The New Rolling Stone Album Guide

by Nathan Brackett, Christian Hoard, Rolling Stone Magazine (Manufactured by)

For the first time since 1992, "Rolling Stone's" definitive classic returns to the scene, completely updated and revised to include the past decade's artists and sounds. When it comes to sorting the truly great from the merely mediocre, the enduring from the fleeting, "The New Rolling Stone Album Guide" provides music buffs and amateurs alike with authoritative guidance from the best voices in the field. Filled with insightful commentary, it not only reviews the most influential albums of all time, but also features biographical overviews of key artists' careers, giving readers a look at the personalities behind the music.This fourth edition contains an impressive -- 70 percent -- amount of new material. Readers will find fresh updates to entries on established artists, hundreds of brand-new entries on the people and recordings that epitomize the '90s and the sounds of the 21st century -- from Beck to OutKast to the White Stripes and beyond -- along with a new introduction detailing changes in the music industry.

Celebrating the diversity of popular music and its constant metamorphoses, with thousands of entries and reviews on every sound from blues to techno, "The New Rolling Stone Album Guide" is the only resource music lovers need to read.

Genres: Music, Reference, Nonfiction

944 pages, Paperback

First published November 1, 2004

Reviews

[Matt · Rating 4 out of 5]

An excellent reference book. You might not agree with every album review, but Rolling Stone certainly knows how to put things in context. I recommend Rob Sheffield's reviews -- especially his entries on Neil Diamond and Billy Idol. Hilarious.

[Patrick Derksen · Rating 4 out of 5]

Great resource for music buffs. It’s outdated now, and their choice of who to include and who to omit surprised me sometimes (as well as their thoroughly American point of view). But the reviews are well written and refreshingly opinionated- even if you don’t agree with them, you respect their comprehensiveness. And some (especially Rob Sheffield’s) are pretty amusing/entertaining.

[John Hubbard · Rating 1 out of 5]

After devouring the previous edition, I got this and found it bland and lacking any reason to validate the update. I felt ripped off.

[Max Shenk · Rating 1 out of 5]

I wouldn't say this book is completely awful and useless, but as a "guide" to music, it hasn't done me much good. I've found many of the reviews in it to be dismissive without justification, or dismissive based on a lack of understanding or knowledge of an artist's work, or both, or worse. Too many major and important artists and albums are omitted. A book like this should not just reinforce listener biases and tastes, or seek to deflate reputations, nor should it prescribe tastes. It should illuminate and educate. I should look at a book like this, for instance, and find music, albums, artists, and connections of which I wasn't aware. The music should be placed in context. The listings should make clear which albums are studio albums, which ones are compilations, and how to tell the difference. Too much of this is unclear in this GUIDE.
Further, if I went solely by this work, I'd know nothing about many of the artists and albums that have meant the most to me as a listener, an artist, and a person. To cite just one example: how, for instance, do you write an "album guide" ostensibly about the rock era that doesn't even include a solo listing for George Harrison? Isn't his membership in the Beatles alone virtue enough for inclusion?
I won't even get into other omissions. And that's just me and the music I know. I can't imagine what's missing or misrepresented or dismissed that I'm not even aware of.
I'm not sure what was changed or corrected in subsequent editions (this one, which I found on the used rack at the library, is from 2004) but if later editions are edited by the same writers (Nathan Brackett and Christian Hoard) then I don't have very high hopes, since the book's shortcomings are clearly ones that are based on choices the editors made.

[Takipsilim · Rating 2 out of 5]

Terrible. Book complements it's time.