Rating: 
Summary: Even better the second time around
Review: Just got the new second edition of Musichound Rock. All I can say is this is one tremendous book. Second edition is way better than the first with great photos and many more entries. This book rocks!!
Rating:
Summary: Very honest reviews.
Review: Maybe the reason Ozzy fans are ticked off at Graff and Durchholz is because the biographies and reviews in MusicHound Rock are brutally honest. Sure, a lot of people will disagree with (probably) a lot of the artist write-ups and reviews. But I've found the material in MusicHound to be quite legitimate and very well written. MusicHound doesn't just pass bones out for the heck of it...you've got to EARN them. If you like straight-to-the-point writing that tells the truth and nothing but the truth, pick up MusicHound Rock. It's a great resource, and a bargain at twice the price.
Rating:
Summary: Finally! A no nonsense album guide!
Review: Music Hound is a CD buyer's best friend. I have all their books and use them constantly. Highly recomended. :-)
Rating:
Summary: Great information from cover to cover!
Review: My copy of this book has paid for itself already! While I love reading the "what to buy" parts of the write-ups, I find that the "what to avoid" section is the most helpful. By steering me clear of a couple of dud albums, the book has saved me its cover price and more. And I like the no-holds-barred writing. The Music Hound writers tell it like it is without sugar-coating it. If you buy more than a couple CDs a year, this book is a valuable resource. Trust me, it'll save you money. And the writing is very entertaining. Definitely 5 stars!!
Rating: 
Summary: poorly edited...
Review: not the rock guide i would recomend first, if at all. the few times i have needed information on a band [last go round : the godz on esp] there was no listing..... the biggest flaw , for me, was no listing for the german band 'can,' arguably in the top five of all time most influential alternative bands...and the way they will combine artists under one listing makes you wonder what the editors were doing.. for example, the faces/small faces listing has zero info on the small faces, ironic in the light of their recent 'rediscovery' ditto for the sugarcubes/bjork listing. none of the bjork albums even get reviewed... the rough guide or the all music guide is the way to go for me
Rating: 
Summary: deeply flawed
Review: not the rock guide i would recomend first, if at all. the few times i have needed information on a band [last go round : the godz on esp] there was no listing..... the biggest flaw , for me, was no listing for the german band 'can,' arguably in the top five of all time most influential alternative bands... and the way they will combine artists under one listing makes you wonder what the editors were doing.. for example, the faces/small faces listing has zero info on the small faces, ironic in the light of their recent 'rediscovery' ditto for the sugarcubes/bjork listing. none of the bjork albums even get reviewed... the rough guide or the all music guide is the way to go for me
Rating: 
Summary: A Poison Pen Wrecks the Efforts of Graff & Durchholz!
Review: On its face, this work appears to be a valuable contribution to rock and roll archival research. Indeed, the background information is intensely researched and the results well organized and displayed. But dig deeper. For example, superficial and questionable evaluations of artist's talents and contributions are numerous. I do agree that Bob Dylan's musical and social contributions have had a strong impact on various areas of the global society. As a Vietnam War veteran and American Indian, I know well his influence in anti-war movements and social injustice movements of the 1960s and 1970s. However, this book overstates his contribution by inferring that he was THE direct cause to ending the Vietnam War. Another example of this books weak understanding of R&B artists in the pre-Beatles rock-and-roll era is the comments about Chubby Checker. The musical and historical resources are out there so there is no excuse for such uninformed vitriolic commentary. Dig deeper. As a professional historian and "baby boomer," I shudder at what passes for research in this book. A substantial amount of effort went into this book, but in the more professional works that delve into musical history there is no place for the "poison pen."
Rating:
Summary: A music encyclopedia must-have for any music fan.
Review: Over 900 pages chock full of information on the major rock groups and musicians of this century await you in this encyclopedic book. Included in the information for each band is band member info, short histories of the band, best albums, worst albums, and information on bands that influenced or were influenced by that particular group/artist. Want a list of bands with acronyms for names or bands with the word "blue" in their name? Just turn to the appendices which are also filled with interesting information such as record label resources, tribute albums, producers and category info. A personal favorite, this is a must-have musical reference book for the true fan.
--Flip
Rating: 
Summary: Overall, well done
Review: Overall, this book was a pretty good buy and I'd recommend it. I thought most of the critics reviews were accurate- some of them dead on. Their particular strength seems to be to sniff out the good albums from the not so good ones. The reviews are quite honest too, and not always nicey-nice, occassionally, they will trash an artist or album they feel deserves it. On occassion, they can come off as being overly judgemental, trashing artists you may have thought were good. Just remember that no criticism is purely objective so one's subjective like or dislike will inevitably play a role. Overall, though, the trashing isn't overly excessive and the critics for the most part know what they are talking about. This book is on a whole is more fair and objective than the Rolling Stone Guide, which tends to trash way too many artists, often quite unjustly so. If Music Hound Rock doesn't like an artist, at least they try to be convincing about why. I was impressed at the range of artists presented in this book. It covers all the subcategories of rock music from punk to heavy metal to today's pop to the oldies from the 50s and 60s. The book introduced me to a lot of lesser known but worthy artists as well. Many artists I would not be expected to find in here because they didn't seem that well known, we in fact in the book. The only real disappointment I have with the book is the CD that came with. I believe I know a fair amount about rock music, including some of the lesser known artists but not one single artist was familar to me on the CD. Upon listening to it, I had to admit the songs, while not downright irritating, were nonetheless kind of boring. I realize this is my own subjective judgement here, but for critics who claim to know a lot about rock music, they could have at least produced a CD that delivered. But as long as you don't buy the book just for the free CD that comes with, you probably won't be disappointed.
Rating:
Summary: To the anti-critics: rock music is a legitimate art form
Review: So rock music is not a legitimate art form? It's just noise not worthy of formal artisitc criticism? Everyone in this list of reviews who categorically condemns the enterprise of rock music criticism is implying exactly that. Those who wholly reject the idea of rock criticism and wholly reject all rock critics are basically saying rock music is just noise and it does not constitute artistic expression. The anti-critics in this list of reviews need to realize that they are validating the words of those who believe rock music is simply noise and not an art form worthy of critical artistic analysis. Granted, many rock critics take themselves and too seriously and some of them are simply English or journalism majors that never formally studied music but merely enjoy it. But come on . . . don't you think rock music is an art form worthy of artistic evaluation? Alright, so you do not agree with the reviewers but then attack them on a scholarly, intellectual, and substantive basis. Explain how their negative evaluations of Ozzy Osbourne is indicative of some systematic shortcoming in their analysis of heavy metal or of music in general. Many rock music critics truly love and appreciate rock music as an art form. Treat them as if they do. Don't assume that they are motivated by something else (e.g., like jealousy of those who made it). Rock music is certainly fun and enjoyable but it constitutes legitimate artistic expression. Some of that artistic expression is good and some of it is bad. I think it is worthwhile to think, study, and write about what makes it good or bad.
| 
