Rating: 
Summary: unsubstantiated
Review: I don't know enough about the other bands presented to adequately judge the accuracy of the entire book, but if the entry on U2 is any indication, this book is entirely unsubstantiated. The author notes, for example, that U2 have "never inspired universal acclaim" and that the voices in favor of the band are "matched by the equally vocal contempt of a legion of detractors." Other than this author, I have never read any contempt. I have read occasionally unimpressed reviewers, responding to such albums as, say Rattle and Hum, or to the pretentions of the PopMart tour, but U2's grammy awards, sold out concert tours and extensive coverage in magazines (almost always praising the band's music) indicate that this author has an ax to grind. The very sentence "...in spite of their success, U2 have often found themselves out of step with the prevailing zeitgeist of pop" is ironic. Is being "in step" notable? Is that the condition which cues the contempt of the "legion of detractors" that the author never really names? At a recent series of U2 concerts, I spotted Elvis Costello, Bush, Gwen Stefani...are those the "fashionable" for which U2 are "anathema" according to the author? Maybe I'm simply offended...but it seems the author is presenting his own views in the shroud of real research. The opening word is even spelled incorrectly.
Rating:
Summary: unsubstantiated
Review: I don't know enough about the other bands presented to adequately judge the accuracy of the entire book, but if the entry on U2 is any indication, this book is entirely unsubstantiated. The author notes, for example, that U2 have "never inspired universal acclaim" and that the voices in favor of the band are "matched by the equally vocal contempt of a legion of detractors." Other than this author, I have never read any contempt. I have read occasionally unimpressed reviewers, responding to such albums as, say Rattle and Hum, or to the pretentions of the PopMart tour, but U2's grammy awards, sold out concert tours and extensive coverage in magazines (almost always praising the band's music) indicate that this author has an ax to grind. The very sentence "...in spite of their success, U2 have often found themselves out of step with the prevailing zeitgeist of pop" is ironic. Is being "in step" notable? Is that the condition which cues the contempt of the "legion of detractors" that the author never really names? At a recent series of U2 concerts, I spotted Elvis Costello, Bush, Gwen Stefani...are those the "fashionable" for which U2 are "anathema" according to the author? Maybe I'm simply offended...but it seems the author is presenting his own views in the shroud of real research. The opening word is even spelled incorrectly.
Rating: 
Summary: Interesting Choices, Not For Everybody
Review: I love this book and I have spent a great amount of time dipping into it since it arrived in the mail. I'd already seen a fair bit of it online but the print version with irreverently captioned photographs and whatnot is certainly an improvement.The editors have made some interesting choices, granting equal space to relatively unknown bands such as the X-Ray Specs as they did to The Eagles. This book is basically about bands "that mattered" and record sales don't really influence the amount of space granted to any individual act. The editors cheerfully admit that they didn't really get around to including the Moody Blues (I can't complain!) The perspective is pretty much what you'd appreciate and agree with if you are interested in Indie Rock and enjoy the Britisn NME rock magazine. I am, so I love it. Furthermore, the book seems to be pitched to rock fans in their thirties: there is a wealth of entries on late 70s UK punk bands and their influences and American counterparts. If I were a few years younger, I don't know if I'd enjoy this book as much as I do. The fact that a lot of it was collected from contributors to the Internet means that there is less of a geographical bias than might have been expected. There are several entries for 80s bands from New Zealand that would have made ripples in England (such as the Chills, the Clean, etc). The book's only problems as far as I can see is that it's only one of a series of "Rough Guides". For example, there is no entry for Bob Marley, who presumably has been included in the companion volume on Reggae. They could have included some colour photographs, especially when dealing with album covers, but I suppose that'd jack up the price. All in all a great, fun read if you're into that sort of thing and I'm sure I'll be dipping into it for a long time to come.
Rating:
Summary: Rock 101
Review: I own the 1996 edition, and recommend this book with some reservations. While I learned about a lot of bands I never would have heard of otherwise (draining my bank account as a result), there does seem to be a bias toward newer artists, particularly British (perhaps they could have included Wanda Jackson?). Also, there is a definite tendency toward artists who have yet to prove themselves in the long run (Alanis Morissette???) or artists of questionable merit (Meatloaf?). It is interesting to compare this book to the Trouser Press review guide, as their opinions are sometimes diametrically opposed to each other regarding specific albums.
Rating:
Summary: Rock 101
Review: I own the 1996 edition, and recommend this book with some reservations. While I learned about a lot of bands I never would have heard of otherwise (draining my bank account as a result), there does seem to be a bias toward newer artists, particularly British (perhaps they could have included Wanda Jackson?). Also, there is a definite tendency toward artists who have yet to prove themselves in the long run (Alanis Morissette???) or artists of questionable merit (Meatloaf?). It is interesting to compare this book to the Trouser Press review guide, as their opinions are sometimes diametrically opposed to each other regarding specific albums.
Rating: 
Summary: Comprehensive
Review: I've looked through lots of "rock history" books over the years. What makes this one different is that it was truly a joint venture by hundreds of different people and done mostly over the Internet. While most bios were done by fans, they still maintain objectivity. They aren't afraid to comment on a specific band's strengths and weaknesses and where a band did something great or not so great. They also give accurate bios of virtually every group that did or still does exist. Not only that, this book chronicles histories of hundreds and hundreds of bands, and not just the most popular ones, but also a lot of the more obscure bands around. While there are a few groups (mostly ones that are extremely obscure) not listed here, the books' editors took great pains to include as many essential bands as humanly possible. As for the ones missing, well there's always the next edition to include them in. Indispensable for any serious rock music fan's library.
Rating: 
Summary: Not the heart and soul
Review: If you think the heart and soul of Rock are 1970's and '80's punk bands from Liverpool, this is the guide to rock you're looking for. Though there are good entries here, for example the one on Yoko Ono's wretched music, they are generally hit and miss, and on hundreds of British bands you'd feel better not having heard of. Where is Fats Domino? Frankie Valli and the Four Seasons? Del Shannon, the musical godfather of Bruce Springsteen, whose 1965 "Stranger In Town" is the prototype of the modern punk this book is so obsessed with? Entries on obscure geniuses like Warren Zevon and Peter Blegvad are well warranted. But what the hell is Townes Van Zandt listed for? I think Townes is the greatest songwriter of all time, period. But please, it doesn't take a genius to realize he never made a note of Rock music in his life. Rockabilly? Maybe. Then the correct thing to do would be to sectionalize this book, include a section on Rockabilly, which would list as roots Hank Williams, Eddie Cochran, the Everly Brothers, etc. In one cohesive group! Then a section on R&B, Motown, the evolution of Soul, instead of the haphazard entries on Al Green and Marvin Gaye, and so on down the line for the rest of the music. The reason I would like this is because it has already been done in the excellent "Rough Guide To Country"--which is categorized by style, era, influence, with assorted entries on different personalities and trends. There could be a section on the Pre-British Invasion rivalry between the Beach Boys and the Four Seasons, far better entries on the great Girl Groups, and how they were all destroyed by the Beatles. There is little to tell the Beatles were copycats of American music (i.e. Everly Brothers, etc.) and how they wiped out a generation of groups who they had essentially copped from. There is an entry on Public Enemy, OutKast. They really seem to try too hard to include as much as possible, without any thought to relevancy. All in all, this is a book for Brits, who steal all our stuff anyways. If you want the roots, the heart and soul, the history, you won't find it here.
Rating:
Summary: rather biased
Review: The author's disdain for progressive rock negates the book's credibility as a resource for all music fans. One star.
Rating:
Summary: informative and enjoyable
Review: The real strength of this book is the in-depth writing by knowledgeable fans who appreciate the music but who are also reasonably objective about the merits of individual albums. It is a welcome contrast to the Rolling Stone guides that offer the sometimes curt opinions of a handful of critics. Coverage is given to a number of British and European artists, such as Canterbury and Krautrock groups (you'll find Dagmar Krause here but not Bob Seger), that some American readers may find obscure but enlightening. Any guide that gives two full pages to Robert Wyatt (as well as two more to his former group Soft Machine) is OK by me. Be sure to check out the mock-serious Spinal Tap entry.
Rating: 
Summary: A book by enthusiasts
Review: The Rough Guide to Rock is the result of eighteen months' work and getting on for a hundred-and-fifty lifetimes of interest, experience and enthusiasm. Unlike most rock encyclopedias, this is a book written by the people who know the music best of all - the fans. It was commissioned initially by way of newspaper and magazine adverts in the US and Britain, and latterly on the Net where we posted (and continue to post) the articles as a 'work in progress'. Enjoy!
Mark Ellingham, Editor
|
