Mojo's 60's series is slight I must say. Prefer designated magazines covering a bands/artist oeuvre myself.
I go to Barnes & Noble and read/skim through it but have never been tempted to actually buy it - a magazine that's close to $15 is NOT a casual purchase like magazines used to be back in the day!
One gripe: the 'deluxe' reissue/remastered version is printed un much better/heavier paper. I accidentally bought the Remastered Who-magazine and it's far better! Sales-wise it's a smart move, but it's bad for my wallet!
I like this. The keen fan may spot errors and I certainly don't agree with some of the ratings, but it's pretty well done,
Not to knock their talent or anything, but isn't is surprising that Uncut id "Music Guides" on Nick Cave and Tom Waits , and still have not done more obvious choices such as Hendrix, Clapton, Bob Marley, Prince, Black Sabbath, Peter Gabriel / Genesis/Phil Collins or Stevie Wonder
I'd definitely get several of those you mentioned. Totally want the Prince, Genesis/and solo and Stevie Wonder ones if/when they happen. I think they're balancing things out so they don't just have all the superstar acts out and then work to "smaller" acts, I kinda like the blend because it gives the brand a much longer shelf life because there's still many A and B level acts who deserve to be compiled who are yet to be featured. Acts like Waits and Paul Weller having guides really shows the diversity of the line and how far they likely will stretch. If there's any consolation, Sabbath did get the cover for History Of Rock 1970 and took up about 16 pages of that issue.
I actually like that they mix it up... those on Depeche Mode and The Cure came as complete surprises. After The Byrds and Beach Boys, I hope the next one's another less obvious artist.
These scores are merely the reviewer's personal opinion, not the general consensus of Uncut magazine. I haven't read the Beach Boys magazine yet but if you've ever read Uncut over the years you'll notice that certain reviewers score more critically than others. For example, anything by Bud Scoppa is to be taken with a pinch of salt in my opinion as he always scores more highly than others. Also, Allan Jones always gives anything Dylan does 5 stars which makes it very difficult to tell if it's any good or not. Of course we're always going to argue with personal opinions (e.g. in the Radiohead magazine, practically every track on Hail To The Thief got 3 stars or less which annoyed the hell out of me!). Maybe it's best just to read the articles as they're far more interesting anyway!
But that's one of those "deluxe" ones, right? I ignore those, having the first versions of all the mags (I did fall for the deluxe Pink Floyd one, and then was quite annoyed to find it had about 5 extra pages compared to the first one... I think they hadn't even revised the "Division Bell" review, which was still referred to as the last ever PF album, despite "Endless River" having been released)
Speaking of the star-reviews for tracks, I noticed some random WTF ones for Springsteen. Dancing In The Dark (which I know is a divisive song to some who saw the song as Boss going in a cheap top 40 MTV direction, but in general the song is considered a classic) and Drive All Night are ***, while "Good Eye" off Working On A Dream gets *****? Plus, it seems like probably 1/3 of Bruce's post-2000 ouvere gets ***** while classics off Darkness, River, Nebraska, USA and Tunnel are in the 3-4 range. I do like Bruce's recent music too but it's funny to see some of the random tracks off Magic and Working On A Dream outscoring classics.
Some are balking at the price of the Ultimate Music Guides. It's true that $15 or more for a magazine seems pricey. It's not too much, though, if you consider that most magazines have a lot of advertising, which helps keep the price down. Also, while a lot magazines are considered disposable, these ones I keep and revisit. I don't think most people would consider $15 too much for a book, and that's how I look at these.
Yes, the song ratings are the only thing I don't like about the UMGs. It's almost as if they decided that there would have to be some kind of rating system. Since these issues are likely to be bought by fans of the artists, maybe they decided that buyers might object if their favorite albums were poorly rated. The song-by-song rating strikes me as a compromise. I guess their argument could be that these issues are meant as buyer's guides, hence the gradings. I'd be interested to know if that's how most people actually use these. I know that I don't shell out for an issue unless I'm already a fan of the artist.
I'm also a bit baffled that certain artists have not been covered. Maybe, as someone suggested, they're holding back some of the bigger names to ensure the continued success of the series. I would think that Elton John and Black Sabbath would be no-brainers. And then there are those I'd like to see but probably won't like Ryan Adams and Mott the Hoople. Also, I wonder if there would be a market for a T. Rex issue. After all, Marc Bolan was huge in the UK at one time.
Right. To me, these are softcover coffee table books as opposed to disposable magazines. They're meant to last IMO
I have been waiting for the Beach Boys issue, thanks to everyone for mentioning it as I didn't know it was out. I'm assmuing Uncut sells these guides on their site, otherwise I'll have to check ebay. Also, I'll have to buy a sharpie in the color of the stars in the guide, so I can color in what the real rating should be. Educational and interactive!
I personally do think they are intentionally spreading them out instead of spooging all the "biggies" in the first year or two and then peter out with lesser acts. They could keep doing these for plenty of years to come because of all the acts not done yet both in the A-level superstar as well a C-level cult acts range.
Seriously! How dare somebody else have a different opinion on the merits of each song? I mean, really? They must have absolutely no idea what they like! Or, what they're supposed to like! Oh, the pain, the pain!
I guess Marc Bolan would be covered in an issue devoted to "glam", while Mott the Hoople would be featured in an issue devoted to early '70's hard rock--Free, Humble Pie, Deep Purple etc. I'd be game for Hoople, but I doubt they would be considered "top-tier" enough to rate their own expensive issue.
