What's That Sound? Books on rock history

[EKE BBB]

How's this one as an overall history of rock?

What's That Sound?: An Introduction to Rock and Its History [Author: John Covach], 3rd edition, published on February, 2012

 

Any other recommendations?

Hint: I have been listening to rock for almost all my life since I was around twelve years old (now I am 46), except for several periods of jazz-only listening, but never cared to buy and read a rock encyclopedia (unlike my quite extensive collection of jazz books of any type).

Thanks in advance!

Agustín

[HutchFan]

I can't really think of an encyclopedia- or overview-type history of rock n roll that I could recommend.  Just haven't read any. 

That said, I would definitely recommend all of Peter Guralnick's books.  His books cover everything from rock n roll to soul and country.  His two-volume biography of Elvis Presley is particularly good.

• (1971). Feel Like Going Home: Portraits in Blues, Country, and Rock 'n' Roll. 
• (1979). Lost Highway: Journeys & Arrivals of American Musicians.
• (1986). Sweet Soul Music: Rhythm and Blues and the Southern Dream of Freedom. 
• (1989). Searching for Robert Johnson. 
• (1994). Last Train to Memphis: The Rise of Elvis Presley. 
• (1999). Careless Love: The Unmaking of Elvis Presley. 
• (2005). Dream Boogie: The Triumph of Sam Cooke. 
• (2015). Sam Phillips: The Man Who Invented Rock'n'Roll. 

[Big Beat Steve]

Which period/styles of rock are you particularly interested in?
And are you looking for a reference book or a "history" book?

As far as OLDER styles of rock (roughly pre-1980) go, I like

The Rolling Stone Illustrated History of Rock & Roll (Jim MiIler), Rolling Stone Press/Random House 1976

And despite what others will probably say about how bad and outdated it is, I still occasionally refer to
Lilian Roxon's Rock Encyclopedia (first published in 1969)

Also, as far as older rock styles go, today I find it amazing how long I managed to do without

ROCK ON - The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Rock'n'Roll by Norm N. Nite (a book I had seen referenced countless times in the past). I have limited myself to Vol. 1 The Solid Gold Years (1955-64) but there are more Vols. covering the later decades and evolutions of rock. The capsule bios and chart discographies ARE fairly basic for serious ("advanced") listeners and fans but it provides a LOT of reference info at a glance so if you can pick up cheap copies, go ahead ...

There are a few German ones that I have come to like (and that have been seen updated and revised editions ever since I bought mine) but they would not fit your bill language-wise, i guess.
OTOH, did you check this?

http://www.robinbook.com/sello/libros_tema/id_sello/4/id_tema/20

They got several books on various fields of rock, it seems. I bought the Heavy Metal book for my son a while back. He is HEAVILY (literally ) into HM but wasn't doing too brilliantly in Spanish in high school so I got him this book and urged him to "read up on something you REALLY LIKE in that foreign language and learn in passing without even realizing you're learning!!"  This approach had got me jump-started into top grades in school at the time and does work for him to some extent now too - so this is why I am aware of this Spanish publisher.

In general, i am a bit wary of those generalistic "history" or "introduction" books pretending to cover such topics as "rock" (or "jazz", for that matter). Rock has become such an extremely wide field that such books are bound to be very, very superficial and leave you unsatisfied. My music bookshelves are crammed full too but I have found more specialist books focusing on my "special interest" areas are better suited, even if they still are relatively "general-purpose".

But there are a LOT books out there for about every niche or style so you only have to choose ...

 

Edited January 18, 2018 by Big Beat Steve

[JSngry]

2 hours ago, Big Beat Steve said:

The Rolling Stone Illustrated History of Rock & Roll (Jim MiIler), Rolling Stone Press/Random House 1976

Yeah, I like that one. Not sure if it's been revised/updated, and don't care. Fine as originally released, great photos, good (enough) text.

[Big Beat Steve]

2 hours ago, JSngry said:

Yeah, I like that one. Not sure if it's been revised/updated, and don't care. Fine as originally released, great photos, good (enough) text.

I remember that a smaller-sized edition was on the bookshelves several years later. To me it did not look like it had been updated (basically same cover) but I may be wrong as I did not inspect it closer, particularly in the later chapters (the huge earlier edition I already had - and still have - was all I needed).

[JSngry]

Not sure if I have an original or not... Ginormous MF, big red cover, not a hardback, think it maybe went up to Sex Pistols, maybe?

Anyway, picture of Ersel Hickey opposite the title page, 'nuff said.

[Big Beat Steve]

2 hours ago, JSngry said:

Not sure if I have an original or not... Ginormous MF, big red cover, not a hardback, think it maybe went up to Sex Pistols, maybe?

Anyway, picture of Ersel Hickey opposite the title page, 'nuff said.

That's the one. Huuuge softcover ...

And that Ersel Hickey photo definitely was an eyecatcher, particularly if you were into rockabilly.

[Dave Garrett]

8 hours ago, Big Beat Steve said:

I remember that a smaller-sized edition was on the bookshelves several years later. To me it did not look like it had been updated (basically same cover) but I may be wrong as I did not inspect it closer, particularly in the later chapters (the huge earlier edition I already had - and still have - was all I needed).

There have been three editions. The first "big red" one was IMO the best one, in terms of both the writing and the photography. It was also available in hardcover but the paperback is far more common. The second and third editions were smaller, more the size of a regular trade paperback, and were significantly different in terms of content; a lot of stuff had been added since the first edition, but much of the content that made the first edition so good had been edited out in the later editions. They are not entirely without their own merits, but I think it would have been a better idea to augment the content of the first edition with new material rather than largely take the clean-slate approach. OTOH, the oversized pages of the first edition enhanced the photographs immeasurably, and I'm sure they would have lost some of their impact in the smaller format of the later editions. 

The second edition looks like this:

And the third edition:

[Big Beat Steve]

On 18.1.2018 at 11:18 PM, Dave Garrett said:

There have been three editions. The first "big red" one was IMO the best one, in terms of both the writing and the photography. It was also available in hardcover but the paperback is far more common. The second and third editions were smaller, more the size of a regular trade paperback, and were significantly different in terms of content; a lot of stuff had been added since the first edition, but much of the content that made the first edition so good had been edited out in the later editions. They are not entirely without their own merits, but I think it would have been a better idea to augment the content of the first edition with new material rather than largely take the clean-slate approach. OTOH, the oversized pages of the first edition enhanced the photographs immeasurably, and I'm sure they would have lost some of their impact in the smaller format of the later editions. 

 

This is strange ...

I definitely never saw the third edition and do not think I ever looked closely at the second edition - for the very simple reason that my main interest in "rock" covers the REAL rock'n'roll period, i.e. the FIFTIES and up to the "British invasion" of the US (roughly up to 1963, earlier cut-off with some artists). The 60s (British Beat and R&B) also are of some interest but not quite as important to me as 50s R'n'R. So I always was fine with the first edition (like you said, the huge size brought out the best in many of the period pictures) and anything that would have reduced the content of the "early years" would have made it a no-go for me.

BUT ... Several years after having bought the first edition (in 1978 IIRC) I distinctly remember having seen a much smaller edition of this book with the SAME red cover like the first edition somewhere in a bookstore. I quickly thumbed through it and saw the first part of the book at first glance looked the same, including photo layout and text typeface. So I did not check further (particularly not for any changes in the second half of the book) as it really appeared to be a duplicate of that huge 1st edition and the impact of the photos was lost somewhat in that smaller size anyhow. It may have been a British printing, though.

I've thought this over not only since yesterday's post about this but also some time ago when discussion of the huge red first edition came up among fellow music collectors and its availability was discussed (which brought back to mind this downsized edition). I still can visualize that identical but downsized red cover (and remember my initial reaction "You HAVE that book but what size is this??") so am beginning to wonder if my memory can really trick me THAT badly ...

 

By the way, where does this one (see link) fit in?

https://www.amazon.com/Rock-Ages-Rolling-Stone-History/dp/0671630687

 

And thanks for the discussion (which invariably prompts online searches).

Out of curiosity I just pulled the trigger on this one:

https://www.amazon.com/History-Rock-Roll-1920-1963/dp/1250138493/ref=pd_sbs_14_1?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=1250138493&pd_rd_r=JV7NW2AABM3XTKE1MST9&pd_rd_w=VAWL2&pd_rd_wg=acgF9&psc=1&refRID=JV7NW2AABM3XTKE1MST9

 

 

Edited January 25, 2018 by Big Beat Steve

[felser]

Rolling Stone liked their generic red covers back in the day, so it may be one of the following that you are half-remembering.  I have the first and third editions of the history,  and find both worthwhile, and they are almost totally different from each other.  Spent countless hours in that first edition when I got it at 21 years old.

 

[JSngry]

On 1/18/2018 at 11:43 AM, Big Beat Steve said:

And that Ersel Hickey photo definitely was an eyecatcher, particularly if you were into rockabilly.

Actually, I was not, but I had heard this and that name struck me as being really...odd. Ersel. Hickey. Not a name found in most phonebooks, if you know what i mean.

I don't really like their version, or once I heard it, his, but no matter. Ersel. Hickey. Standalone attraction, the name is.

Would it be "UR-sell" or "ur-SELL"?

[Big Beat Steve]

I've always heard the name pronounced "UR-sell" (by native speakers as the name IS familiar and evoked here and there in the circles I "also" move in). It IS an odd name and at the time (when I got that book) I wasn't quite sure this name and that character were real (and not somebody like that "Bye Bye Birdie" make-up) but found out soon. One day I picked up his Epic 45 with his sole hit (see above) but never was tempted to get his reissue LP that circulated in the late 80s. ("Going Down That Road" (about his only track that rocks) was out elsewhere too and the rest was fairly MOR-ish).

@felser: That's not totally impossible (with whatever in that layout was around in the mid- to late 80s or so) but however I try to think about it I also remember opening the book to see if anything new or different was inside (I've always been eager to pick up books on the subject and that early era), only to discover that the contents were a scaled-down duplicate of the huge, huge first edition. The mystery remains ...

But getting back to the orignal question:

Would the Rolling Stone ENCYCLOPEDIA of Rock & Roll fit the bill of what the thread starter asked for?

And what's with this "Rock of Ages" book?

[AllenLowe]

I wrote my own some years back; I think it holds up pretty well; the cover pic is a little to big to download here, so I'll have to re-shoot it later. The title is:

God Didn't Like It; Electric Hillbillies, Singing Preachers, and the Beginning of Rock and Roll, 1950-1970.

My main complaint about virtually every rock and roll history I have read is that they haven't a clue about the connection of country music to its origins; they all stick to the blues/r&b party line.

 

[Big Beat Steve]

I didn't want to preempt what you may actually have to say about your book and was unsure if your book quite fits the bill of the thread starter because it covers the period to 1970 "only" (no complaints from my side about this ), but for the record.

I for one liked your book and read it with great interest. IMO it definitely fills a gap in the literature on the subject. Anyone seriously interested in finding out about the evolution and history of one's favorite music (not just rock) is well advised to read SEVERAL books covering the history.
Unfortunately EKE hasn't reported back since to indicate more specifically what his priorites are in such a book so I don't know either if, for example, the fact that your book has hardly any illustrations would be a drawback for him (no complaints here either, I can always pull out my copy of Michael Ochs' ROCK ARCHIVES (and others) to make up for that but the visual aspect does have its importance) .

I agree that writings on the roots of rock'n'roll often are a bit too biased towards R&B but there ARE books out there that pull BOTH threads together. The one linked above I bought recently (The History of Rock & Roll Vol. 1 1920-1963 by Ed Ward) is one of them as far as I can see from what I so far have read and the angle adopted by the author makes for a very interesting read. But it needs to be taken with a grain of salt for other reasons (starting with the fact that a historian ought to get his NAMES right).

[JSngry]

4 hours ago, AllenLowe said:

 Electric Hillbillies,

Totally apt. You here some of that wacko steel guitar (I heard a Hayride airshot from...early 50s(?) that was just COVERED with that shit) and, yeah,, the first thing I think of is, ok,  this is one of those country guys who stuck his finger in the socket and liked it. Had it been an urbanite, they'd likely have built Heathkits or some shit. but in the country, expressing your jolt is...let's just say that there's an existing support system if you want to do that.

[HutchFan]

5 hours ago, AllenLowe said:

My main complaint about virtually every rock and roll history I have read is that they haven't a clue about the connection of country music to its origins; they all stick to the blues/r&b party line.

Yep.

It's no coincidence that Elvis' first Sun record had an Arthur "Big Boy" Crudup tune on one side and a Bill Monroe tune on the other.

[Bluesnik]

6 hours ago, Big Beat Steve said:

I don't know either if, for example, the fact that your book has hardly any illustrations would be a drawback for him (no complaints here either, I can always pull out my copy of Michael Ochs' ROCK ARCHIVES

and Guy Peellaert & Nik Cohn's Rock Dreams...

[JSngry]

3 minutes ago, Bluesnik said:

and Guy Peellaert & Nik Cohn's Rock Dreams...

a brilliant work!

[Bluesnik]

Thanks.

[JSngry]

[Big Beat Steve]

9 hours ago, Bluesnik said:

and Guy Peellaert & Nik Cohn's Rock Dreams...

When you are in a mood to let yourself be lured into these often both realistic and surreal paintings - yes! I've had this for almost as long as I was into collecting music. But in a MUCH better edition (to OUR target audience over here). When it came out in 1973/74 or so over here it was a fairly fat book that was combined with a "ROCK LEXIKON" (compiled by Ingeborg Schober, edited by the rock mag SOUNDS, I think) that was pretty, pretty good and thorough (though of course too slim for my taste on rock'n'ROLL, i.e. pre-1963 stuff, except for the obvious names). It became rather tatty through the years (though I still have it) so about 10 years ago I picked up a pristine overstock copy of the Peellaert/Cohn only Rock Dreams edition of the 70s (for ol' times sake). Have these paintings ever been continued beyond the "state of the art" of the early 70s? (I know it was reprinted in the 80s)

[Bluesnik]

I have a Taschen edition from some years ago. Though I remember browsing through that Rock Lexikon (a combination of the drawings from Rock Dreams and a kind of rock encyclopedia) back in my school days, that went from hand to hand. It was so used that all the leaves would come apart.

[Dave Garrett]

On 1/25/2018 at 10:37 AM, Big Beat Steve said:

The one linked above I bought recently (The History of Rock & Roll Vol. 1 1920-1963 by Ed Ward) is one of them as far as I can see from what I so far have read and the angle adopted by the author makes for a very interesting read. But it needs to be taken with a grain of salt for other reasons (starting with the fact that a historian ought to get his NAMES right).

I've heard a lot of good things about that book, but for as much praise as it's garnered, one of the more common comments seems to be that the editor had to have been asleep at the wheel, judging from the number of obvious gaffes that should've been caught well before it went to press.

[Big Beat Steve]

15 hours ago, Bluesnik said:

I have a Taschen edition from some years ago. Though I remember browsing through that Rock Lexikon (a combination of the drawings from Rock Dreams and a kind of rock encyclopedia) back in my school days, that went from hand to hand. It was so used that all the leaves would come apart.

That's what I meant when i said my copy is tatty - it became tatty rather fast (pages separating from the spine which was not exactly glued very well for a REFERENCE book that you leaf through countless times) and I reglued it myself in various places early on.

 

9 hours ago, Dave Garrett said:

I've heard a lot of good things about that book, but for as much praise as it's garnered, one of the more common comments seems to be that the editor had to have been asleep at the wheel, judging from the number of obvious gaffes that should've been caught well before it went to press.

I am afraid they are right. See my "grain of salt" remark above. I have only progressed up to the end of 1956 so far and am sure I have not caught everything (or not paid attention to everything). It's not that the facts are all wrong but in some cases you wonder how such sloppiness came about. E.g. that very early country singer/star was Henry Whitter (not Whittier), the founder's and owner's name of Dot Records is Randy Wood (not Woods - a blunder repeated often), the duo that followed after Jesse Belvin went solo from Jesse & Marvin was NOT named Marvin and Jesse but Marvin and Johnny, and Bill Haley's Comets were named so LONG before they were signed by Decca (this Comets thing for example, Mr Ward, is VERY BASIC knowledge in this field and it behooves any rock music historian not to trip there!! ) - and so on ...

OTOH, the writing is engaging and his way of presenting the evolution, artists and interactions in this field of music is very well done IMO. So if only he had gotten ALL of the facts straight.

Edited January 27, 2018 by Big Beat Steve

[EKE BBB]

On 18/1/2018 at 4:29 PM, Big Beat Steve said:

Which period/styles of rock are you particularly interested in?
And are you looking for a reference book or a "history" book?

 

 

Thanks for all the replies!

Steve: 

I am very fond of 60s and 70s rock (beat and British invasion, R&B, blues-rock, psychedelic rock, garage, hard rock, punk...), but always open to different styles.

And was looking for a "history book" but I understand your concers on rock being too widely diversified to be properly covered in a history book.