The Rolling Stone Album Guide : Completely New Reviews: Every Essential Album, Every Essential Artist

Rating:
Summary: best one out there
Review: Excellent and good fun. The New York Dolls review sums up the tone of this guide nicely. Definitely not for the Top 40 crowd though. If you're one of them, stay away as you'll probably get somewhat insulted.
A drawback is that out of print albums were omitted, which makes the guide incomplete as soon as these albums are reissued. And of course the guide is outdated. Any guide is the moment is goes off to the presses.
That said, we want an update now.

Rating:
Summary: An introduction to the most mainstream of rock criticism
Review: Excellent and good fun. The New York Dolls review sums up the tone of this guide nicely. Definitely not for the Top 40 crowd though. If you?re one of them, stay away as you?ll probably get somewhat insulted.
A drawback is that out of print albums were omitted, which makes the guide incomplete as soon as these albums are reissued. And of course the guide is outdated. Any guide is the moment is goes off to the presses.
That said, we want an update now.

Rating:
Summary: An unintentional landmark of a place in time.
Review: I have to dock it a star just because this edition is now ten years old. With encyclopedic material like this, if it's not updated at least annually, the immediate value of the work depreciates each year in which there's no new information.

That having been said, this guide decently represents the state of the music world at the end of 1991. Nirvana's "Nevermind" and Pearl Jam's "Ten" both make the anthology; Stone Temple Pilots' debut does not, if that helps fix a place in time. Although these grunge heavyweights make the collection, there's no hint of the impact these groups would later have. Consider, for example, this excerpt from the review of Motley Crue's last album to make the collection:

"And though 'Decade of Decadence' spends most of its time summing up past strengths (with some re-recording), tracks like 'Rock 'n' Roll Junkie' and the spiritedly profane cover of 'Anarchy in the U.K.' suggest that the Crue will only continue to improve."

This isn't meant as a slam on the Crue; the point is that there is no hint that 80s metal megastars like Motley Crue and Def Leppard are about to be overshadowed by another rock movement.

Although I'd be foolish to consider myself an expert in the genre, similar statements could be said about the state of rap music prior to the "gangsta rap" phenomenon.

Two other developments at this time were a) the breakup of some seminal indie groups of the 80s, and b) the move to remaster and reissue albums from artists from the early rock and roll movement. With respect to the former, groups such as Husker Du, the Replacements, and Camper Van Beethoven end up having their entire collection of albums reviewed. And blues and rock pioneers such as Robert Johnson and Buddy Holly, who until just a few years before had not had their songs properly catalogued, get their proper mention.

I'm not saying that this will be good reading for folks whose musical history begins after 1991. And heck, this isn't even an open endorsement of the Rolling Stone magazine, which I think has cheapened itself in the late 90s pop revolution. But if anyone wants a glimpse of how certain artists were treated prior to the grunge revolution and the VH1 career makeover, this will be at least an interesting, albeit not up-to-date, assessment.

Rating:
Summary: not up to date!
Review: Many have mentioned that the RS guide is outdated. However, the fact that edition comes out every 10 years gives a timely perspective of an era. For example, The Doors enjoyed a big revival in the 80s. The older edition of the RS guide slams the Doors; the newer one praises them.

Rather than showing a lack of integrity or consistency, this and other changes reflect that each decade shapes a new musical, critical perspective. And because RS has been there since the beginning, what better guide to give that perspective than Rolling Stone?

The guide's strongest with the standard rock heroes of the 60s and 70s. Why wouldn't it -- Rolling Stone chronicled them. You'll get a solid foundation of the roots and demimonde of rock and roll -- Muddy Waters, Little Richard, Presley, Beatles, Dylan, et al. It's good with the 80s in a "pre-alternative" mindset.

While RS is a bit weak (and superficial) on indie heroes and hip-hop, well consider that it was written in '91-92, just when alternative rock hit mainstream.

Many may consider this a fault, and it is. RS is not the ONLY guide out there nor is it necesarilly the best. But, before you go to the Trouser Press, this is the one to start with. Before one can enthuse about the latest, greatest Flaming Lips record, an appreciation of the Beach Boys would help. And as a capsule of how rock was like before the 90s really broke, it's great.

Rating:
Summary: Like most RS publications, a waste of paper
Review: The powers that be at the fishwrapper that is RS magazine have compounded a felony by updating their album guide from two previous editions. On the plus side, Dave Marsh and John Swenson, the two high-falootin' ignoramuses who were in charge of the earlier edition apparently had nothing to do with this one, which in almost any circumstance would guarantee improvement. However, the writers who have taken over for them are just as bad, and thus this edition of the Guide emerges as even more irrelevant and vacuous than its predecessor, if such a thing is possible. The discographies provided for artists of long standing are usually hopelessly incomplete, muddled, and inaccurate, and oftentimes bands or artists who were still performing at the time of this volume's release are treated as if their careers were over years ago. Mark Coleman, in particular, continually embarrasses himself with his inacurracies, superficial knowledge, and attempts to sound "hip" and "on the cutting edge" which are even more pathetic than Marsh's were. I agree fully with Peter Laffey's review below. Most of the reviewers at amazon.com can provide a more intelligent music album review than any writer at Rolling Stone.

Rating:
Summary: FLAWED & DATED BUT STILL USEFUL
Review: This 1992 Guide replaces the 1980 edition with completely new reviews by only four reviewers of the most important rock, pop, soul, country, reggae, jazz and blues albums stretching back into the pre-rock �n roll period and up to the end of 1991.
Designed to serve as a consumer guide for fans wanting knowledgeable assistance and a critical overview of artists� careers, this encyclopedic publication contains acts ranging from Abba to ZZ Top. Not quite all of them though; there is a definite slant towards the American scene and some lesser-known or cult stars from the UK are absent in these pages. That is because the editors had to restrict the entries to what was available in the United States at the time of US publication.
In addition to the alphabetical section on groups and individual artists, there are two further sections: one for Anthologies and one for Soundtracks.
It�s interesting to compare the numbers of albums by the greatest artists: Elvis comes in at 121, followed by James Brown at 88, Frank Zappa with 51, The Beatles and Bob Dylan with 36 each, while the Rolling Stones slot in at 35 and other favorites like the BeeGees and Bowie do well with 24 and 26 respectively.
Flipping through the pages amply rewards the peruser, often for the unexpected little tidbits: a band called Silly Wizard, dubbed �masters of classic Scottish folk� and the fact that Hound Dog was first recorded by Big Mama Thornton in 1954.
Grunge is well represented by Nirvana, Pearl Jam and Soul Asylum, while World Music is a bit neglected: King Sunny Ade and Youssou N�Dour are there but no Salif Keita.
Still, one can establish the exact difference between Lisa Stansfield and Taylor Dane, and read all about important but obscure singer/songwriters Laura Nyro and Gram Parsons.
In the soundtrack section, I was pleased to see Saturday Night Fever and Thank God It�s Friday rated highly while Fame and Flashdance fared poorly.
Although I sometimes disagree with the critics� assessments, they always phrase it amusingly: Meat Loaf is dismissed as �schlock rock�!
Every entry is rated with a star-system from 1 to 5 just like here on amazon, although in any piece on artists with large oeuvres (like Elvis) the emphasis is rather on a general overview rather than a detailed discussion of every album.
I would say this is a worthwhile reference work to have at hand, but shouldn�t be considered the last word in music criticism.

Rating:
Summary: An introduction to the most mainstream of rock criticism
Review: This book, I must confess, was a guide to listening (together with subsequent "Rolling Stone" reviews) for many years.

On the whole, it has many virtues: the arguments are very sensible, the writers appear to be very well-qualified, and the selection of music included is varied enough to satisfy most listeners - especially someone like me who was looking then for music from the 1980s to listen to. There is very little outright lying: indeed most of the album reviews are very clearly written and do indeed provide an accurate description of the music being written about - something I wish I was able to do far better.

However, this book's age gives it one fatal flaw: it does not understand the real imact of music over a long period. Many albums I bought on its recommendation have proved quite useless to me even if I understood the reasons (though my narrow perceptions at that time can in no way have helped me).

Moreover, some of the albums it recommends (or at least does not condemn) would be violently condemned by critics like Joe Harrington and David Keenan whose knowledge and intelligence certainly exceeds that of those critics in this book.

Thus, read with great caution: this is introductory, but good for that.

Rating:
Summary: Out Of Touch !
Review: This is the 1992 edition of the rolling stone album guide . When it comes to reviewing the well known albums from the Fifties and Sixties , the so called reviewers seem to be on auto-pilot , churning out the same old rhetoric that we`ve heard a thousand times before , without adding anything new or interesting that could stimulate the discerning reader`s mind . Lazy journalism at it`s worst !

It is with the reviews of albums by key Eighties bands that this book becomes something of a joke , the reviewers are so out of touch they must have been living on Mars . Well established classic albums are consistantly given two or three stars , and the information given is embarrassingly sketchy and way off the mark ( Mark Coleman`s review of The Smiths , and J. D. Considine's review of The Pogues , is some of the worst music critique that I have ever read , they must have listened to these albums once , and that`s being kind ) .

Compared to the Rough Guide To Roc!k , The Trouser Press Guide , or All Music Guide , this Rolling Stone Guide is lazy waffle !

Rating:
Summary: Essential, But Rapidly Obsolete, Music Lover's Resource
Review: This is the second edition of this particular tome, and for somebody trying to get a sense of the history of rock 'n' roll and which old albums by artists are worth tracking down (and which ones aren't), it's a very valuable thing to have around.

Now, I mention this 2nd edition bit because I first stumbled upon this book sometime in the mid-late '80s, and the 1st edition from '79 or so did great coverage of old albums from the '50s-'70s, but good luck on getting the latest word on John Cougar or Def Leppard or the King of Pop or those other '80s artists we loved so much! Some solace was to be found when a 2nd edition came out in 1992 -- you could now find out what Rolling Stoners thought about '80s albums you had aleady purchased by then (in addition to the '50s-'70s albums, naturally).

Well, I think you see what I'm getting at. This is a great guide to what's out there at the time of publication, but it rapidly goes out-of-date. Sure, you'll find out good information about (yes, I'll go ahead and call him what I know him as) Prince's older albums, but as far as learning about the 348 albums he's released since 1992, you're out of luck. This is a book that really needs to come out in annual editions -- though that would be a difficult and likely unprofitable option for the writers. Too bad -- I may actually be willing to plunk down the money once a year for this thing.