First things first: AMG's rock guide is still the most comprehensive look at modern rock music of all styles. This honor is only won, though, by the default of Trouser Press to update their album guide after 1996.

If you're merely interested in exploring contemporary rock music, skip the purchase; refer to AMG's website, search to your heart's delight, and take their suggestions with a grain of salt.

If you're a die hard aficionado and looking to complete a well-rounded collection, AMG's guide serves as a checklist of sorts for choosing from the discographies of thousands of artists. Again, you will certainly find your opinions vary from those of the writers.* Do not buy blindly.

For albums produced prior to 1995, I personally refer to the Trouser Press guide or the 2nd edition of AMG's guide. In the 2nd edition of the AMG rock guide, the writing style is closer to rock journalism than fan fiction, and the reviews seem honest rather than celebratory.

*As for other users' comments that the reviews in the 3rd edition seem to be written by fans rather than journalists: that's because they are written by fans. At the launch of the AMG website, AMG began allowing fans to submit reviews; with the publication of the 3rd edition guide, they began including fans' reviews in the written volume. Personally, I found the reviews to be more consistent and fair when authored by the AMG staff.

The only problem is they like TOO much and seem to have a hard time being negative.

Besides that, this thing is the musical reference bible that provides endless browing, fact-checking, and (most inportantly) points you in the direction of great music.

If you love music, do yourself the favor of picking this up and you will not regret it.

This is the most complete history of rock I've ever seen--and I saw quite a few when I was researching for my book "Forever Retro Blues." This book has become indespensible as a tool for promoting my book also. I can get a call to be a guest on radio as few as three hours before. It's great to be able to look up an artist or record that a host mentions before or during commercial breaks. This book is organized in a way that allows me to do that.

As the other reviewers write, this is a great literary companion, especially to Ulysses. Nabokov writes wonderfully. I can imagine that most people would read this book as they read Mansfield Park, Madame Bovary, Bleak House, etc and would flip back and forth. However, my paperback copy was very poorly bound and fell apart. So my advice is get the hardcover edition.

In his opening lecture, Nabokov says, " ... great novels are great fairy tales -- and the novels in this series are supreme fairy tales." The tales discussed are Austen's "Mansfield Park," Dickens' "Bleak House," Flaubert's "Madame Bovary," Stevenson's "The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde," Proust's "The Walk by Swann's Place," Kafka's "The Metamorphosis," and Joyce's "Ulysses." In addition, there are lectures "Good Readers and Good Writers," "The Art of Literature and Commonsense," and "L'Envoi" -- the first being his opening and the last being his closing comments on the course. These are lectures not polished by Nabokov for publication. There is a companion volume on Russian literature.

The examination of the works here is purely literary. The works are examined in minute detail. For example, in "The Metamorphosis," Nabokov goes to some length to determine what insect Gregor became. Not a cockroach, as some suggest, but rather a beetle. And he draws pictures. He wants us to understand the layout of the rooms in the Samsa flat. The devil -- that is, the art -- is in the details. Some might object that there is more to some of these works than is discerned by such a point of view. Granted, but nothing precludes looking elsewhere for (say) a more philosophical treatment of "The Metamorphosis," or God forbid, thinking about it on one's own.

In his closing comments, Nabokov says, "In this course I have tried to reveal the mechanism of those wonderful toys -- literary masterpieces. I have tried to make of you good readers who read books not for the infantile purpose of identifying oneself with the characters, and not for the adolescent purpose of learning to live, and not for the academic purpose of indulging in generalizations. I have tried to teach you to read books for the sake of their form, their visions, their art. I have tried to teach you to feel a shiver of artistic satisfaction, to share not the emotions of the people in the book but the emotions of its author -- the joys and difficulties of creation. We did not talk around books, about books; we went to the center of this or that masterpiece, to the live heart of the matter."

just a correction: Nabokov wrote two different books "lectures on literature" and "lectures on Russian literature." most reviewers here are talking about the wrong book.

Basically, this book is an ailing author's reflections on his life and works. The author is a very thinly disguised Nabokov - indeed, it is possible to treat "Look at the Harlequins" as a pseudo-testimony by Nabokov.

As such, it demands of the reader a familiarity with Nabokov's works - I can't imagine that the novel would have anything like its intended effect had one not read Nabokov's other novels. Whilst this is not uninteresting, it seemed to me that Nabokov was making two large assumptions:

(a) that, as I mentioned above, the reader would have the necessary background knowledge; and

(b) that the reader would be interested in this form of testimony as opposed to a straightforward autobiography (I confess I have not yet read "Speak, Memory").

Indeed, there is fun to be had with spotting the allusions to the real Nabokov's works. Yet, it seemed to me to be a rather sad book, not only because the main character is struggling with the onset of dementia, but it also reflects what I feel to be Nabokov's obsession with his status in modern literature - I suspect he wanted to be thought of as a great author, when in fact he was a middling one.

To get all the book's humor requires not only having read the collected works of Vladimir Nabokov, but all the idiotic things forgotten reviewers wrote about his work. Vadim, the Russian émigré narrator is a parody of misconceptions - at least what Nabokov considered misconceptions - of his character, in particular, that he must have been a pederast . Nabokov was playing with various imaginable pasts for someone with his general background, but his play seems to me to be as heavy-handed as his narrator is incapable of happiness in any of his relationships. Compared to its immediate predecessors (the seemingly endless Ada, and the brief but opaque Transparent Things) Look at the Harlequins is readable, but for me the last novels are a marked decline from his earlier masterpieces.

There are certainly pleasures in the text and flashes of wit, but overall the fictional memoir of a passive cloddish alter ego is a disappointment, a not-very-fun series of games and in-jokes. It seems to me that Vadim understood but cannot implement the title's command. At least he doesn't enjoy those he manages to see as harlequins there to amuse him.

Beginning with a list of the author's "other" books, which don't exist outside the distorted mirror world of what Nabakov calls "LATH" (as he acronymically pegs Look At The Harlequins! within that book's own text) is a wildly inventive metafiction in the bilingually verbose hyper-alliterative Nabokovian mold. We get splendid sentences here on the jeweled gift of selfhood giving reason to resist suicide from whatever facet, cranky meditations on the author's pederastic proclivities and ego, and, most brilliantly, strange slips down the semiotic slope into madness. In two or three places in this book we find ourselves in a meticulously rendered literary reality and then, through a process of what one might call overdescription as exquisite as it is subtle, we find that our narrator has lost contact with the very rich world he has created for us; there is also a (to me) fascinating motif of the author's self-analysis of a strange spatial or geographical malady: he cannot mentally reverse himself and return after picturing a scene in his mind's eye. (This perhaps is meant as a sly parallel to time's one-way flow: time, which via the magic of the book, as opposed to the temporal incarceration of life, can be reversed--a hint of a kind of "law of nature" that might apply to a "real" metafictional character.) And despite the hefty overlap of the life of the protagonist with that of Nabokov (e.g., he has English tutors, Russian aristocratic blood, contempt for psychoanalysts, and the like), this book is clearly metafiction. The protagonist here, as with the protagonists in Transparent Things and Lolita, is fascinated by butterflies but not an entomologist of Nabokov's caliber. What makes LATH different from the work of other authors of metafiction's alluringly magical, "self"-indulgent mode, depends on the previous richness Nabokov has built up in his fictions which, from the Russian-drafted Gift to Humbert Humbert in Lolita, *already* deal with a protagonist much like the author. Thus the slippage here is not dual, between the author and his protagonist, but "trial" (as one might say), between the author, his protagonist, and the lives of his other protagonists, memorably Humbert Humbert of Lolita. Nabokov is having sly taunts: not only at America's image of him as author of Lolita, but at himself for being too quick to disidentify from that potent catcher of words and nymphs,
and finally perhas, at the ontological conceit of a fixed self that could be wholly either one or another. The protagonist here is a dialectical monster flitting between Nabokov and Humbert Humbert, a monster Nabokov himself capture's like a moth between LATH's pages. The last, and in some ways perhaps richest novel from a modern master.

Hugh Person returns to Switzerland in order to recapture those significant events in his life which happened or started in Switzerland. Person's past is a difficult one - returning stimulates uncomfortable memories (by this method, Nabokov reveals Person's story to the reader).

I thought that this novella was essentially an exploration of how memory can be invoked by both places and inanimate objects, and how unreliable our memories can be: we tend to elaborate our recollection of past times, actuality and our recall drift apart. It's often a shock when we find things are not quite as we remember them, when we cannot quite recreate what we imagine the past to have been like.

A short, yet interesting novella, reminiscent of Nabokov's earlier works.

Ok, it's not one of those change your life books like Ada or Lolita, but frankly, if you're considering reading Transparent Things, you've already read those anyway. If you've been burned before by Nabokov, you can trust this one, and better yet, it's 100 pages, so what's the risk? A good rule of thumb is that anything after Lolita is worth the time. Anything before is hit and miss.

Another nice thing is that this is a follow up to Ada and Nabokov's still cranking. There's new philosophical and stylistic ground covered, and one would have thought that there wasn't anything else to cover after the big A. It isn't another love story for the ages, but it's well crafted and entertaining. Oh, and this, unlike most Nabokov doesn't leave you with that, good lord he's a conceited (expletive) feeling.

If it’s true that the main reason Nabokov wrote ...“Lolita” was so its earnings would finance his more obscure efforts, I can’t but applaud his move. Simply referring to it as a novel does no justice to “Transparent Things.” The base plot is an excellent, witty representation of 1970s middle-class American culture, but Nabokov uses “the novel” to construct what I could best describe as a multidimensional, interactive game. Nabokov’s subject, Hugh Person, suddenly becomes YOU! The past, in the novel, is as open to reinterpretation as the future. What's most important, of course, is the now. Nabokov has designed such a cool game—he makes you want to play again and again. If I were ever asked to describe “post-modern” (a term I’m not too keen with), “Transparent Things” would be the perfect example.

My English not being my mother language has attracted me to Nabokov. And I admire him enourmously.But this novel was almost a disappointment, because, though it is so good at times, the almost plotless tale reaches a climax of the futile and bore when (we are already somewhere in the middle of the book)he narrator, who is by then in search of a lady, indulges in a series of inane dialogues whose aim eluded me. And the eighteenth chapter is wonderful, though I disliked also the final chapters, this simulacrum of impetus and parody of revelation on the very point of dying.

Nabokov intension, until he discovered for himself the wonderful world of pop-culture (cf. Lolita and Ada), was really to describe truth and beauty (see 'Luzhin's defense', 'Gift' etc.) in the tradition of the Old World, and play less with cheep riddles and collective phobias. His dealing with the issue of death, as in 'Ultima Thule' etc., appears also here; the last book written by Knight is, however, written about in a pale and uninspiring way (Nabokov could not make his vision clear?), and, surprisingly for Nabokov, is not free of commonplaces and dejavous. All in all the book is original and interesting, as nearly everything Nabokov wrote. And, by the way, the treatment of the relation narrator-genius (commonplace in itself, unfortunately) looks better than in Mann's Doctor Faustus, where it is taken quite heavily (one does not see the traces of the hammer blows).

Side remark: the stars practice is really annoying: isn't there a way to write about books without grading them?

Vladimir Nabokov is perhaps my very favorite author, and so I approached this work withthe mindset of "it must be at least good." It is. It contains the subtlety and puzzling qualities and droll humor of his great works and still manages to work in its own little bit of beauty. It also has its duller stretches, it lacks a real point, and it is more than vaguely pretentious, but nothing unforgivable. As his first full-length work in English, perhaps it should be treated more as an experiment in compositional workability than anything else.
The relative ease of reading this as compared to Nabokov's best, like 'Pale Fire' and 'Lolita,' may make it a good introduction to novices.

I've been listening to country music for more than four decades, plus recently brushing up on music history while researching Faron Young's life. This book contains much good information, but I wonder how the writers define "country." In spite of all their hits, the Wilburn Brothers rate a two-inch column and David Houston gets three inches. Yet many, many performers I've never heard of (and non-country ones I have heard of) get a page or more. How often has Grateful Dead ever been played on a country station? Faron Young--a member of the Country Music Hall of Fame--is allotted one page, but Neil Young gets six. How many times did he appear on the country charts? None that I recall. Even the historical Carter Family is limited to two pages. There would have been room to give more information about more performers if the book had fulfilled the promise of its title.

I'm a big fan of this series, which is prized among buffs for its reliable and informative album ratings. This volume gets big points for unusually inclusive coverage, which makes sense for the "big tent" that is country music. We get everything from rockabilly to country-oriented rock acts to straight-up honky tonk. Also, you get good coverage of some fairly obscure artists (finally, Michael Hurley in a reference book!).

Complaints? I've got a few. The editing in this volume is not up to the series' usual standards. Some of the biographical sketches are sloppily written and some artists seem to have been left out unintentially (for example, Area Code 615 is mentioned many times in the text, but doesn't get an entry). Also, as long as I'm complaining, some of the decisions about who to include are a little loopy -- the Greatful Dead but not John Prine? And music reference books go stale fast -- the latest entries in this one are from mid 1996, so a new edition is called for.

With all that said, I spent half the night reading through this one, promising myself that I'd go to sleep after I read just one more entry... If you're anything more than the most casual country fan, you need this book.

Books like this make know-it-alls like me shudder: now everyone can have decades worth of hard-won musical knowledge at their fingertips, for just a few bucks. Hardly seems fair. Highly recommended.

V.I. Lenin (1870-1924) breathed during the height of the second industrial revolution. He witnessed the wild, berserk scramble for colonies and the absurd carnage of the first world war. This work's worth exists in a labor to systemically integrate imperialism upon the substructure of national financial capital. According to Lenin, a capitalist economy centralizes industry and banking, finance capital becomes exported, and nationalistic centers of capital compete for dominance. Ineluctably, productive forces are aligned on one side, and colonies of raw materials dominated by finance capital are situated on the other. War will only result as capitalist states are compelled to redress the fissure.

Several points argue against the dependency theorist. Marxists, with their idiosyncratic class theory of the state, miss the relationship between legitimacy and strategy of state power, reducing everything to economic power differentials. They focus on class struggle, supposedly the manifestation of economic "contradictions." This overlooks historic dynamics going back centuries that include constitutional, technological, economic, cultural, and legal changes that are not epiphenomenal precipitates of an economic base. In addition, nationalistic financial centers unleashing war upon another makes little sense now in an era where nation-states are becoming obsolete. In a world with weapons of mass destruction held by "virtual" states, mass immigration, environmental challenges, epidemiological concerns, and a vulnerable, privatized critical infrastructure, future war will be undertaken for reasons unrelated to capital export.

Lenin misses the development of the state which was occurring in his history. Under many state-nations, the state was the realization of the nation, its order, its will. James Madison writes in Federalist #63: "The true distinction between these and the American governments, lies in the total exclusion of the people, in their collective capacity, from any share in the latter, and not in the total exclusion of the representatives of the people from the administration of the former." One thinks of more extreme examples, such as Rousseau's general will and Hegel's deification of the state as a living god. Napoleon was the apotheosis of the state-nation.

However, state-rights were challenged as national-rightists began to assert themselves. Bismarck's effort for unification is the most notable example. Americans are more familiar with the American Civil War. The United States changed from a Union to a Nation, as seen in Lincoln's Gettysburg Address in 1863. States eventually were deemed legitimate by how well they promoted the general welfare of a specific nation. This was legitimized at Versailles -- self-determination being most important -- the state taking care of the welfare of a nation, rather than the other way around. Most of Lenin's colonies are nation-states today. Such nationalistic loyalty will become increasingly challenged as market-states, with internationally floating finance capital, blossom into existence as more and more question the nationalistic paradigm, as seen by change in Western reaction to the four Yugoslav wars of the 1990's. Sovereignty was once opaque, particular to a nation. Now nationality is becoming irrelevant to human rights -- a basis for legitimacy, as crime and war become blurred.

As far as Lenin's historical scheme is concerned, several points can be noted. Capital flows from France went overwhelmingly to Russia where profits could be made during that period, not to her colonies. (Lenin dismisses this as mere government "loan" capital...) Some blame Britain for undermining Argentina's economy with capital investment -- but one forgets -- the favorite target for British capital in the 19th century was the United States of America. The current financial relationship between the U.S. and Japan has not brought upon imperialism. In addition, with the earlier Portuguese empire -- the cost of policing their empire was actually greater than the benefit of their far-flung gains, leading to its demise. Dutch imperialism faltered in the 18th century -- though Indonesia was retained until the 20th -- because her prosperity was based upon tight control of the Baltic. These are just a few of many examples that confront the dependency theorist.

Lastly, in the modern context, the price of raw materials has been falling worldwide for years. The prosperity of LDCs will become more and more contingent upon the intelligence of their workforce. Most colonial cold war conflicts were battles to the death over which form of nation-state was legitimate -- parliamentary, socialist, or fascist. Whether the "rather dead than red" style policies were ethical can be debated, but surely one can understand the urgency (or paranoia?) of the Americans in the 50s, with the Soviets with the bomb, China previously turning red, communists on the move in Indochina, Korea, Latin America, Africa, et cetera. Many American and Soviet-implemented horrors were strategic in basis, not economic.

This work is essential for those interested in Marxist theory. I cannot see how it is applicable to today's world, but for anyone seeking to understand the 20th century, particularly the viewpoint of one of its major actors, I'd recommend it.

"Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism," seems to me more academic than propaganda-based. I expected a noisy ideological diatribe. Lenin does not predict guarantees of the future, or spout the superiority of a correct socialism (i.e. Communist Manifesto, Marx) - instead, Lenin examines intelligently the international economic state of the 10's by citing and challenging the pro-capitalist and 'quasi'-socialist scholars of that time. It was written for the everyday critical person.

It made sense to me of how Lenin viewed Capitalism in global terms, rather than individual or local terms. If the individual Bourgeois exploits the collective proletariat, then Lenin goes further that a majority Bourgeois country (i.e. USA) exploits a majority prolerariat (Mexico) country. And in the largest sense, international monopolies and large banks direct the inner workings of this exploitation-dynamic, regardless of what geographic state they represent. Backed up with a lot of creditable statistics,a clear and comprehensive insight, this book is extremely convincing; especially when one considers today's 'globalization' phenomena.

Even with his analysis of the 1910's, one gains a better understanding of the capitalist development of the 21st century -Lenin wouldn't be surprised by the economic paralysis of third world countries, the huge debts of certain states and certain citizens, and the massive power of the IMF.

However, no matter how convincing Lenin may be, it is important to be cautious of him. Lenin finished this book in one of the most important events as a politician in 1916. In 1917, gaining victory in the revolution, he announced to the press of the "one-party state," which censored any thought, idea, or action that did not fall under the context of Marxist tenets. In a sense, Lenin founded the beginnings of Totalitarianism. How tragic! But it is not unknown that when politicians bite the granite, they no longer become nice and virtuous human beings.

He justified noble ends with corrupt means. I have experienced the 'heat,' of radical-oriented books. Lenin's Imperialism is certainly one of them. This heat increased my knowledge of a certain thing in a certain perspective, but burned off my common sense and intuition. I used to think this to be a feeling of 'enlightenment,' (cheesy, but true) and discovered that I only lost my freedom to think for myself.

I know this is a weird comment, but make sure to consider context, content, and open-minded inquiry when reading such material! It's important for freedom! Altogether, two thumbs up to Imperialism, judged by its tremendous importance and intelligent insights. But reader, beware! Don't get caught up in the heat! Be careful! Remember 1917?

This is one of Lenin's major works. He shows how the economical system of capitalism leads to large contradictions between states and war. A clasic still relevant in theese times of "globalisation" (imperialism).

I did not like it. It is a bad story. Wolfs are not bad like in the story. Peter doesnt listen to his grandpa, so it is a bad example.

If you are familiar with the Prokofiev symphony, this book makes a good companion to the music. It puts into visual images the story of Peter and the Wolf. What I like most about the book is that, in the end, the duck lives. The ending varies somewhat depending on the version of the recording or book. In this book, it's a happy ending, which is better for younger readers.

We use the book by itself sometimes. Other times, my child will read along while we listen to the symphony.

Our children, 3 year old twins, love the music of Prokofiev's Peter and the Wolf. In searching for an age appropriate book to show them the musical instruments that play each of the characters, we found this one illustrated by Ian Beck. Not only are the illustrations lovely, the colors and clothing of Peter, the hunters and the grandfather are interesting to a child. Also, each page shows the instrument played for that part of the story (find it in the box around the text), and in the back a page illustrates each instrument. We cannot recommend this lovely book enough to parents of young children discovering the beauty of music!

Vladimir Nabokov is one of the great authors of the 20th century, both as a craftsman and stylist in the novel form. He even succeed in grand poetry (Pale Fire), so one would think that his literal translation of Oneigin would be a welcome publication. It's not. First, Nabokov strips Onegin of all poetics, which he admits is his intent. He believes the poem is better understood from a transliteral (almost interlinear) reading than from a poetic reconstruction. This attempt may please, and I stress "may," those who, unfamiliar with Russian, and who want such a bland diet of lackluster prose. But there are so many excellent translations of Onegin that are beautiful and captivating in themselves, I'm not sure there's much need for such a literal, word-for-word, transcription. Perhaps this book belongs on the shelf along with other translations of Onegin, but it's not one I'll return to in the near future.

I'm a Russian Language and Literature major in Yonsei Univ. in Korea. Having lived in Moscow for around 3 years, I'd heard there a lot about Pushkin and read many of his famous works. The most prestigious of his, however, must be "Onegin." It's a great mixture of verse and prose in its form. If possible, try to read this in Russian, as well. This long poetical prose was written for 8 years and the ending rhyme perfectly matches for the entire line until the very end. Compared to others, it is definitely a conspicuous and brilliant one. "Onegin" can be the author himself or yourself. The love between Onegin and TaTyana is neither the cheap kind of love that often appears in any books nor the tragic one that is intended to squeze your tears. As a literature, this book covers not only love between passionate youth, but also a large range of literary works in it, which can tell us about the contemporary literature current and its atmosphere. Calling Onegin "My friend", Pushkin, the author, shows the probability and likelihood of the work. Finally, I'm just sorry that the title has been changed into English. The original name must be "Yevgeni Onegin(¬¦¬Ó¬Ô¬Ö¬ß¬Ú¬Û ¬°¬ß¬Ö¬Ô¬Ú¬ß)." If you are a literature major or intersted in it, I'd like to recommand you read this. You can't help but loving the two lovers and may reread it, especially the two correspondences through a long period of time. Only with readng this book, you'll also learn a huge area of the contemporary literature of the 19th century from the books mentioned in "Onegin" that take part as its subtext. Enjoy yourself!

i like this book. it helps a lot. and looks good on the shelf to boot.

The author talks of electromagnetics but he barely touches on how they work, he just talks of the concepts and future possibilities. He should rewrite it for us "Dumber" readers.

This text sits midway in difficulty between a first year physics treatment of E&M and more advanced texts like Lorrain and Carson's Electromagnetic Fields and Waves and Jackson's Classical Electrodynamics. Dr. Rojansky argues that most students require a patient, careful discussion of fundamentals before undertaking advanced studies. His book moves at a leisurely pace, sytematically laying down a solid foundation. However, unlike many first year physics texts, he assumes that the reader is familiar with integration methods and partial differentiation. He does devote a few chapters to reviewing fundamentals that will be useful later - curves and surfaces, solid angles, Taylor's Theorem in three dimensions, vector fields, cylindrical and spherical coordinates.

Somewhat early Rojansky introduces a simple physical model, a copper block with a cylindrical hole, and then frequently revisits this model to address increasingly complex problems. It proves to be an effective way to link more advanced sections to earlier lessons.

During new derivations, references are often made to earlier derivations and results (by equation and section number). I had to stop, thumb back to earlier sections to find a result, and then move back to the derivation at hand. Rojansky's text is not unique in this respect, but at times I did find it annoying.

Rojansky assumes that the reader works most exercises (or at least thinks seriously about them) and should you fail to do so, you could find yourself returning to earlier sections for review. The problems are not overly difficult and useful hints are provided. Answers are not provided and it may be helpful to refer to a general problem set (like Schaum's).

Rojansky limits his text to electrostatic fields and magnetically induced electric fields, to isotropic media, and to macroscopic phenomena. Nevertheless, despite the leisurely approach and avoidance of electrodynamics, this book is not an entirely easy read. Maxwell's equations do emerge and more difficult chapters address topics like integrating delta functions, solving Laplace's equations, and investigating plane electromagnetic waves, antenna radiation, and wave guides. As with most Dover reprints, this book is a good buy. I give it a solid four stars.

Thoroughly enjoyable, patiently explaining most of the mathematical concepts. This is the clearest and most accessible exposition of Maxwell's eqns I have seen.