Rolling Stone record guides. Anyone else get irritated???

I have the 1992 edition and avoided Vanilla Fudge for year because all their stuff was rated 1 star... also a funny write up on the Pixies saying they "resemble a late 70's heavy metal outfit." Apparently in their time they weren't considered as influential and ground breaking as they are now... also gave them mediocre rating on everything... I'm sure they have changed their tune on that...

 

I'm a huge fan. The letter I wrote to Marsh was about this Heep review. Because the Ken Hensley review was good, calling him talented. The Heep one said something about how they got the material they deserved...and I pointed out in my letter that most of that material was written by Hensley.

Anyway, I was laughing in my letter 40 years ago and I'm not bothered by it now. It's all subjective. I'm certain, by the way, that Marsh didn't write either of the reviews.

 

Me too & some 70's reviews in Creem were very non PC too though amusing.

 

The change on the doors was really noticeable. The 79 reviews them as lost classic cult band no one remembers (which was true in 78-79), but by 81-82 there was a huge backlash on The Doors by rock critics, and by a lot of people who thought the "He's hot sexy and dead" RS cover, and lizard king mythology had gone too far.

A lot of early 70s's hard rock was trashed in that book, but you have to remember punk and new wave had just happened, and a lot of rocks critics were off balance, trying to atone for past sins.

Again, there was really nothing like this back then, hell you just could stare at the photos for hours. It was such a door opener, and big and epic, like an Iliad of Rock for 12 my year old self.

 

I took the red book pretty seriously but now it's just an interesting resource and near time capsule.
I will say that the Albert King review was dreadfull and really missed the mark.

 

A lot of these guys can be slagged now, but they did do a credible job in the late 60-early 70s's of getting people to rethink this silly juvenile disposable pop music as something approaching "art". Looking back though, maybe that wasn't such a good thing

 

The Red on is the one to have. It include all genres with the exception of Classical Music. The 5 star records by and large are still considered Classics. They even included OOP records that should be sought out. The rating also tend to mean the same thing from artist to artists. The Blue one is terrible. Let's start by saying the Blue one is different from the Red one as it's only Rock/Pop albums with Jazz getting it's own volume. I contradicts much of the ratings from the Red Edition. Another thing it gets wrong is inconsistency in the ratings. Each writer just gave the ratings they thought they deserved. This was probably like this because they publishing the split books and the editorial staff was thin. It just didn't seem like a 4 star rating meant the same thing between the various writers. Another thing that was off is that the Blue book was published in the early 80's. So a lot of the new artists that are in this edition were mostly unfairly rated relatively low as they didn't have that sound that would be later known as Classic Rock. The Spin Magazine Alternative Albums book did a much better job with current artists of the time. I would suggest that the Blue version is to be avoided. It's pretty useless. If you can located the Red one, it's worth getting. If you want an album review guide for albums from the '80s into the '90s locate Spin Magazine's book.

There isn't going to be a perfect book of this kind. Too much needs to be written for a single writer. But the Red one got it mostly right and the Blue one got it mostly wrong.

 

+1 ... the spin book is great, but it has also its flaws (2 out of 10 for early cure ?)

 

Wow, are we a bit sensitive here? I am sorry if my brief comment to your post hurt your feelings...

I have browsed the the red guide many times and have a copy of the blue guide at home. IMO and the one voiced in this thread by many members, they are definitely not reference. Hopefully, I do not have to cite you some examples as this 1 1/2 year old thread contains many of them.

I also have their special 100 best records of all time edition which could also be a nice thread for discussion.

 

I opened a fortune cookie once and it read:

Be thy own guiding light for those around you know not what they speak of....

This fortune cookie advice doesn't work for many things in life but it works perfectly for music and whether or not I should follow guides and rankings.

 

Terry Kath (Chicago's original guitarist and vocalist) on Rolling Stone Valley News - December 12, 1976.

"Get away from me, Rolling Stone stinks," said guitarist Terry Kath, when asked for his own reaction. "Every time we read it someone starts pounding the walls. You only appreciate garbage music".

 

I thought the OOP albums were mostly only glossed over compared to the in print stuff or is my memory shot?

 

I got this back in 1988 as I was discovering 70's rock. I was flabbergasted at the poor reviews for everything I was falling in love with. Man, the onset of the 80's really looked back harshly at the 70's. If they only knew what we found soon find out haha.

I recall the next edition wasn't nearly as harsh. One funny thing I remember in that 1983 edition was its total dismissal of David Bowie as an artist of merit.

 

I sincerely do apologize, very very bad day...

Nobody is 100% all the time

✌

 

Blue, Red when the new Rainbow colored edition hits the shelves, it will inherently contradict all the others, its the nature of the beast

 

That is great if Dave Marsh recorded some albums.

 

I don’t mind. I note it for what it is. I have the thin yellow one, red, blue and next two. I treat each book as a different source since many reviews change.

I like to catalog with as many different ratings as possible: AMG, Virgin, spin, record hound, christgau, Martin Strong and more recent mags like TAS for newer items. I have as many review books as I know exist.

RS has a big swing. It is interesting to see what they like in a sub genre I also like.

 

Even though I don't like prog or heavy metal, there are obviously quality levels within those genres. Rolling Stone got it all wrong (though I never consulted their guides). Allmusic.com gets it just right.

 

I like Allmusic too. A lot of the time it shows that the writer has listened to the album throughout and albums that aren't the usual critics choices or found in 'the greatest ever albums' lists often score highly there too. Though it does give the not very good Freddie Mercury - Mr. Bad Guy album a rave review!

 

I like allmusic too.
I usually read rate your music too

 

Thank you

 

Those RS guides are historical artifacts by now, and valuable as such, but not much else.

I tend to read Allmusic reviews. The odd thing is that the rating sometimes don't jibe with the actual review - a 2 star album might have an enthusiastic review.

Also, there's a touch of the RS problem, where some reviews are very old and the critical pendulum has swung quite a bit since the review date.
Peter Green's The End of The Game is a case in point - its critical standing has risen quite a deal, and it still has one star on Allmusic.

 

classic example of why I hated the music critics of Rolling Stone. ZERO appreciation for some of the really good playing on those old Heep albums. Yes I agree Byron was annoying here and there. But as a band, they were quite good, and lots of fun and tricky stuff to play when you sat down and tried to learn some of it (and I guarantee the critic who wrote that, never did).

 

Brian Wilson received 4 stars and a glowing review in the 1988 edition of Rolling Stone magazine for his then current album....a few years ago the "Record Guide" book had it listed at 2 stars.....wtf???