Customer Reviews:
Showing reviews 1-5 of 6
 Quite Good, and *Nearly* Definitive! August 11, 2007
MoogleFan
4 out of 4 found this review helpful
I saw this book, in hardcover-form, in the 'bargain' section of a bookstore for $15.00. After leafing through it for awhile, I noticed that certain older bands that usually get shunted in books like these (The Fall), many of the more recent bands that I like (The White Stripes, The Libertines, The Kooks, The Killers, Kaiser Chiefs, Franz Ferdinand), and many (if not all) of the well-known and most critically beloved artists/bands of each era were all featured in this book. This 'Definitive Encyclopedia' seemed like it was pretty thorough, so I decided to buy it.
The most immediately apparent aspect of this book is that it is chock full of pictures on every page, whether it be of artists/bands or album covers. Then, one notices that the aptly named 'Definitive Illustrated Encyclopedia of Rock' is not at all narrow in it's scope; don't expect this book to merely cover classic rock or modern rock...it's got artists and bands from the 50's up through the 2000s of rock, soul, pop, disco, punk, new wave, and the genres in-between! The book (with a forward by Elvis' guitarist Scotty Moore) is divided into eras and genres with an introduction and overview of the music for each ten-year span, as well as Roots, a section describing what movements and artists inspired rock n' roll. Key artists are prominently featured (like Elvis, The Beatles, Led Zeppelin, The Clash, etc.), then the rest of the artists are listed A-Z with descriptions of varying lengths. Any other notable artists not covered with a description appear in a larger list at the end of the era's section. Afterwords, a list of one-hit wonders is given and many instruments prominent in various genres (rock, rock-synth/pop/funk/soul, blues/jazz, bluegrass/country/folk, and a others) are pictured and their development is described.
The purpose of this book is to serve as a reference guide and a tool of exploration for a large majority of the critically acclaimed, popular, and beloved cult-favorite bands that EXIST! This may seem like an over-statement, but one of those three above qualifications applies to every band that is in here. There were very few favorite artists of mine that were not mentioned here, and usually this was only because they are perhaps too obscure to begin with (Le Tigre, Danielle Dax). The only more major band, that I know of, that is completely absent from this book is Oingo Boingo. Being that the band's lead vocalist Danny Elfman went on to do film scores and that Oingo Boingo had a few hits in the US, it is surprising that they appear nowhere in this book. Plus, in this book as well as countless others, the incorrect year of Keith Moon's birth is given (1947), while it is really 1946! But, these are only minor issues in a book that's otherwise comprehensive and fun to browse through. This book will not disappoint for what it is intended for, which is to learn about the history of rock and discover great music.
Very British Encyclopedia of Rock August 4, 2008
Richard S. Biegaj (Oak Park, IL USA)
2 out of 2 found this review helpful
I really like this hefty Rock encyclopedia but it has a very definite Britsh perspective. Lots of British bands/artists I have never heard of, so in that way it's educational. But since it is presented from a British point of view, that's OK; just know what you are getting when you order this book. Overall, I recommned it for the student of Rock and Roll history.
Fantastic Illustrations. Hit or miss as far as who's in it. May 7, 2010
Meteor Salad
Every page of this book is full of big, interesting, full-color photos. Fantastic coffee-table book for anyone who enjoys music (everyone?).
Just don't expect to use it as an "encyclopedia". No 500-page book is going to contain in-depth information on every major band in history, and this one prudently focuses on the pictures. Plenty of prominent bands are left out, Chicago probably foremost among them. That said, there are hundreds of artists in here, so chances are it might turn you on to someone you haven't heard before.
The prose is lively, but superficial: perfect reading for a few minutes at a time. Bottom-line, the significant word in this book's title is "illustrated", not "encyclopedia". The illustrations really are gorgeous.
Definitive?! My favourite band wasn't in it. February 19, 2008
Russell Tangey (Melbourne,Australia)
0 out of 1 found this review helpful
I took this book off the shelf and had a look through it.
Then I put it back on the shelf.
Definitive?!
You can't be definitive if you have left out a very influential and popular band such as TOOL.
This would get 5 stars if it wasn't for this massive oversight.
Its a very good book however and would probably have bought it if it wasn't for.....
 Doesn't quite get it right. December 30, 2009
Rich Rogers (Utah)
1 out of 1 found this review helpful
Perhaps it's because the publisher is a British publishing house, but this so-called "definitive" encyclopedia, too often displays a myopia that is distressing.
There are ways in which it excells many other "encyclopedias" such as including the country, gospel and blues artists whose music influenced the early rock pioneers, and made rock what it is today.
But when it actually comes to inclusiveness, they miss it quite often. While bands such as Styx, and Blue Oyster Cult, and singers such as Jimmy Buffett have never had huge success in Europe, their album sales far surpass those of one-hit wonders such as Frankie Goes to Hollywood. And none of those three is even mentioned here. The 1970s world-wide super group Three Dog Night is also missing from here. Once again, how does FGTH get a mention and bands with higher sales, and longer careers are left out completely?
And then how is it that a band such as Hootie and the Blowfish are given more column space and bio information than either Bruce Springsteen or Stevie Ray Vaughn? By the time this book was published, Hootie and company had become irrelevant in rock. And yet both Springsteen and Vaughn continue in their influence. In Vaughn's case it's posthumus. And Hootie gets more space than either of these guys? Even being British, I know that Springsteen and SRV are highly regarded there.
This could have been better, had they used what usually qualifies--album sales, longevity, etc. Too many bands that should have been placed in the one-hit wonder section at the back were given more space than they deserved.
Showing reviews 1-5 of 6
|
