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

nah, this can't be why - even anthrax and megadeth are in there! and slayer, who suck even more often than metallica, get a whole page.

I read a lot of discographies and record guides in my youth, and I've been going through them for the last time to see if I've overlooked anything. So this summer I read this book from cover to cover, possibly the only human being to do so based on the evidence of the editing (my printing of this is the early version that did indeed omit Metallica and George Harrison, who were later added back).
I'd be very surprised, after 17 years, if Rolling Stone were to publish a fifth edition. 2004 was maybe the final moment a tome like this could make any sense, even though the "rules" of a record guide were pretty much outmoded by then, like only writing about albums that were "in print". They could just about claim to cover the most important artists ranging from early blues, jazz and country to contemporary pop and rock, but that sense of an historical continuum and hierarchy seems to be dissipated. If there are listeners who are interested in the discographies of Billie Holiday and Billy Joel and William Patrick Corgan and Billie Eilish, they're not looking to Rolling Stone as the authority to judge them all. People today are so hypersensitive to criticism of their favourite artists that they'd throw the book against the wall at the slightest judgement.
Also, of course, few people use books as reference works, particularly when the information is available online, often in an interactive format. Even in 2004, as Gear said above, "Not sure why anyone would buy an album guide with allmusic.com".
I also have the feeling that readers/listeners no longer want to read about So-and-So's 30 mediocre albums, they think "my time is limited, just tell me about the best records of the genre or artist". That's why I predict if Rolling Stone tries publishing a similar guide in the future, it will be "Best Albums by the Artists in the Rock 'n' Roll Hall of Fame".
As for this edition itself, there is some excellent writing that should not be forgotten just because the book is a notorious white elephant doorstop. Just about all of the pre-Beatles "roots" artists are given detailed and loving evaluations, if sometimes unbalanced (we probably didn't need an entire page critiquing Bo Diddley's 90s albums). My knowledge about a lot of this music is less than encyclopedic, so it's useful for me. Rob Sheffield's write-ups, including many of the big names of Rock, are usually entertaining.
Some of the contemporary reviews seem to have been hacked to pieces in editing, like the ABBA review: only two paragraphs long, describing their CD bonus tracks "Happy Hawaii" and "Put On Your White Sombrero" while never naming most of their actual hits. I think strings were being pulled to get artists such as Leona Naess and the Upper Crust in here as well. There's also a lot of weird inclusions/exclusions, like an entry for John Frusciante but none for Captain Beefheart.
Anyway, this is a very large and heavy book that shouldn't merely be judged on its shortcomings.

i will just say, i have listened to about 16 hours of metallica over the last few days, after listening to about 1 hour of metallica over the last 38 years. i am just playing Master of Puppets over and over, as well as the earlier ones and

i'll just cut it off there. i love this so much

Huh - even Trouser Press covered Metallica.

As I say, the omission of Metallica seems to have been just a printing error, as it was rectified in the next printing of the edition.

something something Leslie Halliwell something something utter shit after Master of Puppets

In fact, the editors forgot about Metallica…and George Harrison and also Pete Townshend… I don't recall but don't doubt a Beefheart omission…I wrote a bunch of the entries for the 2004 guide from 2002 through early 2004 (like I got to do Shania Twain and Kylie Minogue), got sent the first edition of the guide, noticed those first three omissions, contacted the editor who I worked with (who was also the record reviews editor for the mag), he admitted the error and asked me if I would like to write the metallica entry for subsequent editions…which I agreed to do and did. Priorities at RS would come and go, but saying that records made by Beatles and the creative engine of the Who are great is perennial there, so those omissions and that for band that got a cover every single time they released a record for 25 years are innocent but huge mistakes… can't say the same for Beefheart…

the intro I wrote was fairly jaundiced, acknowledging and kinda having fun at the expense of issues that enveloped the band (Napster, Lars' drumming), but being as RS wanted to protect its relationship with the band and QPrime, the intro was removed and the entry as edited is weird, as it starts off with a very basic, super-dull opening gambit and then the following 500-600 words includes some fairly tart criticism…so in my view it reads strangely…I might be able to find the raw copy I submitted…

and so it is without any doubt that that edition contains quite a few entries that served the short term prerogatives of RS…so there are TONS of reviews of major label alt-rock artists that now seem unwarranted that many publicists with business before RS, not to mention friendships, would expect to be included, being also that RS and the major labels were still in relatively good health and RS would have had compelling reasons to put, I dunno, Puddle of Mudd therein…

To me, Rob Sheffield (who I've never spoken to or had any interactions with) was allowed extremely ill-advised flights of fancy in the guide and in the mag…which is to say I think his style is deeply irritating a lot of the time…and it is also true that David McGee going super super deep on 80s and early 90s Bo diddley records would be eminently appropriate in the Oxford american but not at all at the expense of Don Van Vliet, for christ's sake…

Thread topic definitively answered 17 years later!

well, on to the next not definitely answered thread in the pile.

so why is Dave Matthews so bad & hated?

bc he has way too many songs about being a horn dog

I always liked this thread title:

Metallica: Iggy Pop dug 'em, everyone dug 'em, then they released a video... Old Metallica is weirdly mysterious... Like Led Zeppelin....

I definitely go through periodic phases of thinking about Metallica way too much

Karl you should watch Some Kind of Monster at least for the scene where Lars’ extremely cool dad completely dumps on the album sessions.

quite a few entries that served the short term prerogatives of RS

They'll publish another one just to add Harry Styles.