Who does Scott Seward review in the new Rolling Stone Guide?

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

He's lost among all the Rob Sheffields (which is fine, cos I've always wished he'd write a book). They should index these things!

― dr. phil (josh langhoff), Thursday, 28 October 2004 12:27 (twenty-one years ago)

I looked up Gorgoroth, but they're not in there. All the music that matters?! Whatever!

― dr. phil (josh langhoff), Thursday, 28 October 2004 12:31 (twenty-one years ago)

he does black sabbath!!!!!

― chuck, Thursday, 28 October 2004 15:27 (twenty-one years ago)

and oh yeah, the stooges too i think

― chuck, Thursday, 28 October 2004 15:28 (twenty-one years ago)

I know he said he was gonna do tATu too. Is this thing out?

And where the heck is he these days anyway?

― Stormy Davis (diamond), Thursday, 28 October 2004 15:37 (twenty-one years ago)

i think he is having computer problems (and thinking about writing a a book) (and taking care of rufus) (and watching that live wire dvd).

and yes, he told me he did tatu 2

― chuck, Thursday, 28 October 2004 15:41 (twenty-one years ago)

Company Flow, too. I'll have to go check out the Stooges.

― dr. phil (josh langhoff), Thursday, 28 October 2004 22:28 (twenty-one years ago)

does this Rolling Stone Album Guide not suck, unlike the '92 edition?

― Riot Gear! (Gear!), Thursday, 28 October 2004 22:32 (twenty-one years ago)

and has it already hit the stands yet, and I just have been too wrapped up in myself to notice?

― Lord Custos Epsilon (Lord Custos Epsilon), Thursday, 28 October 2004 22:36 (twenty-one years ago)

way longer reviews, way fewer of them, it looks like. (i haven't read any yet, but i still guarantee that the original red 1979 edition, full of hilarious zero-star dave marsh reviews of great hard rock and disco albums you never heard of, will *by far* be the best one ever made.)

― chuck, Thursday, 28 October 2004 22:38 (twenty-one years ago)

I wanna see a copy! I'm supposed to be getting one in the mail. I almost didn't do any at all cuz I was really busy with newborn baby and lotsa Voice stuff and the deadline they gave me seemed really short (little did i know that this deadline would end up being extended indefinitely for another year and a half). Plus, they wanted me to do loads and loads of entries for bands that nobody likes and I thought that would be depressing. Then Christian Hoard asked me really nice and dangled the pot-stuffed carrot that is is sabbath in my face and i couldn't resist doing a little cultural revisionism. how else would a four star review of Sabotage appear in R.S.?

― scott seward (scott seward), Thursday, 28 October 2004 22:43 (twenty-one years ago)

Christian was also nice enough to offer to edit stuff over the phone with me and i told him to do it himself cuz i'm too lazy. so i don't know what anything will look like. It will be a big surprise!

― scott seward (scott seward), Thursday, 28 October 2004 22:45 (twenty-one years ago)

And, oh yeah, my computer broke - it actually made a popping sound like a lightbulb popping and then shut off forever - and that's why i haven't been on ILX as much. I'm using Maria's old computer in the back room and i kinda hate her ergonomic keyboard and I'm trying to get some other stuff done. (stuff that chuck mentioned.) It's as good an excuse to work as any I can think of.

― scott seward (scott seward), Thursday, 28 October 2004 22:49 (twenty-one years ago)

And, oh yeah, part 2, I also did a long one on Red House Painters, Clinic, Nuggets Boxes, some soundtrack stuff (rushmore, pulp fiction, pretty in pink) and some others that I can't remember. Jill Scott! Oy, that was rough for some reason. I wish I still had that one long list of stuff that got sent to me that didn't have any takers. It was pretty bad.

― scott seward (scott seward), Thursday, 28 October 2004 22:52 (twenty-one years ago)

Matos did a gazillion of them. He did Prince too, I think.

― scott seward (scott seward), Thursday, 28 October 2004 22:53 (twenty-one years ago)

I think the '92 one is still the worst music guide I've ever read, I imagine this new one might be of interest though.

― Riot Gear! (Gear!), Thursday, 28 October 2004 22:53 (twenty-one years ago)

What I'd really like to see is an up to date version of the Spin Alt Rock guide.
(Granted, Spin -- the magazine -- is utter pants, but the Alt guide was a fun read. Even though I didn't agree with much of it.)

― Lord Custos Epsilon (Lord Custos Epsilon), Thursday, 28 October 2004 22:55 (twenty-one years ago)

I think the only record guide i still own is an old trouser press one from the 80's. They weren't that big on Ebn Ozn if I remember correctly.

― scott seward (scott seward), Thursday, 28 October 2004 23:00 (twenty-one years ago)

i bought the spin big orange alternative one for a buck a few months back, will probably get this one too (when it is a buck).

― cinniblount (James Blount), Thursday, 28 October 2004 23:02 (twenty-one years ago)

but scott, what about *my* guide????

martin popoff's guide to '70s metal is my current favorite, though.

i wish i still had that first trouser press new wave guide; that was fun. i've got some olive greenish one from the '90s, but it's all yucky college radio bands. (i do still have my copy of *volume* though -- the ultimate new wave guide since it came out in like 1980, when new wave was still new. and .38 special are in it, i swear!)

― chuck, Thursday, 28 October 2004 23:07 (twenty-one years ago)

Details, chuck.
I've not heard of this volume guide of which you speak.

― Lord Custos Epsilon (Lord Custos Epsilon), Thursday, 28 October 2004 23:09 (twenty-one years ago)

Custos OTM about the SPIN guide. Although I'd be curious what such a book would look like in 2004 -- the original came out in 1995, when the idea of defining and contextualizing "alternative" took on a greater sense of urgency, perhaps.

― jaymc (jaymc), Thursday, 28 October 2004 23:09 (twenty-one years ago)

Well, now that the sense of urgency is gone, they can just put out a funny, silly, hi-calorie guide of "bands/acts/musicians you probably haven't heard of, but should."
I'm sure to non-music snobs*, that guide was a mindblowing godsend

* = defined as anyone who hadn't already read all the editions of the Trouser Press guides already.

― Lord Custos Epsilon (Lord Custos Epsilon), Thursday, 28 October 2004 23:13 (twenty-one years ago)

oops, i was wrong about the year! it's "international discography of the new wave: volume {1982/83}" edited by b. groege martha defoe, put out by 110 records which also put out laurie anderson's "o superman". no reviews (who needs 'em?), just lists and lists of records - 735 pages worth, no shit! singles, compilation appearances, everything!

and in checking my shelf for that one, i noticed that i DO still have the "new trouser press record guide" from 1985 as well. but i think scott was talking about the earlier grey one, which actually had "new wave" in its title, before that word started embarrassing ira robbins.

― chuck, Thursday, 28 October 2004 23:20 (twenty-one years ago)

chuck, yer guide is in a class by itself. it's more of a bible of sorts. and it obviously effected me greatly. even if you did make me buy one too many Lucifer's Friend albums.

― scott seward (scott seward), Thursday, 28 October 2004 23:23 (twenty-one years ago)

what i hated about that spin guide (which i contributed to, as did frank kogan and other good people) and the '90s rock trouser press one is that they're so geared to bands being IMPORTANT. Same with the last two or three editions of the Rolling Stone one. Which means they're about setting big boring canons in stone. Fuck important bands, man -- the forgotten nobodies are WAY more fun to read about.

― chuck, Thursday, 28 October 2004 23:24 (twenty-one years ago)

I still need that popoff book. actually, i need the 70's and the 80's one. you let me borrow your 80's one, chuck, and i was silly enough to return it to you. hours of fun to be had there.

― scott seward (scott seward), Thursday, 28 October 2004 23:26 (twenty-one years ago)

(though, to be fair, i guess the Spin one *did* have lotsa essays about genres {disco, new wave, latin freestyle} that took nobodies into consideration. and that later trouser press probably had plenty of boring '90s college rock nobodies -- so, um, i guess they just weren't *my* nobodies, maybe. plus, what always happens when these guides "update" themselves is that i get totally bummed out by the bands from the earlier editions who get dropped, forgetten forever.)

― chuck, Thursday, 28 October 2004 23:29 (twenty-one years ago)

Chuck, I've got that first TP guide and that Int'l Discography of the New Wave, but my brother threw out the red Rolling Stone guide much to my chagrin. It seemed like Marsh would just give blanket block or 1 star reviews to bands I now consider among the best ever.

― Baked Bean Teeth (Baked Bean Teeth), Thursday, 28 October 2004 23:30 (twenty-one years ago)

see, that's why i wish i still had my old paperback RS guide from the 70's. (which i think had a blue cover.) tons of forgotten stuff in there. i always forget to look for it in used bookstores.

― scott seward (scott seward), Thursday, 28 October 2004 23:31 (twenty-one years ago)

I drop into eBay ever so often to see if anyone is hocking their old copy. So far, no dice.

― Lord Custos Epsilon (Lord Custos Epsilon), Thursday, 28 October 2004 23:32 (twenty-one years ago)

I do still have that rock & roll confidential compendium though!

― scott seward (scott seward), Thursday, 28 October 2004 23:33 (twenty-one years ago)

blue one was 1983, scott - it's called "the new rolling stone record guide," i have it right here. the red one came four years earlier, and was even more entertaining.

― chuck, Thursday, 28 October 2004 23:34 (twenty-one years ago)

yeah, i have the rock & roll confidential thing too - that's from around 1985; i did a metal essay in it, one of my first ones ever. but the guide to 1984 records in the back is really kinda wacky.

― chuck, Thursday, 28 October 2004 23:36 (twenty-one years ago)

what year did you write that bubblegum thing in Creem that rocked my world?

― scott seward (scott seward), Thursday, 28 October 2004 23:38 (twenty-one years ago)

i have the red one i think...the b&w pictures of record covers have NO relation to the entries on the pages.

― bulbs (bulbs), Thursday, 28 October 2004 23:38 (twenty-one years ago)

You're right, Chuck, the SPIN one was definitely all about canon-formation, but I think part of the fun for me was just that: seeing what a canon of "alternative" looked like. Plus, I was sixteen, and that's *exactly* the kind of record guide I needed.

― jaymc (jaymc), Thursday, 28 October 2004 23:39 (twenty-one years ago)

yeah the spin guide alternates between really great essays and dross about how _____ were really influential important and this matters ma-an. the good outweighs the bad easy though, and it's an effective record guide - i lent it to my sister when she got on slsk.

― cinniblount (James Blount), Thursday, 28 October 2004 23:42 (twenty-one years ago)

TEN STARS AND OXOXO 2 U Sco Sewa and Ro Cris! Yall please review Steppenwolf and the Art of NoiseHEY

― Big Big Fat Drunk Chick With A BoomBox, Friday, 29 October 2004 01:41 (twenty-one years ago)

Bah, I missed Scott being back here earlier today, and I was missing him. :-(

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Friday, 29 October 2004 01:47 (twenty-one years ago)

Sheffield gets most of the big canonical figures in this RS Gd, along with the New Wave people he got in the Spin guide, which makes the canonizing entertaining, at least. Most notable omission right now is the Coup, though I'm sure there are plenty of others.

― dr. phil (josh langhoff), Friday, 29 October 2004 01:59 (twenty-one years ago)

Miami reviews! Stoly Rocks!Little Beaver! HEY

― Big Fat Drunk Chick With A BoomBox, Friday, 29 October 2004 04:41 (twenty-one years ago)

I had a LOT of fun writing the Coltrane entry. Even though it entailed basically living on Planet Trane for about a month.

― Douglas (Douglas), Friday, 29 October 2004 04:48 (twenty-one years ago)

But is that a bad thing?

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Friday, 29 October 2004 05:07 (twenty-one years ago)

four weeks pass...

I broke down and bought a copy cuz i still haven't gotten a free one in the mail. They didn't use the T.A.T.U. review I wrote for the book :(

I was proud of it too. Maybe 4 stars was going overboard. They used a 2 & half star negative review instead. And not a very good one either. They didn't use my Pulp Fiction review either.

But on the plus side, very minimal editing. Mostly stuff just cut for length. My Nuggets and Stooges entries are word for word what I wrote. That makes me happy!! Same with the Sabbath one mostly.

― scott seward (scott seward), Sunday, 28 November 2004 00:41 (twenty-one years ago)

one month passes...

Worth noting:

why are metallica missing from the new rolling stone album guide book?

― chuck, Thursday, 20 January 2005 02:07 (twenty-one years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.