Acheter d'occasion
D'occasion - Bon Voir les détails
Prix : EUR 15,50

ou
 
   
Amazon Rachète votre article
Recevez un chèque-cadeau de EUR 8,24
Amazon Rachète cet article
Vous l'avez déjà ? Vendez votre exemplaire ici
Désolé, cet article n'est pas disponible en
Image non disponible pour la
couleur :
Image non disponible

 
Dites-le à l'éditeur :
J'aimerais lire ce livre sur Kindle !

Vous n'avez pas encore de Kindle ? Achetez-le ici ou téléchargez une application de lecture gratuite.

The New Rolling Stone Album Guide [Anglais] [Broché]

The Editors Of Rolling Stone


Voir les offres de ces vendeurs.


Formats

Prix Amazon Neuf à partir de Occasion à partir de
Belle reliure --  
Broché --  
Vendez cet article - Prix de rachat jusqu'à EUR 8,24
Vendez The New Rolling Stone Album Guide contre un chèque-cadeau d'une valeur pouvant aller jusqu'à EUR 8,24, que vous pourrez ensuite utiliser sur tout le site Amazon.fr. Les valeurs de rachat peuvent varier (voir les critères d'éligibilité des produits). En savoir plus sur notre programme de reprise Amazon Rachète.

Description de l'ouvrage

6 décembre 2004
It is often difficult to assess the many new emerging music genres without some guidance from a well-respected voice to help differentiate the good from the mediocre, the classic from the fleeting. THE NEW ROLLING STONE ALBUM GUIDE provides readers with such direction, categorising the new sounds with insightful analyses and critical judgement.
The new guide celebrates rock's diversity and it's constant metamorphoses. Continuing the useful one-to-five-star ratings of THE ROLLING STONE ALBUM GUIDE, published in 1992, the new volume gets a fresh makeover with the addition of new artists, as well as updated entries, without compromising the indispensable material in the original guide. In addition, a new introduction addresses the changes in the music industry and explores the brouhaha surrounding internet music downloads. Rolling Stone editors Nathan Brackett, Joe Levy, Christian Hoard, and Jenny Eliscu write new entries and update existing material with flair and authority, making this volume the guide to own. With clarity and accuracy, the editors feature records from the seminal bands and DJs that epitomise the beats of the Nineties and the incipient sounds of the 21st century.

Offres spéciales et liens associés


Descriptions du produit

Biographie de l'auteur

ROLLING STONE is the most successful popular culture magazine of all time, with a circulation of over 1.5 million.
The contributing authors to this book include Tom Wolfe, Deborah Harry, Vivienne Westwood, Hunter S Thompson, Joan Baez, Chet Flippo, Chrissie Hynde, Ben Fong-Torres, David Ritz, Susan Brownmiller, Joe Esterhauz, Billy Altman and Mikal Gilmore.

Détails sur le produit


Dans ce livre (En savoir plus)
Première phrase
Appropriately for a nice Midwestern girl, the late Aaliyah Haughton occupied the sensible middle ground of R&B divas. Lire la première page
En découvrir plus
Concordance
Parcourir les pages échantillon
Couverture | Copyright | Extrait | Quatrième de couverture
Rechercher dans ce livre:

Vendre une version numérique de ce livre dans la boutique Kindle.

Si vous êtes un éditeur ou un auteur et que vous disposez des droits numériques sur un livre, vous pouvez vendre la version numérique du livre dans notre boutique Kindle. En savoir plus

Commentaires en ligne

Il n'y a pas encore de commentaires clients sur Amazon.fr
5 étoiles
4 étoiles
3 étoiles
2 étoiles
1 étoiles
Commentaires client les plus utiles sur Amazon.com (beta)
Amazon.com: 2.6 étoiles sur 5  95 commentaires
97 internautes sur 102 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile 
2.0 étoiles sur 5 Earlier Editions Were MUCH Better 6 novembre 2004
Par Jim Mitchell - Publié sur Amazon.com
Format:Broché
The two previous versions of the RS Album Guide that I own are some of the most frequently read music books in my house. I've long been awaiting a new volume, since most of my listening habits started after the release of the '92 edition, and a lot of my favorite CDs were obviously not reviewed. So it's not as if I don't thoroughly enjoy the content of these books. But something is wrong with this update. Maybe access to the internet has made such books obsolete- why pay this kind of money when similar and much more thorough information is available online? Or maybe I'm just not as interested in pop culture trivia as I was ten years ago. Or maybe this book just isn't written as well as the two previous versions were. I think it's a combination of all three, with an emphasis on the latter.

Given the diversity of popular music these days, I think that such a book like this spreads itself too thin. I'm no fan of many of the bands that other reviews have complained about being omitted from the book, but I certainly understand why a Deep Purple or Metallica fan would be upset that a book by Rolling Stone Magazine would skip them. The reviews themselves just seem...I don't know...skimpy. Obviously you can't give indepth reviews of every album by every artist in a book of this scope, but it seems that there was much more information in the previous editions. The reviews seem much more cynical, too- I appreciate that they albums are being reviewed from a contemporary viewpoint, but certainly my favorite classic rock records can't have aged THAT much, can they? Also, the print is enormous in this book, making its bulk somewhat deceptive. With smaller type, the book could have either been smaller and therefore less cumbersome (and less expensive), or far more information could have been packed in on the pages. As it stands, there's usually not more than one artist per page, yet as mentioned, the reviews seem shorter and less substantial than earlier editions. The biographical info is noticably shorter, and rarely is any album given more than one or two sentences.

And sometimes the information just seems inaccurate or misinformed. The Springsteen review dismisses Bruce's admittedly inferior but hardly terrible work of the 90s with 2 star reviews and little justifcation. I don't mind someone giving something a poor review even if I happen to like it, but let's hear why they dislike it. Same way with Pink Floyd- "The Wall" is dismissed as awful (which may or may not be true), but little explanation is offered as to why such a huge album is considered at best mediocre. Bruce Springsteen's "Streets of Philadelphia" is dismissed because it "sucks". Well, maybe it's not a good song, but let's come up with something better than "sucks, which is what you'd expect to read in an average chatroom conversation. Since when has Rolling Stone pandered to such a juvenile mentality? (Wait- don't answer that.)

The book also makes some odd factual statements, such as the blurb about Springsteen's drummer Max Weinberg and his guitarist Steve Van Zandt having greater commercial success in the 90s than did the "solo" Springsteen. Excuse me, but what did Max or Steve record in the 90s that sold more than anything put out by Bruce? Sure, they had TV success, but that's comparing apples and oranges. Minor point, but just seems sloppy, like criticism for criticism's sake. And finally, the thoroughness of the discographies seems a bit inconsistent. Some lists are quite inconclusive, while other artists of the same stature and caliber have only a handful of their albums listed.

Some positives include the addition of various artists from rap and other genres. While I think trying to include them only succeeds in biting off more than it can chew, I'm glad to be able to read about significant artists that fall outside of the narrow definition of rock and roll.

So this new edition of the Album Guide was a huge disappointment. It seems like depth and quality were sacrified for the sake of sheer quantity. Intelligent writing was thrown out the window for the sake of sounding trendily cynical. At $30, save your money and use it to pay a month or two of your internet bill, or buy one of the much more comprehensive Allmusic guides. I'll never argue that the internet can replace a good solid book, but I'll gladly take a good website managed by a true music lover over a sloppy and juvenile work such as this one.
32 internautes sur 34 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile 
1.0 étoiles sur 5 If you think "Dark Side of the Moon" was just OK , you found your book~! 9 octobre 2005
Par Anthony - Publié sur Amazon.com
Format:Broché
What a waste of a twenty spot!!!! One star is too much....

Me, I Wished I Had Checked This Out From The Library...Then I could have brought it back. Once upon a time I would look to Rolling Stone for the best in popular music record reviews. No more! Now, much like the decline of the print magazine, the record guide also sucks much more than some of the albums reviewed. I guess I would rather listen to A-ha's second album than read this. Notable for what it leaves out, including George Harrison, Widespead Panic, NIN, Metallica and Ry Cooder, among many others. 98 Degrees and Justin Timberlake ARE included. Take your money, and buy a subscription to Paste Magazine and bookmark the all music guide web site for your record reviews.

Also, the reviewers attempts to sound hip fall flatter than a stale joke. One of these kids thinks Pink Floyd's "the wall" sucks.
65 internautes sur 74 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile 
2.0 étoiles sur 5 George Harrison should not have been omitted 12 novembre 2004
Par TheBandit - Publié sur Amazon.com
Format:Broché
Milli Vanilli's place in Rolling Stone's Album Guide is secure. Thank God, because they definitely earned it. I'm sure tons of people are holding off on purchasing their albums until they see how many stars Rolling Stone awarded them.

But I guess recently-inducted Rock and Roll Hall of Famer George Harrison, an artist who earned a high ranking on Rolling Stone's own list of greatest guitarist, doesn't really warrant a few paragraphs. After all, who still listens to "All Things Must Pass" anyway?

But if you're interested in the umpteenth live All-Starr band release from Ringo, it is rated in this guide. That's not to say Ringo should've been cut, but c'mon. If Ringo's solo career deserves recognition, I think a half-page or so could've been reserved for George.

I don't want it to seem like that's my only beef with this new edition. I was dissapointed to see that quite a few entries are basically the same as in the previous edition. These guys had 12 years, I think they could've done better than "70 percent" new material (that's by their own admission in the book's forward).
29 internautes sur 32 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile 
1.0 étoiles sur 5 Abandon all hope, ye who enter here.... 10 août 2005
Par ProperGander News (Dr. Emil Shuffhausen) - Publié sur Amazon.com
Format:Broché
Many reasonable music fans would be utterly baffled by the obtuse, eccentric, inconsistent, inaccurate, incomplete, scattershot, scatterbrained, and ultimately irrelevant nature of this Fourth Edition of the once-proud Rolling Stone brand Album Guide. How can such a fat, sprawling, ostensibly labor-intensive work be so shoddy and gap-filled?

One scarcely knows where to begin in criticizing this book. Some have mentioned the puzzling, random way in which artists are included or excluded. For example, here are a few of the classic rock/pop/soul artists that are not included at all (love 'em or hate 'em, they are significant):

Metallica
Emerson, Lake, & Palmer
George Harrison
Asia
Deep Purple
Nine Inch Nails
Dan Fogelberg
Dixie Dregs
Lionel Richie
Al Stewart
Marshall Tucker Band
Alan Parsons
Ambrosia
Gerry Rafferty
Chris Rea
Badfinger
Vangelis
The Move
Rick Wakeman
Maze featuring Frankie Beverly
Crowded House (The Finn Brothers and Split Enz also)
Tom Jones
Toto

And, if you're going to include some country artists, how can you leave out longtime major artists such as Alabama, George Strait, John Denver, Martina McBride, Andy Griggs, Toby Keith, Kenny Chesney, The Judds, Kenny Rogers, Brad Paisley, or any number of others?

Plus, albums in the Christian and Gospel genres are almost completely blackballed here, in a neat bit of exclusion, despite the fact that there are some worthy artists out there who have made groundbreaking, compelling, beautiful, rocking, daring, and moving music over the years.

Oh, but the wise editors made sure we got to read reviews on such "vital" artists as:

The Dictators
Boredoms
Aceyalone
Kid Koala
Gorky's Zygotic Mynci
Buju Banton
Marky Mark
Beanie Sigal
Spain
Green Velvet
Black Dice
Roni Size/Reprazent
Saint Etienne
Amy Rigby
Swell Maps
Pernice Brothers
The Sea and Cake
Mogwai
Shellac

Please note: the above list represents just a five-minute random thumb-through of the book, which is chock full of obscure, irrelavent "artists" who the editors feel the need to inflict upon the reader/listener. This is typical of the sneering arrogance that pervades this book like stink on a rat.

Enough of that. Let's just say the selection of artists is, at times, incredibly random.

Among an unwieldy, inconsistent, motely crew of writers in the book, perhaps the worst offender here is "reveiwer" Rob Sheffield who could not possibly be more in love with himself. He forgets that it's all about the music, not about him. His comments strain to be witty, but come off as the snotty spoutings of an immature little smart-aleck brat. He is not nearly as informed as he imagines, and if being cool were a physical attribute, then he would need a hip replacement.

Of course, Sheffield is not the only malcontent turned loose with a pen; another standout in the lowdown category is Keith Harris, who is obscene, offensive, and guilty of being the pot who calls the kettle a pot...ie, hurling accusations of blandness and lack of imagination at certain artists. And doing so in an unecessarily graphic and nasty way.

This book could have used some writing from a thoughtful, knowledgable reviewer like David Wild, but instead, what we get is mostly a bunch of juveniles--or crusty old windbags who are way past their prime and locked into some kind of mental prison (JD Considine, I'm looking at you, kid). I have seldom read a work that was more rigidly politically correct; the pandering, patronizing, drooling worship offered up to all things hip-hop, for example, is ludacris...I mean, ludicrous.

But, at the same time, there is a hateful animus against anything to do with progressive rock. The few prog bands that are actually mentioned here are, by and large, mercilessly slagged. Particularly egregious is the revisionist and pernicious caterwauling against the fantastic music of Kansas. Or parroting the phony worm-brained canard that the genius Jeff Lynne is somehow a "hamhanded" producer.

But, of course, every MC and hip hop pimp wanna-be woman hater is a genius, according to this book. How trite. Adhering to the old pat standard of attacking art and defending "trendy" rubbish is so tired and shopworn; but, it's just another facet of this book's worthlessness. Obsequious political correctness and conformity is the order of the day among these music writers.

As others have noted, the "star ratings system" in this book does not always match up with the descriptions written below them. Some four star albums are ripped and some two star albums are hailed. What gives? Didn't anybody proof this tree-slaughtering tome?

What a wasted project. With review sites such as Amazon flourishing, the need for "experts" at ROLLING STONE to tell us what is supposed to be cool is vanishing. Perhaps, if we are all lucky, RS will not see the need to get around to publishing a 5th Edition and this 4th Edition will sink into the swamp of it's own rot.

Too bad. I own earlier editions of the RS Album Guide and it used to be of some use. No more. To steal a quote from an earlier RS book, "Abandon all hope, ye who enter here."
17 internautes sur 17 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile 
1.0 étoiles sur 5 Get the previous editions!!! 30 octobre 2007
Par Walter Sosa - Publié sur Amazon.com
Format:Broché
Think about a classical music guide that omits Mozart, claims that Bach is a mediocre composer, and tries to make you believe that Richard Clayderman's recordings are underrated masterpieces. The guys at Rolling Stone try to remind you how cool and intellectual they are, and how stupid and naive their readers are. The previous editions are less pretentious and much better. Don't waste your time and money with this one.
Ces commentaires ont-ils été utiles ?   Dites-le-nous

Discussions entre clients

Le forum concernant ce produit
Discussion Réponses Message le plus récent
Pas de discussions pour l'instant

Posez des questions, partagez votre opinion, gagnez en compréhension
Démarrer une nouvelle discussion
Thème:
Première publication:
Aller s'identifier
 

Rechercher parmi les discussions des clients
Rechercher dans toutes les discussions Amazon
   


Rechercher des articles similaires par rubrique


Commentaires

Souhaitez-vous compléter ou améliorer les informations sur ce produit ? Ou faire modifier les images?