicked the bucket. Remarkably, they all keep going.)
   
   Among musicians there has always been a divide between the "cover band" types and the "original" types. This is even more pronounced when it comes to "tribute bands." There are those who find the concept repulsive, while others take a pragmatic view: "Hey, if you can play music and make money, why not? Beats digging ditches."
   
   Well, maybe not. Rock and roll is sometimes incredibly hard work. A passage from the book summarizes things: "The members of Sticky Fingers and the Blushing Brides faced near poverty, small crowds, exhausting cross-country drives, and indifference from their peers and the world at large, in exchange for a few dollars and the chance to be onstage for a few hours."
   
   Still, a good gig in front of an enthusiastic (albeit drunk) crowd is one of life's greatest highs, so that keeps these guys going.
   
   Nevertheless, there is something unsettling about middle-aged men putting on wigs and doing impersonations of aging rock stars. A couple buddies and I could have formed a killer Elvis Costello tribute band back in the 1980s, but I'm not sure I'd want to be doing that now. You have to wonder how long the phenomenon will go on. Will it end with the last of the baby-boomers? Or will the nostalgia of the future involve aging hip-hop wannabes doing impersonations of Snoop Dogg? Stay tuned.
   
   In the meantime, all you old school rock 'n' rollers and other aspirants to fame and fortune should get yourself a copy of this book. You're guaranteed to get a kick out of it and maybe even pick up some tips. It's a fast and fun read.



5. Great book. A total insight to the tribute band world. The author uncovers all the good and the bad, and doesn't sugar coat anything. He also delves into the psychology of this scene which is great. The highlight of this book is when he mentions my band, "1988," in chapter three! (along with about 150 other bands!)

5 comments about The Rolling Stones Singles Collection: The London Years / Guitar Tab Edition.

1. I've been playing guitar for 16 years, and to my ear the transcriptions in this book are very accurate and superior to tablature you'll find posted on the web that are transcribed by amature guitarists. If this book is properly studied, and you use other teaching sources to really understand the alternate tunings and chord shapes used in these songs you can really open up the fret board in a special way with the use of this book. I also recommend the Hal Leonard Chuck Berry Tab book as a good primer for the songs in this book. With the two together you can have an advance understanding Keith Richards approach to the guitar.



2. This collection of Rolling Stones numbers is far more detailed than I will probably ever be able to use (unfortunately!), but the few songs I have picked up on were all in the correct key to play along with original tracks. So, it would appear to me to be an accurate rendition and a very good reference. I am certainly not sorry I bought it, but I will be looking for a simpler songbook to compliment the material presented. A couple of my all-time favourites are missing (e.g. "Cry to Me" and "Under the Boardwalk"). Maybe the Rolling Stones Fakebook is the answer?



3. Great collection, just like the 3-CD collection. As I practice songs in this collection, I keep wondering about all the alternate tunings. I'm sure that the Stones used alternate tunings on some of their songs, but this collection seems to use way too many. The resulting sound is accurate, but I sometimes wind up transposing the tab so that I can play it in the standard EADGBE tuning.



4. This is an excellent book with chords and complete musical notation for Rolling Stones singles until the eraly 1970s. The guitar parts also have complete and accurate tablatures. Together the the CD edition of the same title, it makes an invaluable study item for anyone interested in learning this music. Outstanding!



5. Great piece of music, if you're a Stone's fun this collection is a MUST own it. Enjoy.

5 comments about The Rolling Stones' Exile on Main St. (33 1/3).

1. Just finished Janovitz's Exile book and I was really impressed with his style. He provides a detailed account of the characters, setting and circumstances surrounding the recording of "Exile on Main Street". I collect books on the Stones and this easily goes into my top three due to the details of why Exile was such a breakthrough for the Stones as artists. I loved the fact that Janovitz breaks down the tracking on Exile song by song. He provides a lot of insight of the sounds and meanings behind every song. I know this record by heart but he knocked it out of the park pointing out things I hadn't considered before such as the importance of Jimmy Miller's percussion influence or Nicky Hopkin's contribution vs. Ian Stewart's on Exile.
   
   I LOVED it. I give it 5 stars!



2. There are better books on the Exile on Main Street sessions.
   This book is mostly about the writer himself.



3. I enjoy the CD even more after reading this book. The only better read you could get is from someone who was actually there during the making of the album.



4. The problem with writing about "Exile" is that it's such a rich and storied period in the Stones' career that writers often down know where to start, or what tone to take once they get going.
   
   There's more than enough music to focus on, but there's also a boatload of drug-related illicitness that could be dealt with.
   
   Janovitz (who plays in the band Buffalo Tom and writes extensively for AMG) covers the music with a musician's expertise without getting boring, and he brings to the table the genuine enthusiasm of a Stones fan.
   
   He writes about what the album meant to him -- and, if you're a huge fan of the record, you'll probably be able to relate to his brief tales of youth. But then he digs into the work with the enthusiasm of a musician who's breaking down songs he loves: Did Keith play electric piano on that song? Or is it Nicky Hopkins? How has the group's approach to gospel evolved in relation to earlier attempts? Who are the background vocalists on a particular song? Discuss the unusual mixing and the circumstances under which the recording was made.
   
   Another reviewer said there's too much Janovitz here, which I don't really understand because while he has asides and a distinct, conversational voice to his writing, I think it makes this book go down a lot easier than, say, Robert Greenfield's recent hipper-than-thou present-tense misfire, "A Season in Hell with the Rolling Stones."
   
   Plus, it's cheaper and cool and hip-pocket sized without being too small. Although I do think it may be too short.



5. This is more of a long critical essay/appreciation of the record than an informative book about the making of the record. Only a few facts are really shared, most are the author's opinions. I mean who cares how this record made him feel as a teenager? - I was looking for more in-depth info about the band, the only first hand info shared is brief and from people from the fringes of the Stones camp. Wikipedia probably gives just as much info.

5 comments about Exile on Main St.: A Season in Hell with the Rolling Stones.

1. I was really looking forward to reading this book. I am a huge Stones fan and have read many books written about them (and by them, in Bill Wyman's case) over the years. Exile is one of my favorite albums of all time. However, I found that this book merely recycled stories I'd already heard-- it really offered very little new information. The best thing about it was that it tried to distill myth from reality regarding several incidents by offering competing accounts, but this was really not compelling in the end because the events recounted were, for the most part, banal and inconsequential. Worst of all, the author cites WIKIPEDIA frequently. Wikipedia, while useful and interesting, is not a legitimate source; interviewing the relevant persons (particularly Anita Pallenberg) would be the way to go to cite the same information. The book is an easy read, though; it took me about three hours. But again, the length itself was disappointing, as I was really hoping for a true-life novel about this era and not a novella.



2. It never ceases to amaze me how a bunch of people can judge something that they have no real knowledge of other than from some other guys book that was written only to make a buck at the expense of their "friends".. First let me say that Bob Greenfield is a long time friend of mine from the time of this book. We met while he was interviewing Keith Richards for his Rolling Stone interview that year. I was there working with the Stones from March to September of that year and saw much, but not all, of what was going on.
   "It was what it was!" Weird as that may sound...it was a very weird place and time. Maybe Bob got a bit carried away with the way he presented it, but after 35 years of dealing with these guys do you blame him? I can tell you one thing from my perspective...After spending 6 months in the south of France with the Rolling Stones...and the French, I began feeling like a character in a Jean-Luc Godard movie. As much as I love and loved working with the Stones this was not their finest hour and that is what Bob was trying to capture and I think that he did.



3. I loved STP which I regard as the best book ever written about the Stones. For this reason I was excited about the publication of another book on the same period by the same author. I even went to see him speak about the book at a local bookstore. It was a lousy talk and the book was equally disappointing when I read it. Just boring and the glaring factual errors make you wonder how much of it is accurate.



4. Exile on Main Street is probably my favorite Stones album, (well maybe after Tattoo You), and this book covers the band during that period. It's a short book and a quick read. The author describes how they came to live in the south of France for tax haven purposes, and how they lived and worked once there. You read a fair amount about drugs and girlfriends and band finances.
   
   The book is in a tricky spot because if you are a fan, you probably know a lot of this stuff already, and if you aren't, then you probably won't care. That said, as a fan, I enjoyed it. I found the author's writing style fun, in, you know, a rock and roll journalist kind of way. This isn't Tolstoy and I didn't want it to be.



5. If you want a detailed, rock critic-esque review of the making of Exile On Main Street, check out the The Rolling Stones' Exile on Main St. (33 1/3). Greenfield's book is short on nuance and long on rumor and sensationalism, but that doesn't mean it's not a fun read. Yes, he's got inconsistencies and incorrect facts galore. Yes, he makes a random two-page attack on fellow writers. Sure, the chapter on the album itself is self-consciously arch and snarky. BUT, if you want to have the Rolling Stones equivalent of Hollywood Babylon, you could do much worse. Just sit back and let the book wash over you in its innuendo, filth and narcissism - just don't take it seriously. After all, it's only rock 'n' roll.

5 comments about The Rolling Stone Encyclopedia of Rock & Roll (Revised and Updated for the 21st Century).

1. This is clearly not the success they would like it to be. it is very incomplete and patchy. Some artists are covered too succintly and some should not be included in a rock encyclopedia. If you need one reference work, this is clearly not it. This is probably due to the direction that RS magazine has taken over the last decade or so. While it was indispensable reading it has become hopeless and out of touch. I really used to read it but the quality of the writing has gone down the drain and this is reflected here. It is surprising since the early editions of their album guide were quite fantastic.



2. Excellent edition, this was a gift and my music lover friend doesn't put it down.



3. This was purchased for my husband as a gift. He loves it! He told me that he refers to it on almost a daily basis.



4. I cant believe people didnt like this book, then again everyone has an opinion. I thought this book was very well done and well written. Im a bit confused about the book though. It does say Rock n Roll but clearly has country acts, a few metal bands, and alot of bands who shouldnt even be in the book. As a lover of all music, I didn't mind the entrees though. I was on a 3 hour trip home and I read the book all the way home. It does pass alot of time and covers alot of ground. Its a great read for music lovers and i'm really glad I bought this book. I cant wait for the Fourth edition to come out, this book ends at 2000.



5. I had to do a report for my music appreciation class and chose my most fav band in the world, White Lion. Luckily, the college library had the first edition because White Lion was deleted in the second edition (or revised edition). As a big music nerd (and liking to read rock bios), I rather have each edition they update to keep the old band's listing as musical reference, but they don't. There are other rock and roll reference books (some may be out of print already, especially if you're looking for a band that's obscure), and I got more info from other books than Rolling Stone.

5 comments about The Rolling Stone Illustrated History of Rock and Roll: The Definitive History of the Most Important Artists and Their Music.

1. The reason Rolling Stone leaves out artists like Billy Joel, Three Dog Night and Bob Seagar is because they are nowhere near the top echelon of rock and roll artists. The reason they heap praise on the Rolling Stones is because the Rolling Stones are the greatest rock band in the history of the genre. And the reason the Beatles get two chapters is because no other artist has had as much impact on rock and roll music as the Beatles. Get real, people!



2. While the "history" is mostly a series of editorial reviews combined with facts, you will learn about the basics and some interesting tidbits as well. It's also a great way to have comprehensive listing of all of an artist's released music.



3. Bought this for my 16-year-old son, and he is studying it like I've never seen him study anything. It is a great way to educate our younger people on the beginnings of rock-n-roll, and every day, my son says "Mom, did you know that..." and shares some new thing he learned from the book. Very complete reference guide, also, and interesting to look through even for an old fogey like me. Worth every penny.



4. Rolling Stone has long been the "Gold Standard" for rock journalism. Any history of rock and roll that doesn't have Billy Joel or Bob Seger is all right by me. I need to update my copy right away! Great job, as usual, Rolling Stone!!!!!



5. 
   Deserves 5stars, but it is just a copy,the photos are quiet dark,
   the editors are five stars,
   Thanks,
   toni