Sometimes you can judge a book by its cover. Take for example the cheesy cover showing LPs. Books in which the editors choose songs are usually done in a respectful manner and by those who are well steeped in the genre. Not here. Take for example Merle Haggard's "Carolyn" that comes in at #9. Haggard, a prolific songwriter wasn't the one who penned this song. And few Merle fans would even included this in there top 20 songs that Merle performs. And then there's the inclusion of Juice Newton and Oliva Newton John.

For goodness sakes.

If you're going to name the 500 best singles....you might want to include at least one from Alabama. Talk about no-brainers...their exclusion immediately puts this book's validity into serious doubt. Something tells me if you can't find room for the biggest selling, most awarded act in country music history, then why bother? On the plus side, the deserving songs they did include are well-profiled. It's just too bad some editor with a clue didn't stop these guys before they went careening out of control...with some truly bizarre picks. If a country radio station never played it (read some of the examples in other reviews), it AIN'T among the 500 best country singles ever. In fact that would make it impossible. Unless you count Ernest Tubb as one of our greatest rock stars.

It seems unfortunate to me that there are reviews in this forum that judge this book negatively because the reviewers happen to disagree with the authors' choices. Of course you're not going to agree with all the choices (or even most of them), but even if you don't, the simple fact is that Cantwell and Friskics-Warren have crafted a beautifully-written, well-argued text that will start conversations and promote deep and appreciative listening of one of America's finest musical forms. Bravo.

This book speaks volumes if the reader takes the time to peruse the text. However, as a quick reference it is somewhat cumbersome. Also, the star rating system often does little justice to movies which started or define a genre, those with substance over style, and to movies that have inspired other screen works. Two and one-half to three stars appear too frequently for these types of movies.

Maltin's guide is not bad. I refer to the 1998 paperback Issue. It contains 19.000 reviews of film or TV movies. I think it is a must.But the editor/author, ie Maltin has nothing to say about choice or verdict. Choice is evidently films known to the USA audience. Verdict is not easy to understand: **** is top, BOMB is bottom. Grade 1 is ****, grade 2 is ***½, grade 3 is ***,et cetera. What does a certain grade signify? Maltin has nothing to say.What more: A room with a view, Elvira Madigan, Goodfather III are all rated ***, the same as Gentlemen prefer Blondes. I have just seen MM in Gentlemen prefer Blondes, and it is a charming movie. But to compare it to the others is a major fault, I think. I suggest 1) Skip all B/W movies but the very best,as Metropolis. 2) Give data on audience 3) Make a much better index. Of course You could make a B/W supplement - even including B-movies of Ronald Reagan or John Wayne. And you might even include a list of the James Bond movies. Hollywood or USA,

i have never looked through this book,but i bet it's just as bad as his movie guide book.

Leonard Maltin and his partners again provide a good resource for movie selection for kids. This time, they get it about 85% right. I found myself reminded of several movies I had forgotten about but which my kids (daughter 7, son 4) might like: "Singin' in the Rain", "James & the Giant Peach", and "Li'l Abner." And, I learned about good movies I had not known about, such as "Korczak", for older children, and "Billy Rose's Jumbo" (with Doris Day).

Maltin overlooks a recent straight-to-video Miramax movie my kids love. "The Thief & the Cobbler" features the voices of Vincent Price as the rhyming villain, Jonathan Winters as the persistent thief, Matthew Broderick as the charming cobbler and Jennifer Beals as the spunky Princess. The animation is startling, the story is great and the running ruminations of Jonathan Winters hilarious. I also notice that Maltin does not include Mary Martin's "Peter Pan" or the remake of "Mighty Joe Young."

Each film has a note as to how it will play with young children and another note for older children. "Babe," for instance, is "VG" for young children and "VG" for older children. Maltin seems to measure these scores on a variety of points, including themes of sexuality, or violence, or boredom. He is especially alert to how frightening movies can be, and will comment about difficult parts. He also understands that children and adults view the same movie differently. "Pee-Wee's Big Adventure " is boring or insipid but for kids it is "VG/VG." "Chitty-Chitty Bang Bang" is understood to be a weak "Poppins" imitation, but some kids like it anyway ("VG/NG"). Most of the newer "Batman" films get a direct "no" for young children. "A Patch of Blue" gets a "no" for young children and "VG" for older children. I would want Maltin to distinguish or alert us to other, more subtle problems with certain movies and the lessons and scenes our children will take away from them. Young children, especially, live in a world in which bad behavior is punished and good behavior is rewarded, but many movies do not care about that. In "Pocahontas" ("VG/VG") there is no clear good guy/bad guy division, which was quite disturbing to my kids. For "Dumbo" ("VG/VG"), which Maltin correctly describes as sweet and sad, he notes the scene in which Mother is locked up as a Mad Elephant, but does not recognize the depth of the lesson in this to very young children, that a mother's protections are punished and that Mother can be taken away and the baby left alone. Elsewhere, Maltin has listed "Dumbo" on his "best 10 for children" list. For "Oliver!" ("VG/VG") Maltin makes a point of noting the darker side of the movie, in the physical brutality of Bill against Nancy. I would argue that the beatings overshadow the benefit of the rest of the film for children under 9. In "Grease" ("OK/VG"), the good guys can be mean to their girls, and casually smoke cigarettes. My daughter could not resolve those paradoxes and found it too difficult to work through them and enjoy the story. Maltin does not mention these but does note the problem message, of the heroine getting her man by "trashing'' herself. "Annie" points out the potential terror and confusion for young viewers but still rates it "VG" for young children (and "OK" for older kids).

Today children will watch a video a dozen times (or fifty), and we parents need help to pick through the lessons they are learning. Maltin provides some help and is alert to many of the pitfalls. In the end our own presence is needed to answer questions -- and ask the questions for them, where they are unable to pick apart their confusion. As Maltin reminds in his introduction, "every film is made better when you talk about it with your kids."

It's almost unprecedented for me to return a baseball book. It's almost impossible to find a baseball book I won't enjoy. If the book's about the Yankees, the odds of either would be non existent. Well, at least I thought they would be non existent until I began to read this one.

The book contains no new good information & is filled with mistakes. Also, the author's system of rating the players creates a premise that's flawed from the beginning.

If you know enough about baseball to know Snuffy Stirnweiss wasn't an all time Yankee great, then you find this book insulting to your intelligence.

I truly enjoyed this book. Each piece (and there are 50!) takes you back to the particular year! It has all the stats on the individual player in his best season. It has lots of fantastic photos and a terrific section on the 1998 Yankees! At the end of the book, there is a section that allows me to record my own memorable seasons with my favorite team! A must have for every Yankee fan, and those fans of baseball history!

I have never read a book with so many spelling mistakes. Either these 'Words of Wisdom' were not reviewed before printing, or the majority of those quoted are dyslexic.

This book appears to have been compiled by a small group of stupid Monkeys!