Rating: 
Summary: Too Long
Review: The book starts strong and does a great job of covering the early years (the part I suspect most readers will care about) but seriously bogs down as it moves into coverage of the early 90's.Ultimately, it could have been at least 100 pages shorter. By the time I got to the 20+ pages of recollections on Lorne Michaels, I couldn't take it anymore.
Rating: 
Summary: Complete history of the show with gossip thrown in
Review: This book is quite good due to the fact that just about everyone involved with the show over the years is interviewed (sans Eddie Murphy). The book is honest when it should be and doesn't waste a lot time focusing on non-essential aspects of the show like other biographies. A few central themes are evident in the book that shed light on its honesty: the pompous attitude of Lorne Michaels and how it effects the show, the cast, etc. and the complete dislike of Chevy Chase by just about everyone involved with the show. And, after reading this book, you will too (if you haven't already). If you are interested in reading a book about Saturday Night Live, just buy this book. This is all that you will ever need to get your fix of the show.
Rating:
Summary: Interesting but incomplete
Review: Once the freshest, latest thing in show business, Saturday Night Live is closing in on _30 seasons_ on the air. I was 7 when the Not-Ready-for-Prime-Time Players made their debut, and first became a regular viewer in the pre-Eddie Murphy lean years, but I've always loved the show. Until the rise of Comedy Central and hundreds of cable channels, it was the only place on TV for political satire, and one of the few places for live music. "Live From New York: An Uncensored History of Saturday Night Live" is a chronicle of the show's history, told by (most of) the people involved. I expected the book to be narrative, but it isn't: authors Tom Shales (TV critic for the Washington Post) and James Andrew Miller structured almost the entire book as a series of interview snippets about particular people, episodes, or events. The section on John Belushi's death, for instance, includes comments from more than a dozen people, including Belushi's family, friends and writers and cast members from the show. The approach is interesting when it lets you see multiple sides of a conflict or different perspectives on a cast member, as with the extensive quotes from Norm Macdonald, Lorne Michaels, and Don Ohlmeyer, who forced Macdonald's firing midway through the 1999-2000 season. It can be quite entertaining, as well, as we hear Joe Piscopo explain that his Sinatra impression was really a tribute, then hear from the writers who couldn't believe all the things Piscopo resisted on the grounds that "Frank wouldn't do that," including "Frank wouldn't eat in the Carnegie Deli," "Frank wouldn't wait for Stevie Wonder, Stevie would have to wait for Frank," and "Frank wouldn't jump off a building." Finally, in frustration, the writers considered a sketch called "Frank wouldn't do that." On the other hand, there are a lot of voices left out: Eddie Murphy apparently refused to participate, and of course former cast members John Belushi, Gilda Radner, Chris Farley and Phil Hartman and writer Michael O'Donoghue are now dead. It's usually the job of the author to provide an objective and critical eye on their sources. Here, that's mostly missing. Depending on whose quote you believe, Lorne Michaels is either the devil, a raging egomaniac, an opportunist who took advantage of the tremendous talent on the show, a gifted comedy writer, a creative genius, or all of the above. Still, you'll learn a lot about what happens in the manic week leading up to 11:30 Saturday nights here. What the heck does the host really do? How many sketches do they prepare in a given week? And there's a lot of SNL trivia, as well. Who was the first to say the "f-word" on SNL (I was surprised to learn it wasn't Charles Rocket)? Who was the first (maybe still the only) musical guest to lip-synch on the show? "Live From New York" also provides some interesting perspective on the show's history: When did the show shift to being a platform for recurring characters? What led to the "star turn" season with already established performers like Billy Crystal, Martin Short, and Harry Shearer? Still, if you're looking for a history particularly of the show's first decade, I would instead recommend "Saturday Night: A Backstage History of 'Saturday Night Live' ", by Doug Hill and Jeff Weingrad. Published in 1986, it's now out of print, but it's a very entertaining read that tells the story as, well, a story. If, on the other hand, you're curious about how the performers, writers, guests and executives behind the show look at it, "Live From New York" is the place to start. I noticed that there's also a book out now by William G. Clotworthy called "Saturday Night Live: Equal Opportunity Offender". I recognized his name -- he was the NBC censor assigned to the show in its earlier years, and the book is his chronicle of the standards and practices battles with the show.
Rating:
Summary: Great Read; Someone wake up the Editor, though...
Review: A great source of info, gossip, and history of SNL. Very enjoyable; it was hard to put this book down for the first 400 or so pages. Recommended. A little criticism: The pictures were great; a few more (esp. of the writers) would have been even better.
A medium criticism: No treatment of the infamous "Fire Don Pardo On The Air" scheme that didn't quite happen. A larger criticism: The "bumper" paragraphs by the authors are horrible. Little information, lots of unsupported editorializing. The books stands much better alone than with these entries. A big-time criticism: Did the editor take a nap when it was time to chop away at the last 150 pages? Holy moly that content could easily have been halved without losing any substance at all, especially the last chapter. I just watched a re-run of SNL; it was even more fun after reading this book.
Rating: 
Summary: get it at the Library.
Review: Ok, here ya go, The writer's are what Makes SNL what it is. Is everybody clear on that? there, I just saved you twenty five bucks.
This is NOT a book about The Show Saturday night live, this is a book about the PRODUCTION of SNL. In most instances covering Monday through Friday and NOT saturday night. It's more a book of office politics and corporate policies, at a firm that's product is a tv show. The stories about the show itself are interesting, but there are few scattered throughout the book. Of the hundreds of hosts SNL has had over the year they interview less than two dozen. Mostly it's writers talking about other writers, performers talking about writers, Lorne talking about writers. Yeah, I'd love to hear about the blown skits...the terrible hosts, bad behavior, and what you get is another story about what was for dinner tuesday night. The last chapter is an unbearable homage to Lorne Michaels...as if the first 500 pages weren't enough. Imagine somebody coming to your workplace and interviewing everyone about what happens during the week...and then writing out 550 pages of it...well that's pretty much what it's like.
What did I expect? I guess more of an anthology that would give some background to what I see on the reruns. More stories about the actual PERFORMANCE of the show and not the preparation(writing) of the show.
Rating: 
Summary: For anyone who LOVES SNL!
Review: This book may look big in size but it is a quick read. It is mostly old cast members, writers, and hosts talking about the show. It is the most honest look at the show that I have ever seen. It is sweet, touching, funny, and raw. I couldn't put down. I was fascinated by people who actually knew John Belushi talking about his last days. Also Adam Sandler's dismissile from SNL. No matter what cast is your favorite this behind the scenes book will give you a new perspective of the show.
Rating:
Summary: A Must Have For the Obsessive
Review: It is all too easy to become obsessed with SNL, this is a fact that i have been aware of since i was very small. You can stop watching it, but Saturday night that nagging need to see who's on the show will come back...and then you just won't turn it off. And then, during the summer, and during holiday vacation periods like this one, you will go into sketch comedy withdrawl...and clamor for something new! You just CAN'T watch the reruns, no matter how good DeNiro is. It is in periods like these sad times when you need a backup. You need to feed your addiction, so you turn to Live From New York.
It is a fascinating piece of written oral history. Starting from the very beginning with truly fascinating information and description of Lorne Michaels, and the early cast, which was [chemical] and problem soaked, to the current days of jimmy fallon and tina fey, a cast that seems like angels in comparison. True, true, like all histories, this one sometimes gets boring. And i will admit, I'm not old enough to remember all the castmates from every season, but on the whole the process is deeply interesting. I'll admit it, i've gained a new respect for the workload and pressure carried by the cast/crew every week...and have decided that Lorne is indeed a rather intimidating figure.
Rating:
Summary: Disappointing
Review: LIVE FROM NEW YORK is a book that immediately doesn't live up to its potential. Authors Tom Shales and James Andrew Miller had what seems like unprecedented access to just about everyone involved with Saturday Night Live other than Eddie Murphy and those who have passed away. Their set of interviews had the potential to be the foundation of a well-researched history. What is presented instead amounts to an oral history consistently mostly of paragraph-long anecdotes told by the cast, writers, producers and hosts of the show. While this alone is inherently interesting, there is little interpretation, little context, and virtually no other research in this book. As a result, much of significance is left out and too much irrelevant is left in. Although I'm sure the authors edited out some (probably most) of the words told to them by their interview subjects, they (the authors) would not interrupt a stream of thought chosen for inclusion in the book. As a result, all the "ums," "you knows," fractured syntax and bad grammar that aren't noticed in conversation make otherwise bright people seem stupid and hard to understand in this book. The flip side of the inclusion of this type of unintended language is that the context of several stories is often left to the reader's outside knowledge. This is especially a problem as it relates to stories about specific sketches. Sketches would be discussed, but rarely explained. Those unfamiliar with these sketches will have little greater understanding after reading this book. Overall, the specific sketches and routines that define the show were really under-explored in favor of behind-the-scenes personality stories. All this is interesting enough, but also not nearly enough. Outside critiques of the show are mostly unaddressed. Some of the people interviewed acknowledge vague criticisms, but those criticism are not really explored. Oddly, one internal criticism that crops up is a sense that some of the show's sketches tend not to end well, while the idea that sketches go on too long or ride one joke too far is completely un-addressed. Even the photo section of this book comes up short, as it features mostly photos of the bets known cast members while others who appear throughout the book, but are less well known remain faceless phantoms. The biggest disappointment about this book is that it could have been so much more. The authors could have done some more secondary research, discussed the show's context during its times, and woven together a story in which the gaps (like the absence of commentary from Eddie Murphy, or some of the deceased stars) were less noticeable. While reading this book I kept contrasting it to Bob Woodward's John Belushi biography, WIRED. WIRED may have had a malicious slant, Woodward may not have appreciated Belushi, and he may have included untrue stories (as Dan Aykroyd asserts) - but it was a better story. Despite all that's wrong with the book, I thought it compelling enough to plow through in a few days. I have probably never read a nearly-600 page book so quickly. Again, the material is inherently interesting, but ultimately the product is disappointing.
Rating:
Summary: An incredible show, an incredible read
Review: I expected one of two things: a thick piece of "fluff" filled with funny backstage antecdotes, or an expose with bitter memories from those no longer associated with the show. I got neither.
Don't get me wrong, the book is packed with both the funny backstage stories, and the bitterness from ex-cast members. But as it turns out, the book, overall, is a detailed glimpse of how to do the impossible (throw together a 90-minute ensemble sketch comedy show in six days, see it come to an end in the blink of an eye, and start all over again the following Monday) 20 times a year for 28 years.
The authors/interviewers especially made a point to select quotes from all the interviewees to give the complete story, not just a biased-towards-the-show attitude. Janeane Garafalo says the show is anti-women, Fred Wolf retorts basically saying Janeane is a comparably lazy performer who seemed to search for negative messages that didn't exist in skits she hated.
The interviewees are astonishingly honest, never hesitating to say "That was a bad episode" or "We weren't doing our best" in their recollections. As a result, you come out of reading the book with a new respect for everybody ever associated with the show. It seems as though strength, both emotional and physical, play a big part in the show's survival.
Rating: 
Summary: This book is horrible
Review: You may think that a book about Saturday Night Live would be fun or perhaps even entertaining. Well this one is not. I hate to disagree with the other reviewers but the book was just huge, boring list of commentary. These authors should not be acclaimed for throwing together a scrapbook of things that other people said. I COULD HAVE DONE IT MYSELF AND SAVED $26! The worst part of the book is looking at the pictures of the authors. They look duller than the book itself!
| 
