Spin Alternative Record Guide

Rating:
Summary: Good Resource of Obscure Material
Review: I found the book to be informative in listing a majority of artists and bands whose songs you will never hear on "commercial" radio. These include the Modern Lovers, Pere Ubu, Replacements, the Shaggs, and much much more. Without this book, I would not have known about them.

One thing I found unnecessary was that the book included AC/DC, ABBA, Cheap Trick, Black Sabbath and the Police; They were hardly alternative in my view. In spite of that, a majority of obscure bands grace the pages of the book, so it's not a total disappointment.

Despite most of the critics' snootiness and know-it-all style of writing, some lists songs as they critique the albums of the bands. The listing of the songs was really helpful and allowed me to listen to each band's unique musical style. After all, you are your own critic.

If you can bypass the faux literal pretensions of the critics, you will find the book to be a good guide to "alternative"/non-commercial music.

Rating:
Summary: Spin Alternative Record Guide
Review: I found the book to be informative in listing a majority of artists and bands whose songs you will never hear on "commercial" radio. These include the Modern Lovers, Pere Ubu, Replacements, the Shaggs, and much much more. Without this book, I would not have known about them.

One thing I found unnecessary was that the book included AC/DC, ABBA, Cheap Trick, Black Sabbath and the Police; They were hardly alternative in my view. In spite of that, a majority of obscure bands grace the pages of the book, so it's not a total disappointment.

Despite most of the critics' snootiness and know-it-all style of writing, some lists songs as they critique the albums of the bands. The listing of the songs was really helpful and allowed me to listen to each band's unique musical style. After all, you are your own critic.

If you can bypass the faux literal pretensions of the critics, you will find the book to be a good guide to "alternative"/non-commercial music.

Rating:
Summary: Pull this out when you fire up Napster!
Review: I used to like looking through this book for the informaion it gave on artists or their records. However,the critics (weisbard,sheffield,etc) are very annoying and act like they (as one amazon reviewer said) are too cool to be listening to some of these albums. One example is the ignorant review of Never Mind The Bollocks,Here's The Sex Pistols.

Rating:
Summary: The only Spin product of redeeming value
Review: It's difficult to review this book without commenting on all ofthe mud being slung around. I first want to clarify someAs for thebook itself, to its best merit, it provides a great eduaction to readers about obscure artists that they perhaps would not come across otherwise. What? Druan Druan, the Go=Go's, ABBA and the Culture Club were included in an "alternative" guide? B.F.D. I'm glad that some obscurities like Can, Sun Ra, Gang of Four, the Residents, Glenn Branca and New York's No Wave scene were given in-depth features. Also, some of the writing is quite elequent and hysterical. My favorite critics are Forced Exposure founder Byron Coley and Simon Renyolds. It's true that some 1995 trends are found, (the lounge revival, the romance of early 90's indie rock-"its golden years, to name a few.) It's also interesting to see how the book, in general, places so much acclaim on alternative rock, which would later be no longer considered a radical force of cultural change.

And as for its faults, aside from differences of opinion on certain reviewed albums, it's difficult for me to accept Spin's championing of the punk movement and underground culture in the book, since it is the same magazine that stated that fanzines are "by losers, for losers." In general, I don't read the magazine because it's more dependent on pop culture trends than music,(the "Rolling Stone of the 90's",) it claims in its press releases. Unfortuantely, it's become popular for other music magazines to follow that premise, as fashion spreads can be found in Alternative Press and URB. I also found Wesibard's introduction to be as vague and confused as the "Alternative" label itself is.

In general, enjoy life more and try to explore some of the obscure artists featured in the book. END

Rating:
Summary: Top-Notch Writing. A Great Read.
Review: Okay, I've read all the "sell-out", "poseur" and "faker" accusations on this page, so now maybe someone would like a more thorough review of the Spin Guide. First off, anyone who chastises the writers for not giving their favorite Smiths album a high score probably shouldn't even READ rock criticism, because that's not what it's about. It's about WRITING; you know, that stuff you're supposed to, like, read and stuff? Yeah, it also works as a way to vent the critics' linear appreciation of rock music in general, but if you're someone like me who's been through all the Bangs's and Meltzer's and Christgau's, you'll start to enjoy each of these writers for their individuality and voice alone. The fact that I can't stand "Gentlemen" or "Fun House" doesn't make me biased towards someone's point of view, per se; if anything, it makes me want to read MORE about these albums in hopes of finding new connections or details I'd missed the first time through. Weisbard went to great lenghts to point out the fact that the book wasn't meant to be an "encyclopedia", so why some of the folks here bought the book in the first place is beyond me. Sheffield is probably my favorite critic in the world right now; he's funny, he doesn't pander to the lowest common denominator (which might get him labeled "snooty" by ignorant Luddites), and his style is really visceral and exciting. Of course, he'll tick off indie-rockers and 60's-romanticizers for shamelessly digging Flock of Seagulls and K-Tel compilations, but anybody that doesn't challenge expectations should probably just give it up as it is anyway. The same can be said for Weisbard, Eddy and Mike Rubin. These are some of the most eloquent guys out there, and to slight them because they don't kiss your favorite band's behind is just proof that you don't know a darn thing about the genre. I'll be the first to admit that there are WAY too many hacks out there; if I have to read one more On the Edge article from David Fricke or a baffling "How to be Cool" diatribe by Simon Reynolds, I might just suck the old Winchester and call it a day. But the bottom line is this: start to enjoy rock criticism more as an aesthetic writing style than as some haphazard "reviewing" of bands or whatever, and you'll grow to love the Spin Guide as much as I do. If you're too lazy to actually use that ol' thing called a BRAIN, pick up the latest issue of Rolling Stone. 'Nuff said.

Rating:
Summary: Spin Alternative Record Guide
Review: Probably the best and quickest way to become a record trainspotter. brilliant book only let down by its (massive) american bias: singles going steady by the buzzcocks at number 17 in its top 100 albums of all time is the hirest ranked british record and the sex pistols are at number 100 - will this bitter jealousy ever end?

Rating:
Summary: a *great* resource; needs a new edition
Review: This book is a wonderful guide to bands and artists deemed "alternative" by the editors of Spin magazine--The book's forward provides the best definition I've read/heard of the alternative genre, and it includes such diverse acts as Abba and Kronos Quartet. My high school library had a copy of it, and I think I had it checked out for the majority of my four years there. The library at my college doesn't have it, and I've considered buying it, but it's already become pretty dated since its publication in 1995. There is no mention of Tricky, Portishead, or Radiohead; Debut is the only one of Bjork's solo albums in the book; they even say something like "What will Natalie Merchant be doing now that 10,000 Maniacs have broken up?" It's a wonderful authority on musicians like Neil Young and David Bowie, whose discographies can be intimidating to a relative young 'un like me. There's also a great piece on PJ Harvey, whom I will consider underrated until there are VH1 tribute concerts in her honor. Anyway, if you're interested, check out the Northfield High School library.

Rating:
Summary: a *great* resource; needs a new edition
Review: This book is a wonderful guide to bands and artists deemed "alternative" by the editors of Spin magazine--The book's forward provides the best definition I've read/heard of the alternative genre, and it includes such diverse acts as Abba and Kronos Quartet. My high school library had a copy of it, and I think I had it checked out for the majority of my four years there. The library at my college doesn't have it, and I've considered buying it, but it's already become pretty dated since its publication in 1995. There is no mention of Tricky, Portishead, or Radiohead; Debut is the only one of Bjork's solo albums in the book; they even say something like "What will Natalie Merchant be doing now that 10,000 Maniacs have broken up?" It's a wonderful authority on musicians like Neil Young and David Bowie, whose discographies can be intimidating to a relative young 'un like me. There's also a great piece on PJ Harvey, whom I will consider underrated until there are VH1 tribute concerts in her honor. Anyway, if you're interested, check out the Northfield High School library.

Rating:
Summary: Well...
Review: Well I WAS going to give this book a really good chance, but after reading what they said about Weezer in the Kiss reviews I just threw the damn thing in the fireplace.

Rating:
Summary: The only Spin product of redeeming value
Review: With the exception of the slamming "Beauty and the Beat", a record that was sold on it's hooks but important for it's precident.(you know, girl bands or something), I must agree with the individual from New York.

H.L Mencken once said the only group tha doesn't receive ample criticism are the writers that criticize. So excuse me if the writing in this book inspires me to do just that. Spin's writers are more guilty of the cardinal sin for critics than any other mag I am aware of. It seems that producing an alternative publication also includes alternative standards for writing integrety. The cardinal sin for writers is to use your review to exalt youself rather than comment on the subject at hand. Whenever you get that sophomoric attitude where you can feel the writer implying, "I am too cool to like this record", you are reading a bad review(case in point, the entry on the Cranberries). The other case, is to either complement or spurn an artist based on their convictions politically, religeously, philosophically, etc. The writer needs to understand that no one cares what their beliefs are. The reader is already complementing you by expressing their confidence in your knowledge of the artist, and they are interested in you sharing that. Never take that confidence for granted by assuming that we are additionally interested, much less confident, in whether you identify with the artist's beliefs. J.D Considine of Rolling Stone, Musician, Baltimore Sun is often guilty of this as are much of the Spin writing staff. Only Sia Michel and Ann Powers(for the most part, Charles Aaron) show that they understand this. I will say that Ann Power's essay on U2 is one of the best I've ever read. Considering U2's common themes, the band is a landmine for irresponsible writers but the Powers review is inspired and the best example of how to cover the ideals of an artist without interjecting unwanted philosophical commentary.