Record Guide Shootout: Rolling Stone vs. Christgau Consumer Guides vs. Trouser Press vs. Spin Alternative

In descending order of most use

Christgau
SPIN
Trouser Press
RS

I think I preferred the red RS to the Blue . Though possibly the Blue one was more accurate. Think I liked the biases and working against them. Liked a lotof the records taht the Red one gave a square to.
BUt interesting to see what thought about certain records was at certain times. Though may be better to look at one of the Richard Morton Jack volumes on that count.

Enjoyed teh Christgau 70s too & think I may have the 80s somewhere. Really need to sort through all my books at some point. Quite a few I haven't seen in a while.

Is Spin Alternative the one with Rollins on the cover?

I have Big Blue, Big Red, and three editions of the TP guide (New Wave Records; “New” TP Guide; and “Fourth Edition,” the last one published before they redid all the reviews for the ‘90s — I don’t need the ‘90s guide, I lived it!)

I never really saw RS & TP as “competing,” as there wasn’t a ton of overlap. Obviously, you go to TP for Throbbing Gristle and RS for Dave Marsh snark about some ‘70s band, etc.

loved loved loved the red and blue rolling stone record guides. Somebody digitize those pronto before all the copies get withered away.

I f'd up the links which don't work in the main text body. Here's what they look like:

https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1442068071i/1219046._UY659_SS659_.jpg
https://www.robertchristgau.com/images/cg80s-b.jpg
https://https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1387663259i/899268._UY630_SR1200,630_.jpg
https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51BMQWEXDFL.jpg

GAH

https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1442068071i/1219046._UY659_SS659_.jpg
https://www.robertchristgau.com/images/cg80s-b.jpg
https://https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1387663259i/899268._UY630_SR1200,630_.jpg
https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51BMQWEXDFL.jpg

https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/31RECCM3ZSL._BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

In descending order of most use

Christgau
SPIN
Trouser Press
RS

I think this is close to me, but I swap Spin and TP. My TP is gone now bc I read it so much it fell apart.

The TP stuff is all online (as y’all probably know)

I still have the Spin guide, though the binding is completely broken so it's in 2-3 pieces. That one's definitely my #1. I also still have the red RS guide. Had the TP at one point but I think that one might still be at my parents' house. Never bought the Xgau.

Rolling Stone Alt Rock O Rama!!!

Learned the most by far from the first three TP editions, especially the second one. I liked how they attempted to disentangle the differences between US and UK releases; not sure how well the other guides did this. Not crazy about the dismissive pans with the square ratings in the RS guides, too "grumpy old man." By the time the SPIN guide came out I basically no longer cared about alternative music, so don't really remember that one.

For me, it's a tie between TP and Xgau -- TP is great in that it covers stuff that RS and Xgau don't and the writing is pretty good. But Xgau's miniatures seeped into my brain like molasses.

Tough call between Xgau, RS Red, and TP for me. Can't overstate how valuable these were, especially pre-internet.

xpost -- yeah, for me, Xgau really excels at 250-300 words per subject.

Dark horse vote for the "Psychozoic Hymnal" section of Joe Carducci's Rock and the Pop Narcotic.

I remember working in the library in college (this was 1995 ok) and going through the Trouser Press guide in the reference section and making a list of all the obscure records by obscure bands that looked interesting. I don't think I got past M. I don't know what happened to the actual list, so I only had my memory of the list.

xpost -- yeah, for me, Xgau really excels at 250-300 words per subject
Agree with this.

I’m old so I Vote RS Record Guide (Red). Read Trouser Press the magazine more than the TP guide and Xgau in the VV more than his guidebook, although I did find it useful.

I do remember years of looking for some of those records -- for about 2 or 3 years, I could not find a James Chance record anywhere -- that time seems totally irrelevant now.

I'm with the consensus, I think. Xgau, TP, and RS in the last place. Never got to read the Spin one.

I find the RS Encylopaedia much more interesting than the guide. The guide gets weaker as it gets nearer to what was the present back then. I'm not sure if this is due to the proximity, or if it was related to being written by JD Considine.

And the XGau stuff is the only one I still go back to.

Voted RS, since red/blue and yellow (jazz) were the ones I spent the most time with, but I don't think they're the best in retrospect. The differences between red and blue did teach me that critics hauled a fair bit of personal baggage around with them and that I should just treat the books more as discographical references than guides. I wish Cook/Morton's Penguin Guide to Jazz had been an option, definitely would have voted for that.

Voted RS. The blue guide steered me through a lot of my listening as a kid (and later), but the in print/out-of-print inclusions/exclusions meant a lot of one-star reviews for mediocre one-album artists, and no reviews at all for, say, Big Star or the MC5. But RS also used experts in reggae/dub, gospel, and other areas. I recently picked up a few records from the Music In The World Of Islam series based on the RS blue guide recommendations.

The Trouser Press guide (the first two, maybe three editions) filled in some of the gaps of the RS guide, but I seem to remember weird shit like Ira Robbins flatly dismissing the entirety of dub as a genre/movement (in his Sandinista! review).

I didn't care for Ira's judgments very much... and at least Marsh's weird judgments (like the Led Zep hate) were usually entertaining to read.

Basically agree with the last two posts.

Think one of the most idiosyncratic and enjoyable features of the RS Guide (Red) has thus far gone unmentioned: the pictures of the five star albums scattered throughout.

Marsh didn’t hate Zep, nor did he write the RS guide entries on them (Billy Altman did, and they were generally laudatory).

xp

Maybe it was Sabbath?

I think I had all of these except TP. The one I liked reading the best by far was the Spin Guide

Marsh didn’t hate Zep, nor did he write the RS guide entries on them (Billy Altman did, and they were generally laudatory).

The way I remember it is that Marsh hated Zep, and BA sort of punched up those entries. Do I have it backward? I'll have to look back at those books tonight.

Marsh didn’t write the Sabbath one, either (I think that was Ken Tucker?). But as co-editor, yeah, he could’ve chosen someone somewhat attuned to metal to write the Sabbath entry.

xxp

I wish Cook/Morton's Penguin Guide to Jazz had been an option, definitely would have voted for that.

Agree with this 1000%. The final (sixth?) edition was incredible.

As it is, I'm voting TP. By the time I got around to reading books like this I was already deep into trawling for weird shit and didn't need to know about the classic rock canon, having grown up listening to it on classic rock radio. I already knew about Jim Morrison; I needed to know who Jim Thirlwell was.

I don’t think Marsh was a massive Zep fan, but he didn’t hate them: two of their songs are in his 1001 singles book (and there’s no hint of backhanded praise or anything along the lines of “they suck except for these two songs”).

Maybe you’re thinking of the Doors? Altman’s praise for them in the red guide was absurdly over-the-top, so Marsh panned them in the blue guide.

I already knew about Jim Morrison; I needed to know who Jim Thirlwell was.

yep!!

Roxon's Rock Encyclopedia from 1969 is an amazing snapshot of a very small world, even compared the world of the red RS just a few years later, all written by one person.

i had this one which in retrospect just completely blew:

https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51TK9CCM8EL._SX323_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

i never owned any of the others mentioned here but would skim them periodically in bookstores. The SPIN one was my speed at the time. I also owned an All Music Guide from the mid-'90s and it was a vv good resource.

I didn't mind this one! The New Order section is wack, though.

The first two editions of the Trouser Press guide were invaluable for me. And remarkably solid critically, for my taste.

This is my most dog-eared reference, salvation (along with an enlightened guitar teacher loaning me records) in a benighted junior high year in Alabama:

https://ia800801.us.archive.org/view_archive.php?archive=/18/items/olcovers662/olcovers662-L.zip&file=6620858-L.jpg

Trouser Press >>>>>>>>> Spin > RC=RS

I didn't mind this one! The New Order section is wack, though.

― TikTok to the (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, August 23, 2019 11:21 AM (thirty-eight minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

it gave me a truly misguided notion regarding the importance of the '80s solo work of Robbie Robertson, is what i remember. i should amend it to admit that it was pretty decent on blues music, but at the same time it only covered the obvious artists and then only the big Chess guys and the old timey Blind Lemon Jefferson types.

I got pretty much nothing from the RS guide, and I think I only ever saw xgau's '90s guide, by which point he was well on his way to desiccation (imo). Trouser Press and Spin, however, both had in inestimable impact on the expansion of my musical tastes (even as some of the reviews in the latter made me furious). Really need to track down fresh copies of those things.

first couple solo Roberton albums are pretty good, imo

kinda bruce hornsby esque

"Somewhere Down the Crazy River" is some all-time-worst boomer post-Peter Gabriel crap, though.

I'll include some non-poll options:

1. Red RS Guide, Stranded, Christgau's '70s book

Basically a tie. I can point to dozens and dozens of the records I bought in the late '70s/early '80s and tell you which book prompted me to buy them. There are phrases from each, especially the first and third, I can recite from memory.

2. Lilian Roxon's encyclopedia, the Logan/Woffinden encyclopedia pictured above, Paul Gambaccini's first Top 200 Albums book, the Rolling Stone Illustrated History of Rock & Roll (second edition, I think--the 1980 edition edited by Jim Miller)

These shaped my record collection too. I have great affection for the Lilian Roxon book, though I wouldn't seriously advise anyone to use it as a guide--that's how you end up with Sons of Champlain albums.

I have the Trouser Press book, but it came later and didn't have much influence on me. Triple that for the Spin guide--I've flipped through once or twice, otherwise it just sits on the shelf. It's all a matter of timing.

Ok, Montgomery was right and I was wrong about Zeppelin — their entries in both volumes were written by Altman, and most of the albums are highly rated (even though Physical Graffiti is underrated and glossed over in a single sentence that only mentions “Kashmir”). Weird, what was I thinking of?

Haha, Marsh definitely is no fan of the Doors (entry begins: “Unlikely as it may seem, given the obnoxious and insipid cult that now surrounds Jim Morrison...”).

His slam of X’s two (at the time) albums even begin with a guilt-by-association move (noting that Manzarek has produced the group).

Yeah, Marsh really hates X with a passion, which is a little mystifying. Part of me wonders if it’s meant to serve as a corrective/response to Christgau’s occasionally over-the-top X love.

Assume you guys are taking about the Blue Guide, can’t find that in the Red.

Ah! I was thinking of the Grateful Dead — whose catalogue Marsh eviscerates in the blue book (“one assertedly major oeuvre that’s virtually worthless except for documentary purposes”), awarding most of the albums only a single star. What an asshole! Listen to the music play, Dave!

The Dead’s entry in the red book, written by John Milward, was entirely different, and at least gave the albums a fair shake (even though 3 stars was their ceiling).

Altman's description of "Black Dog" as "indescribably chaotic" is one of those phrases that has stayed with me for 40 years. I'll never forget it because that's exactly what "Black Dog" is.

Marsh gave a couple of Dead albums three stars (Live/Dead, which he said has a “freshness that feints toward vitality,” and Europe ‘72). But yeah, he never wavered in his hatred for them, once calling them “the worst band in creation.” Until relatively recently, I found little to disagree with in that judgement (though there are certainly shows that conform to that assessment).

FYI, the Doors entry in the red guide was written by Altman, and it’s glowing. (Begins: “Brash, courageous, intelligent, adventurous, and exciting. The Doors were all this—and more.”) Four of the albums get 5 stars, and another five get 4 stars.

It was such a dick move, IMO, for Marsh to replace appreciative reviews (by others) of major bands he hated, with self-penned slams in the next volume. Isn’t it better to default to positivity? It’s not like these earlier reviews were poorly written or ill-considered.

The red volume has a few entries by Bart Testa, a guy who taught me a couple of film courses in the early '80s. One of them's prominent...maybe the Mothers of Invention?--too lazy to go downstairs and check right now.

(Marsh is off the hook, thanx to his famed one-liners:)

JOHN VALENTI
* I Won’t Change / RCA (NA)
Pop singer who’d be better off if he did.
— D.M.

xp Yeah the Mothers entry is by B.T.

The Trouser Press guide changed my life. I devoured each new volume starting when I was 17. It was so influential that some of the strong opinions took years for me to overcome. I will still occasionally look something up.

Spin Alternative Record Guide was formative for me. Rolling Stone red guide too, but mostly by dint of proximity when I was 12 (my parents bought it a couple years earlier). The Spin one was mine though, and I could always reread it and find something new. I even met Eric Weisbard in a vaguely embarrassing moment at an academic conference in 2010 and told him how much it meant to me as a teenager.

Trouser Press here. I lugged it around the mall, even, when hitting all the shitty local chain record stores because what even was mail order.

^Uh, when I said "red guide" I actually meant the 1992 RS guide - the one which "in retrospect completely blew"

Never got past skimming the Trouser Press one. Christgau's collected CG reviews were massively important to me as a twentysomething, but then almost entirely in indexed form online - on his website rather than as collected decade-by-decade in the published guides.

For a while, CMJ had all their historical trade-mag reviews in a searchable database on their website — which was awesome (I was a big CMJ guy). But in the late 2000s, a new owner wiped all that stuff away, in favor of only new/recent reviews. (And then CMJ went under entirely.)

FYI, the Doors entry in the red guide was written by Altman, and it’s glowing. (Begins: “Brash, courageous, intelligent, adventurous, and exciting. The Doors were all this—and more.”) Four of the albums get 5 stars, and another five get 4 stars.

It was such a dick move, IMO, for Marsh to replace appreciative reviews (by others) of major bands he hated, with self-penned slams in the next volume. Isn’t it better to default to positivity? It’s not like these earlier reviews were poorly written or ill-considered.

I worked w/Altman for a brief time, years ago; I should have asked him what he thought about his Doors review getting deep-sixed between editions.

(Actually now that I think about it, I do remember discussing the RS guide with him in some way, but it’s lost in the mists of time.)

Is Spin Alternative the one with Rollins on the cover?

― Stevolende, Friday, August 23, 2019 2:30 PM (yesterday) bookmarkflaglink

https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1348450171l/604083.jpg

Are you thinking of this one? I remember getting this out from our local library.

yeah that's the one.

(Marsh is off the hook, thanx to his famed one-liners:)

JOHN VALENTI
* I Won’t Change / RCA (NA)
Pop singer who’d be better off if he did.
— D.M.

Totally forgot about the other sections of the RS Red Guide at the back. The five star album covers juxtaposition with the surrounding reviews become particularly O_o.

Never had the Christgau books, but my copies of the others are pretty dog eared. I found lots of bands and records through them. The Spin book is the nicest one, as it has color pictures through it all. I had the Blue Rolling Stone one first pretty early on and then the Trouser Press book. The Spin book came out a couple years later and my roommate in college had that one, but I later on got one. I also got that illustrated book of Rock too.

The only one of these I had was the RS one that omar little posted. I read it so much my copy fell apart. I've never heard of Christgau except on ILM and what people post makes him seem useless to me. I don't know what Trouser Press is (I mean, I could search for it but it was never a part of my life), nor did I ever see the Spin one.

(Trans-Oceanic) Trouser Press was a fanzine turned magazine named after a Bonzo Dog Band song that started out Prog oriented but got into Punk and New Wave pretty early. The magazine itself died out in the early eighties (although their Friendbook page contains scans of the print issues, not sure if it’s complete yet) but the name lived on through the guidebooks.

in an earlier incarnation the illustrated encyclopedia was the "nme book of rock" (a chunky little block of a book with no illustrations), and totally my bible in the late 70s. its co-compiler, the recently bob woffinden, moved on from rockwriting to actual proper real grown-up investigative journalism, but is still filed in my head as an important knowledgeable elder

i bought and greatly took against RS red in 1979ish (lol marsh u doofus) and so never graduated to blue -- i was quite ideologically hostile to star systems then, and am probably still a lot more in the meltzer than the xgau camp (tho i do now also have all the xgau guides and do sometimes use them; he grinds my gears taste-wise but i enjoy his extreme compactness of style)

i used this a *lot* in the 80s (i also own the trouser press guide to 90s rock but probably only ever cracked it few times):
https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/41QEWBuYHiL._BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

i actually contributed one entry to the spin guide (cabaret voltaire: jon savage suggested me when he couldn't do it)!

i thought i had the lillian roxon but i can't right now find it, so maybe i meant to get it and forgot. the hardy & laing penguin guide to rock is bulky and uninspired (laing was an important figure in uk rockwriting, who also died last year sadly). i notice i have a rough guide to rock, but i can't recall ever even opening it.

i have all but one of the eight editions of cook & morton -- cook was my editor and mentor at the wire and i bought them up secondhand when he died, as i felt bad that i'd till then only owned the first when he was still alive. there's a LOT of overlap but each one has some stuff unique to it, plus at 1534 pages the final one was (at the time anyway) the biggest single-volume paperback that had ever been published wahey

ugh the "recently bob woffinden" = the "late bob woffinden"

in paul gorman's oral history of music-writing there's a nice little tribute to roxon from meltzer (nice partly bcz so unexpected given its source)

https://www.facebook.com/trouserpressmagazine/photos/a.944647265678093/1006629452813207/?type=3&theater

One thing I loved about the Woffinden book was the illustrated album covers. They weren't large, but they were in color (unlike the RS red book? I think they were black & white in there), and the book led me to buy more than a few albums just because I remembered the cover from Woffinden's book. Two examples off the top of my head: Family's Music in a Doll's House and David Bromberg's Midnight on the Water.

also zigzag put out an "independent labels guide" in 1980, with updates for several years after that: i have the first (i mean i imagine it's still round the flat somewhere tho i can't put my hand on it)

this was an impressively comprehensive listing, of artists and releases and labels, especially of cassette labels. there was no critical engagement but i wasn't after that -- bcz i would be supplying it obv. i liked and embraced the idea that "rock" in the 70s (as a catch-all term for all kinds of stuff that we no longer call rock)* could still be gathered into one book, but soon and excellently there would just be too much to do this, and this was good, and we would all evolve to grasp the complexities of a swirling crackling pluralism (narrator's voice: we did not ect ect).

*in fact we'd already stopped in 1980 and who's this "we" anyway -- but this is how i thought then i think

oh oh *this* was also very useful (again bought in 79-80 i guess, while i was still a student and desperately wanted to become a music-writer):

https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/91P9288q5XL.jpg

mine is in very much worse condition than this^^^ one lol

RS (Red) covers B&W yes.

Yours,
James "RS" Redd und die Blecchs und Weißes

i think the only copy i ever bought of trouser press had a cover illustration of the pig balloon from PF's animals and a long interview of utopia-era todd rundgren, which did not at that point fulfil my year-zero needs

Badaboom Gramaphone fanzine had an issue "Bands Not in the Trouser Press Record Guide" that was quite well done, and which I geekishly shelved next to my Trouser Press volumes.

the Logan/Woffinden encyclopedia pictured above
How come this doesn't have the word "Harmony" in the title?

Despite inevitable omissions (xpost) the TP guides seemed more comprehensive than the other guides in that they contained loads of entries for acts who weren't commercially successful at all, even by alternative standards

...although these entries may have been pruned back a bit by the time of the 1991 edition, with so much more to cover by then

the Badaboom addendum was affectionate and came in '98, so an update. TP was fantastic, and pretty reliable (though they did rate Rip it Up over You Can't Hide Your Love Forever. supplemented in pre-internet days by George and Martha DeFoe's Volume International Discography of the New Wave and then later by The Great Alternative & Indie Discography.

Volume International Discography of the New Wave

I remember this! It was so packed with data that I found it kind of intimidating (when I was new to the genre)

Forgotten, but this had a bit of influence on me:

http://phildellio.tripod.com/primer.jpg

It came out in 1980, part of the first wave of canon-creating. There are basic album libraries for 11 genres, with a list of 20 singles appended for most of them. Specific acquisition (I downloaded it 25 years later) based on this book: the first Third World War album, the 10th inclusion in the punk section. Thanks, Rock Primer, thanks a lot.

Or, to paraphrase Chuck Eddy, maybe it was the third First World War album, how should I know?

I've spent hundreds of hours with the Rolling Stone Guides and the Christgau. Somewhere along the line, I seemed to misplaced the Trouser Press. And even though I subscribed to Spin for awhile, I'm not sure I even knew they had published a guide.

the rock primer is actually a good example of "the idea that "rock" in the 70s (as a catch-all term for all kinds of stuff that we no longer call rock)* could still be gathered into one book" -- it has chapters (by different writers) headed respectively rock&roll, folk and blues, rhythm & blues, soul, country, british beat, california sun, dylan and after, reggae, punk, the seventies. each has an intro, 20 representive LPs reviewed at roughly a page and then a bunch of singles (in several of the earlier chapters, many if not most the LPs are compilations). "the seventies" hoovers up glam and prog and weather report and elvis costello's first alb (!) -- and i think kraftwerk was one of the singles, but the very final pages have fallen out of my copy so i can't check this. electronic music was NOT well served.

in 1979 nme had put out a partwork called the "nme guide to modern music" -- it was designed by barney bubbles and i think you collected it bit by bit across a months-worth of issues. this mixed krautrock and electronic music, proto-industrial, dub, disco and more in with punk -- the foundation of the space not yet called (and IMO always miscalled) "post-punk". i still have a *very* fragile and tattered copy of this, which was probably more important to me than *any* of the above.

http://www.barneybubbles.com/NMEmodmusiccover.jpg

No Kraftwerk, Mark--they get mentioned a couple of times in the section intros.

Where the '70s singles appendix really misses, I'd say, is 1) in relegating the entirety of disco to the Saturday Night Fever soundtrack, listed among the '70s albums, and 2) obliviousness of this whole parallel universe of K-Tel and Ronco junk, a small part of which left behind some brilliant singles. Example: "Love Grows (Where My Rosemary Goes)." Every one of their 20 singles, with the possible exception of Abba's "SOS" (who in 1980 did not have much critical cachet, at least in North America), is more or less rock-criticky. When Scott Woods and I had to assemble a '70s discography of 100 songs for I Wanna Be Sedated, we made sure to include some of our favourite K-Tel/Ronco songs.

would be interested to know what was listed for krautrock at the time.

In The Rock Primer, nothing. Or at least not in the Punk or '70s sections--maybe they parked their Krautrock picks in the Folk & Blues or California Sun sections. (In the interest of full disclosure, that's a genre I'm only barely acquainted with myself.)

i'll dig the nme guide out and check stevolende (probably tomorrow):

but from memory KW, can, faust, neu! and the plank-adjacent offshoots but not much deeper than that (certainly none of the brain stuff or guru guru or whoever) -- eno's interest in eg moebius and cluster was more of a guarantee of suspicion i suspect than enthusiasm, at least at this particular moment (when ppl still felt he was probably spoiling talking heads)

it may well also not be termed "krautrock" -- which had been the rude term of art in the early 70s and would again be after cope's intervention, but was very likely disdained in 1978, when the point was the refashioning of everything, including the evidently ropey assumption that eg KW, can, faust and neu! were even operating in the same genre (which obviously they weren't, unless you mean *huge catch-all handwave* rock or "modern music" or whatever)

I have a copy of the first NME Book of Rock from 1975 which has entries for Amon Duul II, Can, Tangerine Dream and Karlheinz Stockhausen, and also a section for "German Rock" which mentions Birth Control, Neu, Faust and Kraftwerk. It recommends Neu's debut, Atem, Kraftwerk's debut, Dance of the Lemmings, Wolf City, Ege Bamyesi and Future Days.

the second edition adds a kraftwerk entry but drops stockhausen and the entire section on german rock (so neu and faust vanish)

You have got to be kidding me. It's got to be Trouser Press record guide all the way. The only one that doesn't tell you what to think, and you don't even have to agree with the reviews to get an idea of what something sounds like. It's a great document of the post-punk era.

Write-in vote for the Virgin Encyclopaedia of Indie and New Wave

Busted out RS Blue tonight. The Doors entry Marsh did mentioned upthread, if I’m being honest with myself, is quite good, actually – it acknowledges that the S/T and Morrison Hotel are good even if you don’t like him or the Doors. There’s also an excellent Can entry tho I’m forgetting at the moment who wrote it.

I stand by my assessment of Marsh's Doors entry (and I'm not even a Doors fan) -- it's an extended dis, clearly written more as a public smackdown of the group's enduring popularity than as a sober assessment of their qualities. Marsh should have removed himself from writing up a band toward which he had such antipathy -- but he did the opposite, inserting himself for visibility, rather than seek out a review with a less sneering tone (even if he was insistent on discarding Altman's write-up).

(I feel the same way about the Dead entry, and in that case I am a fan... We all enjoy ripping on stuff we don't like, but I think these guides work best when "major" groups are at least given a charitable shake; otherwise it comes off as petty, like Marsh was just licking his lips at the chance to set these negative opinions in stone on everyone's coffee table. Check out the Kiss entry for comparison -- their records don't get high rankings, but David McGee's write-up at least sounds like he's trying to foreground what's good/interesting about them.)

(and I'm sure some "minor" artists weren't pleased about being dismissed with a one-line gag review; but I haven't heard those records so I'm not in a position to insist on better treatment for them!)

dave marsh is a pretty terrible writer, easily the most dispensable and annoying of all the "classic" critics imo.

I thought the Doors were given a charitable shake: Marsh tried to make the case for them as a potentially solid singles band.

notes as promised on the the nme guide and "krautrock"

— there are full and reasonably friendly entries on kraftwerk and can: KW also feature to push home an anti-prog point in the central essay (by charles shaar murray and angus mackinnon)
— all the obvious kraftwerk jokes are made (lol they are coldly rational robots!)
— there is no separate entry for "german rock" or "krautrock" (there is one for "free music" -- viz evan parker etc -- with the suggestion that this wd be a good field for e,g, cabaret voltaire to look into)
— cluster, neu! and la dusseldorf are mentioned in the ultravox! entry, as is eno: cited as the good side of what ultravox! do badly (their crime: being the "fag-end of glam")
— in eno's own entry none of the german bands are mentioned
— no faust, probably bcz they were no longer one bit active at this time (actually there might be a passing exuberant reference or two in some of the pseudonymous paul morley-penned entries, he was absolutely their vicar on earth for several years)

the whole thing is only 64 pages long and very evidently -- despite its loudly declared futurism -- a mishmash of the current tastes of all the various unnamed contributors, with a summary of the immediate present (akron! pub rock! manchester!) more urgent than a full-on year-zero manifesto (even if this is how i took it at the time). it's good -- if very circumspect -- on the rising homegrown electronic scene

Finally, a poll that makes me feel young.

Lol

la dusseldorf! unsung heroes

voted trouser press bc that was the one i had and read the most (although i probably grazed the others at the library, i didn't own them/have them at my fingertips at home)

I've given away most of my music books. I still read XGau online, he was maybe the most important critic to me and I really liked his reviews, but they often seemed obtuse and infuriating. The RS guide was impressive and I know people who loved it but ultimately it didn't do it for me.

Trouser Press, to be sure. I was given the third edition for my thirteenth birthday, and when I saw a fourth had come out a few months later it was one of those rare weekends when I refrained from buying anything so that I'd have enough money to buy the new book the next weekend. TP was totally foundational in establishing a canon with punk and new wave at the center and everything that preceded or followed as being in that lineage. It introduced the whole punk/DiY ethos to me and was thus largely responsible for me making and recording my own music in the years that followed — it "gave permission" that I didn't know I didn't need.

I also acquired the '92 RS guide and made considerable use of it for the classic rock canon, though the main thing that stands out to me about it now is its unflattering entry on Genesis. The pithy style was frustrating to read after Trouser Press devoting a paragraph or so to each record. Later I tracked down the red and blue books; the latter had the virtue of leading me to the Nonesuch Explorer Series. The Spin book seemed like a lesser Trouser Press when it came out. I found Christgau willfully arbitrary — it was the only one of these books that was sold as the opinions of one guy; the use of letter grades seemed particularly perverse as it didn't seem like anyone would "learn" anything from him except Christgau's schtick. Later I enjoyed the flip voice of the writing, but at the time the vicious grades (which didn't share my TP-approved UK-centrism) seemed like the point.

This points to a virtue of Trouser Press for a kid, which was that its lack of a scoring system required you to spend some time reading the entries to discern their enthusiasm, disdain or ambivalence. A side effect of this was that the symbols they did provide — the bullet to tell you what was on CD, the nr/ to show what was a UK import — gave discographical information "objective," preeminent importance; after evaluations, entries would often conclude with further information about different releases, EPs, compilations, etc. In retrospect, the combination of critique and dutiful cataloguing leant a "we left no evidence unexamined" authority to the proceedings.

This points to a virtue of Trouser Press for a kid, which was that its lack of a scoring system required you to spend some time reading the entries to discern their enthusiasm, disdain or ambivalence

I think this is part of why I voted for Trouser Press. Also, I just feel like, more and more consistently than with the other guides, the reviews tell me about what each album sounds like and what the reviewer gets from the music , in a way that makes me feel like I might be able to get something similar.

Christgau

Spin

There's a great documentary about Lilian Roxon out there. Worth the effort to track down.

Never knew that, thanks. You can watch it on Vimeo:

/69142057

https://vimeo.com/channels/548820/69142057

Password required

may just need a vimeo account, i can get straight into it w/o a password

Works for me as well.

Okay that worked, thx

Automatic thread bump. This poll is closing tomorrow.

man what a great thread!

i had that exact rolling stone one that omar posted and it is the reason i needed no explanation of the ilx-centric phrase "hate read." i was 19 and just about having an aneurism reading about what they said about the cure and love and rockets (it was pretty bigoted, to the surprise of no one).

i have never held a physical copy of any trouser press, but i don't think i've spent more time reading any other website in existence. i seriously used to just click the "random entry" link, most times end up reading about some total obscurity, and then spend an hour or more trying to find a way to actually hear the music i had just read about. that was in the pre-streaming, pre-youtube days of the internet, so a lot of times, all i had was their write-ups to go on. i remember being really excited the first time i saw a beat up used copy of an album by the mighty lemon drops in a store because i had read about them on trouser press.

Automatic thread bump. This poll's results are now in.

TP website just got updated.

This was the first one I had, as a hand-me-down from dad, followed by the one that omar posted above.

https://pictures.abebooks.com/AICHELBAUM/22146333501.jpg

*Bump*

Posting here rather than the, um, other thread, because I don't want to get lost in the iPod shuffle. Feel like the purpose of the guides and their related lists is to confirm and hopefully expand one's tastes but to hope for them to be an all-inclusive objective ranking of What Is Good is a Fool's Errand. At some point all the lists and guides end up becoming time capsule cross-sections. For me at this point I am more interested in weird minutiae such as noticing or being reminded that two of the five star records in the original Red 1979 RSRG were Dave Edmunds and Love Sculpture– The Classic Tracks– 1968/1972/One Up/EMI (Import) and Soft Machine Third/ Columbia, or wondering what the five star record cover on p. 480 located amidst the Edward Kennedy ("Duke") Ellington section is. It seems to be a picture of Otis Redding, is it an old cover of The Immortal Otis Redding?

Searching for this last brought me to

Diana Rigg at home.

Records include:
Antonio Carlos Jobim - The Composer Of Desafinado, Plays
Mikis Theodorakis - To Axion Esti - Odyssea Elytis
Otis Redding - The Immortal Otis Reddinghttps://t.co/JpQg3sM19Z#TheAvengers #EmmaPeel pic.twitter.com/fm3uCSiOZX

— Record Lovers (@recordlovers) July 29, 2020

https://robertchristgau.substack.com/p/lists-on-lists-on-lists

Eminem , Gogol Bordello, DJ Shadow in his top 50 here, but he says he never liked Beach Boys Pet Sounds and won’t relisten. Also says Marvin Gaye “What’s Goin On” has 3 great songs but rest is filler.

He and his wife Carola Dibbell participated in Rolling Stone poll for top 500 albums that they just did

Among other canonical masterworks, Christgau has never been a fan of Astral Weeks either.

Once in a while I'll see someone lump Greil Marcus and Robert Christgau together as if they were of the same mind, but it's fascinating to see how they've taken very different views on quite a few notable artists (The Grateful Dead, R.E.M., the Replacements, Hüsker Dü, Stevie Wonder, Michael Jackson, Public Enemy, Bonnie Raitt, Lucinda Williams, Jason Isbell, maybe above all Joni Mitchell). I may vehemently disagree with the negative assessment made by either one of those two, but more often than not it's a pretty compelling argument even if it's wrong.

That's a bit misleading, I should have typed *they've had very conflicting views, as in a substantial disagreement over the merits of a certain artist's work

that "nme book of modern music" cover posted by mark s upthread is gorgeous, i wish there were a scan of the whole thing online somewhere

barney bubbles was so great -- he needs a standalone chapter in "the secret history of how hawkwind invented what idiots now call post-punk (including its audience)"

Also says Marvin Gaye “What’s Goin On” has 3 great songs but rest is filler.

He and his wife Carola Dibbell participated in Rolling Stone poll for top 500 albums that they just did

― curmudgeon

I think I agree on “What’s Going On” only having 3 great songs but tbh I felt the same way about the previous #1: “Sgt. Peppers”

huh I see Marcus and Xgau more as opposites

didn't see this but would have also voted for Trouser Press

huh I see Marcus and Xgau more as opposites

Is there a thread for just discussing some of Xgau ratings? I was checking his dud scores and was surprised to see Aphex Twin's 'Come to Daddy EP' in there but I don't think he usually dignifies albums he considers duds with a blurb.

That said even if you hate the title track, "Flim" and "IZ-US" are good enough to at least warrant the choice cut rating and both stand as clear highlights in his discography.

I also feel personally offended that he has two Broadcast albums in the dud category.

There are over sixty threads with Xgau or Christgau in the total, so one of those probably

Even better, you can write him directly and give him hell.

http://www.robertchristgau.com/xgsezm.php

Excellent, hope he replies.

serious question here, honestly not trolling. why do people care which records this guy likes / doesn't like?

I don't care whether he likes what I like. I read him for the quality of his writing, and if it alerts me to a good record I haven't heard, that's a bonus.

He hasn't served as a consumer guide for me since, oh, 2004 at least, but, like a friend, I check in on his taste.

Both of these posts otm. Lorde knows he has lots of annoying tics, but he had a few things going for him. For one, he always seemed to spend much more effort keeping up with the times than the rest of his cohort, for another he didn’t mythologize or cozy up to the big stars quite the way those others might.

I switched to the past tense there but presumably he still treads the same path.

Like most of these guys there was a time when I had to, um, rebel against some of strictures, but it still nice to stumble across some recent act we both like, fun to discover a shared appreciation for Wussy, to name one. Clemenza to thread!

Wussy, Imperial Teen, the Shoes...He's had almost zero percent influence on my writing, but lots of influence on my listening (or at least did for about a decade).

But I don't think you ever actually care if your tastes diverge. You might find that interesting, but it's not like you're going to stop liking something because he doesn't. I didn't listen to Schoolly-D's first album any less because of his basic indifference.

xp

I read him seriously for a very short while in the '80s because other writers whose opinions I respected (and whose ranks I wanted to join) worshipped him, so I figured, as the joke goes, that there had to be a pony in there somewhere. Plus, I was reading the Voice anyway for Gary Giddins and Greg Tate. Soon enough I realized that our tastes were so divergent as to be basically on two different sonic planets, and I didn't even like his writing on a phrasal level, so I stopped reading him except for the occasional hate-read, and that was without even getting into the issues of his repellent, patronizing sexism and the way he'd put his thumb on the scale for musically shit acts with whom he agreed politically. At this point I'm so totally disengaged from/uninterested in pop that he's completely irrelevant to me. I mostly wish Gary Giddins would come back.

his repellent, patronizing sexism

Don't forget the racism (see: Hendrix as 'psychedelic Uncle Tom', which we talked about in another thread).

I don’t really care about the records he likes or doesn’t like but as a fan of Broadcast I would at least like to read why he thinks they are duds. Just saying “this albums sucks imho” is valid for a comment section or an entry on a forum but for a review site it’s a bit frustrating. It’s perfectly valid to only want to talk about music you love, but if he has nothing but indifference towards those albums, then why have the dud section at all?

tbh I can understand a certain generation and taste configuration hearing only muzak in Broadcast, hence "dud"

Xgau was very formative for me because he gave A+ to all of my favorites at the time (Star Time, 69 Love Songs, Maxinquaye, Public Enemy, Steely Dan, Lil' Wayne) so I read him a lot and it helped me explain my own taste to myself.

You definitely piqued my interest with Broadcast. So two duds and zero words, I see. Ouch!

Was about to say that I'm not sure I've ever cared what he thought about non-American acts but then remembered that he's definitely 'got' the likes of the Pet Shop Boys, Go-Betweens and Saint Etienne over decades. (Though, amusingly, on rechecking I see he basically alternated 'dud' and A-, with almost nothing in between, for Saint Etienne. Haha. Madness.)

he got me into Pet Shop Boys and Go-Betweens for example (Saint Etienne too but I don't love them as much)

Christgau uses emoticons to indicate, "I put in time listening to this, but have nothing to say about it". I agree that it's useless from a reader's standpoint.

Critic and historian Robert Palmer actually reviewed the second edition of the Rolling Stone Guide and Trouser Press back in the day (January 4, 1984):

''The New Rolling Stone Record Guide'' is a partially successful attempt to redress the critical imbalance and poor fact-checking that made the original guide such a mixed blessing. The new volume has some value as a source of information on currently available rock, pop, soul, country, blues, folk, gospel and reggae albums. The new guide is much easier to use. But its rating system, one to five stars as in the jazz magazine ''Downbeat,'' and the prejudices of its editors make its critical evaluations impossible to trust.

The guide is heavily weighted in favor of rock's mainstream traditionalists - artists such as Bruce Springsteen, Bob Seger and Tom Petty, who are portrayed as ''working- and middle-class Middle Americans struggling against their emotional circumstances, not always winning but never ceasing to fight.'' Even second- string Springsteen and Seger imitators like the Iron City Houserockers get ratings for excellence, while artists who have been far more innovative and influential - the Doors, David Bowie, and most punk and new-wave bands - are rated mediocre-to-good. Mr. Bowie is faulted for something called ''lack of faith in rock''; Mr. Springsteen is praised for making ''no concessions to nonrock.'' These are empty sophistries, characteristic of the book's rear-guard action against new ideas, redolent of a fan-club mentality that penalizes originals for daring to be different while taking the cynical posturings of arena-rock ''populism'' at face value.

''The Trouser Press Guide to New Wave Records'' makes up for at least some of the Rolling Stone guide's willful distortions. It provides carefully even-handed evaluations of disks by newer artists and bands, and of important recorded work by new-wave predecessors such as David Bowie and the Velvet Underground. There are no ratings; the more impressive disks are simply ''highly'' or ''very highly recommended.''

Yes to writer Robert Palmer ( except for the Doors defense)

I love that, never read it before but it speaks to me deeply as someone who found that RS guide very bewildering when I was 15 and was finally able to get the big picture a few years later with the Trouser Press Guide.

Feel like the original was still the greatest, critical imbalance and poor fact-checking aside. Nothing can replace the magic of the randomized five star album cover placement, for one thing.

Trouser Press guide came a little too late for me. I was still missing the magazine but it didn’t fill the void.

Mr. Bowie is faulted for something called ''lack of faith in rock''; Mr. Springsteen is praised for making ''no concessions to nonrock.''

can't stop laughing at this

It’s pretty funny

What I love about Palmer was that rock, for him, was just a beloved bend in the river of American musical forms.

Mr. Bowie is faulted for something called ''lack of faith in rock''

This about the guy who sang "Rock and Roll With Me"!

oh man Iron City House rockers I spent money on some comp once

“Crazy Little Thing Called Lack Of Faith In Rock”

This about the guy who sang "Rock and Roll With Me"!

Dave Marsh loves his second-string Springsteen imitators. He wrote an article where he asserts that because John Cafferty and the Beaver Brown Band had a hit single, "no-one is comparing them to Bruce anymore". Of course, now they're only remembered as the Boss's most shameless copyists.