Most Horribly Rong One Star Rating from the 1982 Rolling Stone Record Guide, Part 1

whoa

is that all of the one stars or just the ones that seemed rong

fuck this magazine and all who have written for it

space ritual

(because everyone will pimp 4 sab)

Glen Campbell: Gentle On My Mind

It's got Mary In The Morning, Just Another Man, Bowling Green and of course the immortal title track.

it is weird -- did Ozzy kill one of Jann's children or something?

devo never many anything other that totally brilliant music

(though i will say alabama kinda blows)

fuck this magazine

(though i will say alabama kinda blows)

Rong!

How do you decide which one of the Black Sabbath or Hawkwind or Judas Priest ratings are the dumbest?

hit yourself on the head with a hammer

space ritual is a double album

and then go with yr feelings

It's not weird at all. Pretty much just along the lines of most other rock-crit at the time. (Though some crits liked Devo a lot more, and a couple guys at Creem tolerated Sabbath.) Ratings from the even more entertaining first edition (where AC/DC get all zero-stars, rather than mostly twos and a four) would make for an even better list. (Also, Marsh and Tucker both had their moments, fwiw -- Marsh liked a lot of disco, actually, just not all of it. And Tucker was less anti-country than almost any other critic, at least later in the '80s.)

Anyway, I was playing Atomic Rooster yesterday (a best-of double CD, though, not that particular album.) What funky dudes; I'm voting for them.

Not entirely convinced Alabama and Crosby didn't deserve 1-star ratings now and then, btw; not sure about those albums. And never heard that second Adverts one -- they give the debut four stars (when it deserved five, but whatever), and guess I just believed them when they called Cast of Thousands a major falloff.

devo never many anything other that totally brilliant music

― goole, Thursday, April 16, 2009 10:58 PM (10 minutes ago) Bookmark

whoa there buckaroonie

god Rolling Stone is horrible

Journey, "Escape"

"Don't Stop Believin'" – 4:10
"Stone in Love" – 4:25
"Who's Crying Now" – 5:01 †
"Keep on Runnin'" – 3:39
"Still They Ride" – 3:49
"Escape" – 5:16
"Lay It Down" – 4:13
"Dead or Alive" – 3:20
"Mother, Father" – 5:28 ‡
"Open Arms" – 3:18 †
"La Raza del Sol" - 3:26 †

That's like 4 or 5 absolute stone-cold arena rock classics in a row to open the album. Hell, just 1-2 alone disqualify it from a 1-star rating.

Also would vote Bay City Rollers just because.

The Chambers Brothers album kind of sticks out like a sore thumb.

The Gap Band- II
The Gap Band- III

Seriously. Fuck that.

Hawkwind vs. Black Sabbath vs. Devo.

Those are the most egregious of all.

That's like being the guy who not only says he doesn't like the Beatles, not just that they suck, but repeatedly tries to make the case that they are the worst band of all time. I mean, c'mon.

i pity the person who is so dead inside they can't have their spirits lifted by "stone in love"

I remember Marquee Moon getting panned in that book, too.

The Gap Band- II
The Gap Band- III

Seriously. Fuck that.

^^

plus, yeah, devo, journey, hawkwind, everything else

Given the guides descriptions of the star ratings--where one star means the record is so bad that the artists' technical abilities are called into question--then I can't really see how they justified any of these ratings, because obv. Sabbath and Priest knew how to play their instruments. If they objected to them on moral grounds or some ineffable reason they should have given them zero stars (like Ebert did with Blue Velvet) or two stars (which so so many other great records ended up with) and just leave it at blah.

Bay City Rollers is the wrongest-headed 1-star here - their "Greatest Hits" is just plain nice bubblegum. A lot of these other records I love but could totally see somebody making the case that they suck. But if you can't get down with the Bay City Rollers, you are just bein' a dick.

(like Ebert did with Blue Velvet)

haha waht

I'm glad someone stuck up for the Bay City Rollers cuz my reaction was I'm pretty sure that that one and Black Oak Arkansas' Greatest Hits contain some of their actual hits in which case if you hate those records you are basically just a sourpuss asshole

xpost googling now

"I remember Marquee Moon getting panned in that book, too."

Yeah but that's kind of justified.

Ehh, looks like Ebert gave it one star-- asshole.

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19860919/REVIEWS/609190301/1023

I think Ebert's argument has some merit. It's not like he was just like "oh shit this movie is meanspirited" and one-starred it.

Yeah, but he should have zero starred it, to take it out of the realm of thumbs up/down.

its weird to me that Ebert misses that the hokey 50s smalltown Americana stuff is basically just as creepy as the S&M Rossellini/Hopper stuff

for another thread perhaps

david lynch isnt copping out though -- what ebert describes is a stylistic choice. i totally understand how it wouldve been easier to make that call in 86 or whatever, but by now, this choice that ebert describes finding distasteful is basically LYNCHIAN STORYTELLING or whatever u wanna call it

He gave it a thumbs down on the show though. What was he supposed to do there? Scissors?

a tiny saddo face?

More Ebert on Blue Velvet:

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19861002/PEOPLE/41216001/1023

I think Ebert's argument has some merit. It's not like he was just like "oh shit this movie is meanspirited" and one-starred it.

― Alex in SF, Thursday, April 16, 2009 7:28 PM (9 minutes ago)

iirc he eventually eased up on the movie after learning why isabella rossi (sp?? been a while since i've seen it) had that nude scene

isabela rossi

He did? I thought he said her book confirmed what he'd been saying all along.

Your powers of recollection are amazing.

To kevin k.

Ok...Rainbow Rising is at least like...fifty-nine stars...at least

I figure Sabs/Devo/priest/Hawkwind will be well-defended here so I voted for Odessa

this is gonna be like where everybody forgot to vote for bart

Sad Wings Of Destiny is one of my favorite things ever.

Ebert loved Mulholland Drive, though; he made his peace with David Lynch, which is more than you can say about Hal Hartley.

There was a Hal Hartley-David Lynch tiff?

Hartley's films perplex Ebert, apparently.

fuck this magazine and all who have written for it

― fucken cumlord (omar little), Thursday, April 16, 2009 10:54 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

CAPTAIN FUCKING BEYOND

but yeah this list is ghastly and criminal :-/

Dexy Midnight Runners- Searching for the Young Soul Rebels

:(

Also one star, fwiw:

Babe Ruth - Kid's Stuff
Babys - Head First
The Bizarros - The Bizarros
David Bowie - David Live
Herman Brood and His Wild Romance - Herman Brood And His Wild Romance
Stanky Brown Group - Stanky Brown Group
Bucks Fizz - Bucks Fizz
George Carlin - FM And AM
Cerrone - Cerrone 3: Supernature
Chubby Checker - Chubby Checker's Greatest Hits
Chilliwack - Wanna Be A Star
Con-Funk-Shun - Con-Funk-Shun

Lots and lots more

Not that I'm going to pretend to be shocked by any of those, or pretend they don't kind of make the book more fun. (George Smith says it's a great record guide if you just buy stuff that gets 0 and 1 stars instead of 4 or 5.)

For instance, this edition and the earlier red one sure make for a hell of a lot more entertaining bathroom reads than the way more cautious/less cranky/more factchecked-and-edited later editions that got rid of all the ephemeral cutout LPs, even if those editions are less "rong" a lot less often.

Cerrone - Cerrone 3: Supernature

Ahahahahaha wtf?!

There were a lot of obscure one star rated albums that sounded pretty interesting--some dance record made with a Nashville producer, for ex. The review had a line like "I don't think 198? will be remembered as the year of Cracker Disco." Would that it were.

ok who the fuck gave Con-Funk-Shun one star

that right there is the most bullshit thing I have ever heard and bear in mind I've been listening to myself talk for years

'let me put love on your mind' is the sickest slow jam ever imo

This is a bit of a silly poll because we're limited not just by 50 records but by records only President Keyes knows. Still, it's fun just like the guides themselves. And xhuxk is right - the reviews in the 1992/1993 edition read like press releases. Haven't gotten the latest one yet. Wonder what they got horribly rong there.

Also, almost all of these are perfectly understandable given the rock crit zeitgeist at the time. Y'all are STILL shocked that critics hated Sab and disco back then? A lot of these are pretty meh. The Chamber Bros. record is hit-plus-filler. I want Eric H. to call me tonight and sing the non-hits off those Gap Band records to me BY MEMORY. And even the Bay City Rollers choice is somewhat justifiable. Despite several stone cold classics, they couldn't fill out a listenable greatest hits from start to finish.

And some of these are flat-out appalling. Alabama were (are? gawd I hope not!) fuckin' godawful, one of the VERY worst bands worth hating ever. President Keyes, the burden of proof is one you. Why DIDN'T Alabama blow?

I went with Sabotage which they really must have hated since it's up there twice.

And fwiw it's worth, I thought Blue Velvet was the greatest film ever made at the time. Now I find it rather juvenile and he's long since surpassed it.

isabella rossi (sp?? been a while since i've seen it)

No, no, Isabella Rossi was the Québecoise disco chanteuse that got zero stars in the RS record guide.

I am pretty sure "You Are My High" was not a hit and it is fucking gorgeous, so in the spirit of friendship, shut the fuck up Kevin.

i'm not gonna go nuts fronting for Alabama here, but as a six year old I reallllly enjoyed a greatest hits tape my mom had ... "40 hour week for livinnnn" ... I mean, I haven't heard that song in 22 years and I can still sing it. Is that one star?

tbf "FM & AM" is pretty weak when compared to the two albums that followed it.

tons of this is great but new traditionalists/black sabbath ST/stained class is going to produce the final vote i just dont know

The Chamber Bros. record is hit-plus-filler. I want Eric H. to call me tonight and sing the non-hits off those Gap Band records to me BY MEMORY. And even the Bay City Rollers choice is somewhat justifiable. Despite several stone cold classics, they couldn't fill out a listenable greatest hits from start to finish.

Not that I care, but no album with a song as great as "Time Has Come Today" or "Burn Rubber On Me" or "Saturday Night" (or "Rock and Roll Love Letter" or "Yesterday's Hero") deserves just one star no matter how forgettable the filler is. (In fact, an argument could easily be made that albums would deserve 4 stars on those songs alone. The Chambers Brothers' 15 minutes beats Ry Cooder's 45 anyday.) (Not that I hate Ry Cooder or anything.)

"40 hour week for livinnnn" ... I mean, I haven't heard that song in 22 years and I can still sing it. Is that one star?

Nope, it's a great song. Also didn't come out til 1985, which means it's not on the albums you listed. (And "Cheap Seats," almost as good, wasn't til '93.)

dance record made with a Nashville producer, for ex. The review had a line like "I don't think 198? will be remembered as the year of Cracker Disco."

(vintage) country-disco

Alabama does pretty great pop country. Is "She & I" on either of these records? That is a sweet jam. I feel like hating on Alabama is sorta safe-to-express challops central tbh

Yeah I'm curious what the review of that Chambers Brothers is like. "Well "Time Has Come Today" is one of the greatest songs ever, but the rest is just meh so one star."

what's with the wrong spelling of wrong??

Is "She & I" on either of these records? That is a sweet jam.
i don't know if it's on that album, but you are right, that is a sweet jam. oh man i might have to track down some alabama now. my friend had a tour program of theirs and there was some wonderful hair in there. 5 star hair.

EXCELLENT idea for a poll! (Maybe the second instalment could include a write-in option though.)

The Hawkwind/Sabbath stuff's a given, but I'm gonna vote for Bow Wow Wow, just 'cause it's the most surprising - I thought the folks at RS LIKED that early Brit new-wave related stuff, at least as an alternative to Sabbath/Hawkwind.

I think with Bow Wow Wow there was a sort of "don't let McClaren dupe you!" kind of reaction - not wanting to feel like praising something would be playing into a clever business plan

I love Alabama, their 2 cd greatest hits is loaded with great stuff. Yes, it's pop country, so-the-fuck-what? "Love in the First Degree" is on Feels So Right, that's a stone cold country-disco classic for starters.

I voted Crosby, anyway.

what's with the wrong spelling of wrong??

― dan138zig (Durrr Durrr Durrrrrr)

http://www.usc.edu/schools/annenberg/asc/projects/comm544/library/images/334bg.jpg

it's funny that the Crosby album was such a maligned effort -- he must've seemed about as uncool as uncool could be at that point I guess.

it's a pretty good album, too

yeah i love it -- it's def. better than any stephen stills or graham nash solo record. maybe faint praise there.

just checked, Manassas gets 3 stars, while Crosby gets 1.

Also, Gaucho gets 1 star only in this edition, but I guess this is just part 1 of the poll.

the blurb about Alabama says, "For the modern dentist." zing?

Um, Odessa, people.

Or the Dexy's.

Anyway, what xhuxk said. I did a thread on this sometime back and love this book in a lot of ways.I almost admire their prejudices.

That's like being the guy who not only says he doesn't like the Beatles, not just that they suck, but repeatedly tries to make the case that they are the worst band of all time. I mean, c'mon.

― ZS1983 (Z S), Friday, April 17, 2009 12:17 AM (4 hours ago) Bookmark

http://www.amazon.com/How-Beatles-Destroyed-Rock-Roll/dp/0195341546/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1239940949&sr=8-2

Actually Elijah Wald doesn't say they're the worst band of all time...

The "blue" edition of the RS Guide was something I read over and over as a kid, and it taught me the most valuable lesson that critics are as subjective as anyone else. The realization that it was ok to disagree with a supposedly authoritative voice was revelatory, and it was all because I like Bob Dylan's "Live at Budokon," which got a square (less than one star) rating.

Every generation imagines itself capable of rendering history's final judgment.

Yeah I'm curious what the review of that Chambers Brothers is like

It's mostly a short overview of their career. Of the actual album, Bart Testa (wha??? I had no clue he wrote music crit) says it is "now a mere historical curio."

Eric H, chill. It was just a joke. Much love.

J0hn D, since I still don't know what "challops" means, I'm not sure how else I can express my hatred of a band cept to just express it. I will say that my fave record of 1997 was Shania's Come On Over so I clearly have no problem with pop country (or barely country).

I still don't know what "challops" means

Just your usual horseshit lazy way of saying "I disagree with you, but I can't come up with a coherent argument against you, so I'll just call your motives into question instead." I love John D, but he should really get over the word. It's stupid.

though that was a mild misuse of challops, anyone who posts regularly on a message board should understand the incredible utility of the term.

btw i don't care at all about this poll but challops is a useful concept imo

I better get the chance to vote for MX-80 Sound in Part 2. I can recite that review from memory!

the challops of pretend forgetfulness

challops are scallops who are former-indie kids

I'm voting here for Dexy's because Searching For... has one of the best opening tracks AND one of the best closing tracks on any album. Horn sections and manifestos and donkey jackets easily beat out Devo's diminishing returns.

yall it seems like a waste of time to get butthurt over this

that being said--

David Crosby- If I Could Only Remember My Name

fuckin rules 110%

You don't "get" ILM, max.

"yeah i love it -- it's def. better than any stephen stills or graham nash solo record. maybe faint praise there."

don't sleep on songs for beginners and wild tales by nash though. they are both great. and they can definitely hold their own with fatty's love hangover LP. (which i like a bunch, don't get me wrong...)

"The Bizarros - The Bizarros"

this might make me madder than anything. only cuz a good review might have actually sold a couple copies for a great fuckin' band. probably make any top 50 rock albums EVAH list i might make.

Duty Now For The Future, but the whole list is ridiculous. Searching For Young Soul Rebels?! Odessa?!

fuck this magazine and all who have written for it

― fucken cumlord (omar little), Thursday, 16 April 2009 22:54 (Yesterday)

jeez forgive a guy's youthful indiscretions :-(

I won't even bother with the outrage of the inclusion of Sabbath, but Rainbow "Rising"? The prime of Judas Priest's career? WTF

The Bizarros was already OOP by the time of the blue book, so I don't think a 1-star rating did their career any harm, Scott. And (I think) Ken Tucker even gave it a GOOD review in the the magazine originally, and that certainly didn't help sales any, so that makes the whole thing even more moot. (And when the HELL are we gonna get a reissue of that album?! Not to mention the rest of their entire catalog.)

This is a bit of a silly poll because we're limited not just by 50 records but by records only President Keyes knows.

Well, the guide gives out so many single star ratings that if I was all-inclusive the first 50 options would barely have taken us through the As. If someone else w/ a copy of the book wants to do a 26 part poll, they should feel free.

As for Alabama--I'm not saying those albums deserve 5 stars (though AMG gives Mountain Music 4.5,) but I think they are better than a one star rating. If you don't like them, don't vote for them.

You could maybe limit the Sabbaths/Hawkwinds etc. to one or two representative entries instead of including them all. Or offer the "Other (Please specify)" option - but I guess that's of little use to anyone who's never owned the book.

Whatever, I don't wanna tell you your job. I still think it's a good idea for a poll.

okay maybe i'm being a little hard on alabama but damn outside of the hits, they can suck up a storm (and some of the hits suck too)

but yes probably better than one star.

also: sort of appreciate a band that dresses as if a VFW league softball game was going to break out at any minute

pretty hard to fuck with this
http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B000002W86.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

yeah i think a VFW softball game is OTM. or maybe a VFW pancake breakfast.

tylerwins!

o_O at Sabbath and Priest getting one star, but I voted for Elton as that album kicks arse and somebody would have to be "stone" deaf (haha) not to get it.

whenever I drive through Muscle Shoals I'm tempted to stop at the Alabama Music Hall of Fame because they claim to have an Alabama (the band) tour bus inside, which I bet has awesome koozies and some seriously comfortable furniture inside.

Alabama on that sleeve look like they're on their way to the latest Wmsbrg watering hole

hahaha totally

lol

hmmm i know some dudes from home that should move to brooklyn

http://www.odditycentral.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/fish.jpeg

look, the barrel was there, and the fish was there, and I was armed. don't judge me m coleman

also will somebody please photoshop the alabama sleeve so it says animal collective

i'd love to hear a split 7 inch of animal collective and alabama cover each others songs

also will somebody please photoshop the alabama sleeve so it says animal collective

rofl

I meant the RS one-star ratings were fish-in-a-barrel shoots (or so it seemed to the critics at the time)

kinda surprised you guys like alabama but then I love the oak ridge boys' elvira so go figguah

Dexys or Bow Wow Wow.

The one non-fish-in-barrel one-star band above (and probably the only one that should honestly surprise anybody who hasn't been living on the moon for the past three decades) is Devo, who actually had a big enough following among rock critics to score in Pazz & Jop a couple times. But I get the idea they were sort of love 'em or hate 'em, and they're exactly the kind of art-punk spuds that also-Ubu-hating Dave Marsh saw as a good target at the time. He wrote their entry himself, and the first line has always seemed really confused to me: "Devo updates the smart-ass smarminess of Frank Zappa for college kids, which is probably what Robert Christgau meant when he called the group 'Meat Loaf for college kids.'" So he's saying Christgau can't tell Meat Loaf from Zappa? Weird. Later he gets more vicious: "Devo's most odious quality is its quasi-libertarian rhetoric, which is used as a basis for elitist putdowns of everything 'normal' (including the audience, but excluding himself. The puerility of most of its ideas, founded in an unearned contempt for mass culture, makes it impossible to take the quasi-totalitarian flavor of its album titles )Duty Now, Freedom Of Choice, New Traditionalists seriously, even as satire." He doesn't mention that "Whip It" was a fun dance song.

smartest devo review ever = pablo guzman in the voice, i forget which album

xp "excluding itself", I mean. (Got some parentheses backwards too, but you get the idea.)

Guzman wrote about them as a polyrhythm band, right?

Euler's crack about coozies and comfy furniture on the Alabama bus totally cracked me up. Makes me want to go back and listen to more Alabama too.

http://z.about.com/d/huntsville/1/0/q/L/AlaMusic14.jpg

Marsh's review of Duty Now For The Future:

http://www.rollingstone.com/artists/devo/albums/album/161853/review/5942032/duty_now_for_the_future

LOL @ marsh patronizing vonnegut for writing about things he "half understands" yeah like the bombing of dresden

that review is a symphony of rong

Looking over the list, the Elton LP might not quite be a barrel fish, either. But I think that's more an example, like Bowie's live LP, of an artist with a long discography where they wanted to distinguish between albums they loved and ones they didn't. Greatest Hits gets five stars, but on 11-17-70 Marsh says Elton sabotages himself with "campy cuteness, coming on like the world's most idiotic ham." (I dunno, I've got some pretty stupid ham in my fridge. Just had some for breakfast, actually.)

And I guess I'm a little surprised that the book has so much contempt for Glen Campbell, but I probably shouldn't be -- rock critics have always hated country they perceived as too pop -- see also the Bellamys and Alabama. Most rock critics still do. And country didn't get much poppier than Glen.

we're spending more time thinking about these reviews than the original writers did!

That Devo one thought some thought, though. But yeah, part of what makes the book great is that so many of the reviews are snide one-liners that Marsh clearly tossed off between sandwich bites, probably without even listening to the entire album in question. (Honestly, future record guides should use this one as a model. I've always been awe of it.)

xpost

yeah no shit they were all probably "judas priest? tevs, buncha dopers from england, i hear fong-torres just scored some killer coke"

http://i41.tinypic.com/2vmybzr.jpg

yesss

also, i don't care what the music sounds like, the title of "Sad Wings of Destiny" alone deserves at least three stars.

xp Also don't think the writing in most of the short one-liner reviews has that much in common with the writing in Rolling Stone the magazine. The wisecracks sound a lot more like Creem (where Marsh started) to me. (Though Stone actually had an okay review section in those days, I think.)

Fong-Torres Just Scored Some Killer Coke: A Rock 'n' Roll Memoir by Dave Marsh

fuck yes thank you Z S

Srsly though the guy on the right looks like he could sweating at Girl Talk.

I love it too much to not just post it again

http://i41.tinypic.com/2vmybzr.jpg

No one's mentioning Budgie, so I will. What did this dork give 5 stars to anyway?

http://assets.mog.com/pictures/wikipedia/162413/Budgie.jpg

there is that RS worldview that rock has to build on the past and grow smarter and more "important" with every year and this gets many a goat. dumb fun or even straight up "fun" is somehow suspect. i was reading old nrbq reviews by xgau and, by the last album he reviewed, he honestly thought there was something WRONG or suspect or even creepy about a band that continued to sing catchy pop novelties after 40 years. he kept looking for the expansion of a worldview or some progression or SOMETHING that they refused to give him. he did find relief with one 80's album where he felt the nostalgic "fun" was justified in some way or was some perfect summation of the fun that nrbq liked to have. i dunno, it was weird to read them all in a row. it kind of summed up for me what my problem is with HIS worldview. looking for stuff that isn't there. or wanting it to be there in the first place. this works with actual songs, pointing out what doesn't work...wanting stuff to fit your own politics/preferences and chastizing it for not doing that...it just bugs me. i guess i'm more a fan of close reading when it comes to music: this is what i am listening to. this is what it sounds like. pointing out why something is beneath me is not gonna endear me to your crit tech. but, like chuck says, these books are a hoot. and fun to read.

(and going from sun ra covers to singing with captain lou after 40 years is plenty enough progression for me. somehow.)

That Crosby album is one of the greatest albums by anyone ever.

there's also a lack of empathy in some of these reviews, i dunno.

Ha, but they hated prog too, scott.

Knowing ILM, either Black Sabbath or Dexy's will win this. But seriously, "If I Could Only Remember My Name" is a brilliant album, and absolutely not deserving of 1 star. I mean, not that "British Steel", any of the Sabbath albums or Dexy's Midnight Runners are either, of course.

As for Alabama--I'm not saying those albums deserve 5 stars (though AMG gives Mountain Music 4.5,) but I think they are better than a one star rating. If you don't like them, don't vote for them.

OK thanx.

pretty hard to fuck with this

I did but it wasn't pretty.

an Alabama (the band) tour bus inside, which I bet has awesome koozies and some seriously comfortable furniture inside.

100 years from now, this line will eclipse the entirety of the band's existence.

kinda surprised you guys like alabama but then I love the oak ridge boys' elvira so go figguah

See, at least The Oak Ridge Boys were horrifying. Their videos elicited the same facial expression from me as Faces of Death. Alabama were like...well yeah, that one fish fry at the VFW. Or was it the Serbian Hall? Wait, was it even a fish fry?

Fwiw: I saw Alabama live once.

The magazine also trashed the David Crosby album--and I heard that was the review that got the biggest negative reader in RS history.

Prog actually fared better than Metal. Not that much better--mostly two or three stars.

Sample one-star review:

Denise McCann
I Have a Destiny
Tattoo Man (both one-star)

In no danger of being mistaken for Donna Summer (a fact some friendly soul might whisper into Denise's ear).
- Dave Marsh

Most of the one liners are along the lines of "Boring hard rock band."

The 1992 edition also gives Crosby one star, if I remember correctly. Nevermind gets 3 1/2; I bet it gets more in the newer edition. The 1992 edition is the one I grew up with, for better or for worse (my roommates in college called it my bible, b/c I read it so much, lol pre-internet days). I bought the older editions a few years back and despite my vast disagreements with Marsh and co.'s taste, I find them all a lot of fun to read.

When I was about 12 or 13 and starting to get into music (pre-internet and living in a tiny desert town with no access to stuff like fanzines or even Spin) I found a copy of this at the library and read it repeatedly. Looking at it again, I realize that I must have internalized lots of opinions about records I'd never heard. I think I actively avoided some bands--Hawkwind, for example--because I remembered that they were supposed to suck. Maybe that's why looking at these ratings sort of set me off--it's like finding a videotape of some drunk uncle who used to tell you lies about women telling you those very lies.

I read them to get ideas of things I've not heard of, but might like; a discovermental gateway, you might say. For instance I was turned on to Keith Whitley, one of my great musical loves, by the 1992 edition's rave reviews.

Lemme tell you sumthin bout JUDAS PRIEST, kid
http://attwoodstudios.com/images/portraits/olddrunk.jpg

http://www.wpunj.edu/coac/music/marshleeds.jpg

dave marsh (L) explains why devo sucks

Who is on the (R)? Is he providing cheat notes?

Or more likely just letting Dave know to wrap it up.

I saw Alabama on their farewell tour, but couldn't hum a single song of theirs.

There was a new Alejandro Escovedo album that came out last year, "Real Animal." It's not a bad record by any means, but the CD had this big sticker on it that said "Album of the Year - Dave Marsh." I didn't know what to make of it. I mean, first of all, it was nowhere near the album of the year, or even the album of Alejandro's career. Second of all, Marsh's fucking wife manages Escovedo, so there's that. Third and last, what kind of cachet does Marsh's endorsement on anything carry? Does he even write any more?

Sorry, it was just wrong (and rong) on so many different levels I just had to get that off of my chest.

Anyway: something by Sabbath.

I voted for Sabbath S/T, 2nd place would be Crosby. Those are pretty good records. There's nothing I absolutely love on this list though.

ok holy shit @ the Alabama tour bus pic above, that looks so plush!

there is that RS worldview that rock has to build on the past and grow smarter and more "important" with every year and this gets many a goat.

Okay.. and plenty of records were released since then that actually DID this that were given mediocre ratings..

Why were people so dumb in the 70s?

Automatic thread bump. This poll is closing tomorrow.

CAPTAIN BEYOND

fuck you rolling stone

and i'm voting for that because i'm sure crosby, sabbath, hawkwind, etc, will already be well-represented.

I like Dave Marsh, but I couldn't take him QUITE so seriously again after he wrote that Ronald Reagan was personally responsible for killing his father.

Fucking staggering. Impossible to choose.

Dexys or Bow Wow Wow.

― DavidM, Friday, April 17, 2009 9:51 AM (3 days ago) Bookmark

there is that RS worldview that rock has to build on the past and grow smarter and more "important" with every year and this gets many a goat. dumb fun or even straight up "fun" is somehow suspect. i was reading old nrbq reviews by xgau and, by the last album he reviewed, he honestly thought there was something WRONG or suspect or even creepy about a band that continued to sing catchy pop novelties after 40 years. he kept looking for the expansion of a worldview or some progression or SOMETHING that they refused to give him. he did find relief with one 80's album where he felt the nostalgic "fun" was justified in some way or was some perfect summation of the fun that nrbq liked to have. i dunno, it was weird to read them all in a row. it kind of summed up for me what my problem is with HIS worldview. looking for stuff that isn't there. or wanting it to be there in the first place. this works with actual songs, pointing out what doesn't work...wanting stuff to fit your own politics/preferences and chastizing it for not doing that...it just bugs me. i guess i'm more a fan of close reading when it comes to music: this is what i am listening to. this is what it sounds like. pointing out why something is beneath me is not gonna endear me to your crit tech. but, like chuck says, these books are a hoot. and fun to read.

(and going from sun ra covers to singing with captain lou after 40 years is plenty enough progression for me. somehow.)

― scott seward, Friday, April 17, 2009 12:48 PM (3 days ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

^^^good post

re killing Marsh's father...I had read he had blamed Neil Young (for supporting Reagan, true)...

I'm assuming one of those sabotages is sabbath bloody sabbath, oh well they were nothing if not consistent

metal blind spot hat trick of sabbath/rainbow/priest means I vote space ritual

Anyway, I was playing Atomic Rooster yesterday (a best-of double CD, though, not that particular album.) What funky dudes; I'm voting for them.

Not entirely convinced Alabama and Crosby didn't deserve 1-star ratings now and then, btw; not sure about those albums. And never heard that second Adverts one -- they give the debut four stars (when it deserved five, but whatever), and guess I just believed them when they called Cast of Thousands a major falloff.

― xhuxk, Thursday, April 16, 2009 7:09 PM (5 days ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

guess who's bizzack?

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

gott punch and I, lone voices

shit I shoulda voted for Black Oak Arkansas

18 votes for the various Sabbath albums--which is still a smaller margin than I expected over Dexy's (which I didn't expect at all.)

lolz britishes

Look at all those Alabama votes.

This is from the 1979 guide with the red cover but I didn't want to start a new thread.

Nektar

"The debut, A Tab (in the Ocean), released in 1972, features Roy Albrighton's hot guitar and screechy vocals over a tape-loop rhythm section; it's nearly fifty minutes of pure noise, a must for anyone who's ever passed out with headphones on and volume up full."

Ok so I listened to A Tab in the Ocean on the strength of this review and, um, it's got to be the most off-the-mark description in record review history. "Tape-loop rhythm section" and "pure noise" are what drew me in. But unless some massive poetic license is being taken with both terms, that's soooooo not what's on the album.

Can the three or four Nektar fans on ILM confirm?

Yep, and you're totally right KJB - I bought that record back around '90 or so, based on that very review! I was gleefully anticipating something like "Metal Machine Music" w/rhythm section. Big disappointment. (And it's nowhere near 50 minutes! More like 36 or so.)

Played it again recently and it's not so bad, but damn that review is off-the-mark. Was that (Southern Ontario's own) Alan Niester?

Hm, there should be a thread devoted to that phenomenon - "Have you ever bought a record, motivated entirely by a scathing review?" I certainly have.

I was gleefully anticipating something like "Metal Machine Music" w/rhythm section.

That literally made laugh out loud because that's pretty much where my head was too.

Was that (Southern Ontario's own) Alan Niester?

'Twas. Was this typical of his reviews? I guess "tape-loop" means "the rhythm section lacks heart/soul" and "pure noise" means "I hated listening to it." But even in 1979, those two phrases would've conjured up visions of Metal Machine Music w/rhythm section, if not dancey rhythm section.

No Chilliwack, no cred.

Hm, there should be a thread devoted to that phenomenon - "Have you ever bought a record, motivated entirely by a scathing review?" I certainly have.

bad or negative reviews that sold you on an album

Ha! And you posted on it, MVB! :)

Trouserpress was much more my bible, though I only read it at the library. And even then, I knew it was off the mark at times, citing anomalies like Bad Religion Into the Unknown as their greatest work. (I think Chuck agrees with this sentiment but it's still rong).

Anyway, I missed voting on this but would have gone with Devo since that's my favorite Devo album and they're one of my favorite bands.

Of course even in the 80s, there was a lot of misinformation still being spread that Sabbath couldn't play their instruments. Sure, maybe at a few concerts where they were too stoned on hash to stand--but clearly those guys are some of the best hard rock players ever. I was always puzzled by these rumors.

So, is you doing the "zero stars" poll, or would James Chance and the Contortions walk it?

They'd certainly be in contention, but I'd bet Queen would take it.

xxxxxpost - KJB, that's not even my worst ILM-memory lapse this week! (As the "#1 Hits of 1949" thread demonstrates.)

Recently picked up the red 1979 one (which I owned as a teen) - feel that giving the 5 listed Vangelis albums one star each with one par of huffy dismissal by D.M. is a classic of this genre.

I live in a country (Australia) which doesn't really have any remaining platforms for music criticism - in a world where breathless PR enthusiasm is basically all there is, I have found this an almost scandalously enjoyable book to revisit (albeit one that is full of deeply wrong and assholish opinions).

The jazz section actually seems quite good? Lots of correct opinions about Anthony Braxton, Art Ensemble of Chicago etc which I might not have expected - and kind of interesting snapshot of the AACM/fusion/ECM 1970s - although the absence of a listing for Alice Coltrane is a bit sus.

RS totally not getting on the Sabbath bandwagon.

LOL Dave Marsh, what a clown.

Sorry to be a pee-dant, but the 2nd (blue / "New") edition of the RS Record Guide was published in '83 (not '82).

iirc, Bob Blumenthal wrote a good chunk of the “jazz” entries in the 1979 edition (and the later 1984 Rolling Stone Jazz Record Guide). He also programmed the 1979 White House “jazz” day, which featured Cecil Taylor and Charles Mingus, among others.

Dave Marsh likes Sabbath to some degree, so as editor, it’s disappointing that he didn’t assign them to a critic who digs them. Marsh has called out fellow critics — Christgau in particular — for their anti-metal stances:

I think he hates rock ‘n’ roll. I don’t even think he makes much of a secret about it. If you actually look at his reviews, he doesn’t like rock bands. He said some miserably – I can’t think of a better way to put it but bigoted things about, for instance, the heavy metal audience.

IIRC, Rolling Stone hated Zeppelin for years.

Their one star for Dylan’s Saved was pretty horribly wrong, IMO.

Right? That one deserved a star and a half, at least.

After 19 years, nobody thinks they'll publish another one of these, do they?

LOL Dave Marsh, what a clown.

I hate him

if this is the blue version as opposed to the earlier red one, one of the only saving graces is Lester Bangs only review - a 5-star for Richard Hell/Voidoids Blank Generation. Marsh's review of the X albums is shameful and disgusting.

Jesus, the Black Sabbath hate is comical.

FWIW, I love the Byrds, I think CS&N's debut and CSN&Y's "debut" (if it counts as a debut) are okay, but I hate that Crosby album.

xp and yeah Marsh is a joke when you read his take on X. Trouser Press and Christgau's Consumer Guides are far more reliable than RS (though Christgau also hates on Sabbath but he admits he's allergic to metal).

i don't really think the issue is with marsh - i like him better than i like, say, erlewine. it's the whole "Let's have A Review of Every Album" thing. even considering that that model of record reviewing is sort of a technological artifact - here are all these records, i'll read this book to figure out which ones i should spend money on - the old Penguin Guide approach just seems to make more sense. why write about bad records other than for one's own entertainment and/or the entertainment of one's readers?

Marsh (and many of his contemporaries) didn't just think of the records as bad, they thought of them as wrong, detrimental to the Art of Rock. These guides must feature some of the most extensive, wide-ranging negative judgements on art (outside of a few movie guides, maybe).

xp Yeah, I think I agree with that. It just occurred to me that I rarely (maybe never?) came across anything less than two stars in the Penguin Guide for Jazz. They must be there, but I think usually when something's that bad, they omit it. The only reason to include such a release would be if it were a misstep or a poor decision of a release for a major artist.

Also I posted this in another thread, but 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.''

with the Sabbath hate, I have to imagine (and my imagination may be very wrong cos I WASN'T THERE) that Sabbath in the early 70s felt to some like goregrind bands feel to jaded old metalheads nowadays. not in terms of songcraft obv but in how it might seem to some like the band is posturing as this dark, evil thing and thus it's fun to front and take the steam out of it by acting like you're above that thing and "see through it".

which is a stupid reduction of what Sabbath is, but there are still people who think of Sabbath in caricaturic terms nowadays, which is a shame.

If Robert Palmer’s 1995 PBS series is any indication, he vastly prefers Kiss — who are interviewed and taken seriously and given several minutes in the show — to Springsteen, who is dismissed in a sentence or two as empty stadium spectacle.

Marsh’s Doors hate is as otm as his X hate is…um…off…tm. (?) I appreciate that Marsh’s Doors reviews in the 1983 edition replaced Billy Altman’s embarrassingly over-the-top praise in the 1979 edition. (Not that Altman was always so misguided: his Zeppelin, Kinks, and Velvets entries are completely spot-on.)

Christgau was genuinely scared of Satanism and the occult, read his review of Ed Sanders' sensationalist Manson book The Family:

https://www.robertchristgau.com/xg/bkrev/sanders-nyt.php

At best, he thought that Sabbath were ignorantly and crassly exploiting these themes.

amusing of course given the lyrics on Master of Reality

xp I'm not a huge fan of the Doors, but they have my respect because a lot of my favorite artists saw something in them that really inspired them: Iggy Pop, Patti Smith, Blondie, X, etc. With that in mind, I made an effort to look past what I didn't like about them, and while their records still have risible elements to them, I think I see the connection and appreciate what works. I'd say side 1 of their debut is the closest they came to a truly great album - I wish they managed to sustain that quality through side 2. Otherwise Xgau's recommendation of the single U.S. CD The Very Best of the Doors is spot-on, it gathers nearly every essential track. I would've squeezed in "Moonlight Drive" (Two-Lane Blacktop made me notice it) and "Land Ho!" (one of Lester Bangs's favorites).

After reading the X review, it’s illuminating (in a way) to read Marsh’s X Ray Spex and XTC blurbs on the same page… they form a triad of sorts.

FWIW, the RS guide is more fun to read in the john than the TP guide (…despite the latter initialism).

find myself very keen to pick up both the dedicated jazz volume and the "new" blue guide

Christgau was genuinely scared of Satanism and the occult, read his review of Ed Sanders' sensationalist Manson book The Family:

― Halfway there but for you

hey xgau, satan respects pronouns

i've really come around to the doors over time. i mean i don't _like_ them exactly but they were an _enormously_ influential band, which these days i value more than their (in retrospect) extremely obvious limitations.

I guess the most head-scratching one on here is Duty Now For the Future. I can see a critic hating on the rest of this stuff, especially my personal favorites like Gentle Giant & Hawkwind, but the idea of a magazine critic hating an early Devo album is nuts. it should be like catnip to them.

Marsh hates their “quasi-libertarian” schtick.

I know the 500 worst RS reviews list on rym (whose author seems to permanently change it) has its own conceptual faults but it's quite alarming (in a very intriguing way) when it reaches the 79 and 83 RS Album Guides. I mean, 1 star for Cut from Wayne King. What planet et al.

Doors > X obv wtf

Doors > X obv wtf

X had 3 1/2 good albums (the first three and about half of More Fun...), and a forgettable-but-at-least-not-embarrassing comeback album. The Doors had 3 good albums, but not in a row (the debut, Morrison Hotel and LA Woman). X win.

Number One in Heaven by Sparks got a single star, which would have been two but each Sparks album was docked a star for being somewhat responsible for Queen.

Also, each Triumph album was docked a star each (putting them all at zero) for plotting world domination from Canada.

Entirely fair

About Queen, I mean

The SOP for these guides is to give the greatest hits record of a hated group a slightly higher rating, as if to say, "If you must sully your ears with this group, here's a compilation". Thus I "admire" the thoroughness of also giving one star to We Sold Our Souls For Rock'n'Roll.

each Sparks album was docked a star for being somewhat responsible for Queen.

Now they're celebrated for the same thing.

in retrospect it's pretty easy to see how fucked up marsh's rock and roll ethos was, where he went wrong. it's not so much _hating_ sabbath, it's the sort of _virtue_ he saw in guys like springsteen, this desire, in reagan's america, to _believe_ that Ordinary People, meaning to marsh "working-class straight white men", possessed natural Virtue, a virtue which could only be cultivated and expressed by a certain variety of rock music.

the idea that the best way to promote liberal values was by listening _exclusively_ to roots rock music made by straight white men is totally fucked, but that was the world i grew up in, you know?

it's not so much _hating_ sabbath, it's the sort of _virtue_ he saw in guys like springsteen, this desire, in reagan's america, to _believe_ that Ordinary People, meaning to marsh "working-class straight white men", possessed natural Virtue, a virtue which could only be cultivated and expressed by a certain variety of rock music.

He's definitely more than just a closed-minded white rock dude; he genuinely loves 60s soul and 70s funk as well (he's written books on Sam & Dave, Sly & the Family Stone, and P-Funk) and has been quoted as saying that rap is more significant than punk in music history. He's a dickhead, but he's a complex dickhead.

He was disdainful of the Bowie-Ferry influence on pop but loved Madonna. He included Newcleus' "Jam On It" among the best singles of all-time. He blamed Neil Young for killing his dad. A weird crank, this Marsh.

Now they're celebrated for the same thing.

First I've heard. It doesn't make much sense anyway as Queen had a hit single before Sparks got anywhere near any chart anywhere in the world.

right, that's why i _do_ have genuine respect for marsh despite this bullshit narrative the rs record guide pushes, there are areas of music where marsh has made a genuine positive contribution as a critic. i understand cognitive dissonance pretty well by now, haha.

Yeah, Marsh writing about the music he loves - especially in the Heart of Rock and Soul, one of the all-time great music book toilet reads - is far more worthwhile than him making snarky judgments about records that were never going to appeal to him, and that he doesn't understand. In hindsight, he seems entirely unsuited to editing a wide-ranging consumer guide, although it's difficult to think of more suitable candidates at the time - Simon Frith, maybe?

I thought it got even worse than one star in one of the editions. Thought some good stuff was getting one square which I thought was even lower.
Worth looking through to see what had bothered them enough to spark reaction.
Anti-rockist good taste? Like? I'm sure they'd like to think.

xp Wait, how was Neil Young to blame for Dave Marsh's dad's death???

Also I agree about Heart of Rock and Soul - Marsh is a much better read when he's talking about what he likes, but I guess that's possibly true for most people. Like Billy Ocean's "Get Outta My Dreams, Get Into My Car"? Not my idea of one of THE great singles in pop, but I'm more than happy to hear Marsh make that case.

xpost Did he mean that Neil Young killed Mr Young senior?

Neil Young killed Mr Marsh

Neil Young killed Neil Old

well they hurt him bad.
really hurt his feelings.

Wait, how was Neil Young to blame for Dave Marsh's dad's death???

By coming out in support of Reagan.

teach
your children
trickle down economics

Neil Young couldn’t vote for Reagan, joke’s on Marsh

He should've dedicated Living with War to Dave Marsh's dead, maybe it would've resurrected him.

*dad not dead

Neil Young killed Mr Marsh

― Weltanschauung Dunston (Neanderthal), T

with his powderfinger

Otherwise Xgau's recommendation of the single U.S. CD The Very Best of the Doors is spot-on, it gathers nearly every essential track. I would've squeezed in "Moonlight Drive" (Two-Lane Blacktop made me notice it) and "Land Ho!" (one of Lester Bangs's favorites).

― birdistheword, Wednesday, August 17, 2022 10:55 PM (yesterday) bookmarkflaglink

Marsh actually suggested something similar in his RS 1983 entry, that the right compilation could make the Doors look decent ("forgetting that stuff like 'The End' ever existed, except as a mistaken plunge into pomposity").

Yeah, Marsh writing about the music he loves - especially in the Heart of Rock and Soul, one of the all-time great music book toilet reads - is far more worthwhile than him making snarky judgments about records that were never going to appeal to him, and that he doesn't understand. In hindsight, he seems entirely unsuited to editing a wide-ranging consumer guide, although it's difficult to think of more suitable candidates at the time - Simon Frith, maybe?

― Ward Fowler, Thursday, August 18, 2022 10:33 AM (forty-five minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

Marsh had some awareness of his blind spots. His wrongheaded Pere Ubu entry in the 1979 edition (hilariously filed under "U") was replaced with a rave by someone else in the 1983 edition, which gave four stars to The Modern Dance and Dub Housing and five to the Datapanik In The Year Zero EP.

Yeah, that happened with Richard Hell - Marsh's completely clueless dismissal was replaced with a complete re-evaluation by Lester Bangs.

Also as bad as "The End" gets during its climax, it does work great in Apocalypse Now - Coppola and Murch picked the right bits to use.

xpost

That made me dig out my red and blue. '83 Pere Ubu entry written by Kenn Lowy - "an electronic guitarist and e-bowist and a member of wrinklemusik" - who clearly knows the band pretty well, talking about PU's live shows etc.

At the back of the '83 edition there's a great list of acts who have vanished from blue because their records are now all out of print - some pretty big names among the obscurities.

Both the red and the blue co-edited by John Swenson, a writer I don't know at all, but maybe he was responsible for the PU review swap? Interestingly, the blue is co-copyrighted to Rolling Stone Press and Marsh, whereas the red was (c) RSP only. Poor old Swenson doesn't get a look in either way.

I think Nick Drake was one of the high profile omissions from the blue/'83 edition. I remember someone (I think Greg Kot in the Chicago Tribune) pointing that out while explaining why his sudden resurgence as a major artist in the late '90s/'00s was so unexpected. (Not for that reason, but it was reflective of how he had dropped off people's radars.)

Swenson wrote a number of electric blues entries in the '83 edition (and maybe also in the '79 edition, but I'm not as familiar with that one), and the entries on the Who, Zappa, and Rush. Sadly, he passed away recently:

https://variety.com/2022/music/obituaries-people-news/john-swenson-dead-rock-journalist-writer-jazz-rolling-stone-1235219168/

xp

Yeah, the thing about the RS guides was that it was about what consumers could actually obtain -- why write about long-deleted albums if no one can find them (is what I imagine the thinking was)? Some fairly important artists, notably Marsh faves the MC5, aren't covered in either guide.

xp

Penguin Jazz Guide operated on the same principle, I guess following the example of the Penguin Classical Guide. By the time of the jazz guide, and the height of CD reissues, I think they had the devil's own job trying to keep on top of what was in and out print, and didn't always get it right.

Interesting about Nick Drake - I thought Joe Boyd had made it a condition that those recs remained constantly in print, but maybe that was only in the UK.

If Drake's records were still in print in the UK, that shouldn't have prevented him from being covered. The '83 RS guide had a few import-only entries. No Midnight Oil records had yet been released in the US, but they have an entry, and Australian imports were decidedly harder to come by in the US than UK imports. And for a number of Atlantic/Stax artists, there are some Japanese imports listed for out-of-print-in-the-US '60s titles (though the abbreviation the guide uses for Japanese is a slur, and I don't know how that didn't occur to the editors).

It always shocking to see "13 Years Pass" in the middle a thread I started. I wonder if we polled this today if Dexy's would get so many more votes than like "Sad Wings of Destiny"

I thought I might have misremembered the business about Joe Boyd insisting that Drake's recs were kept in print, but it's mentioned in this (interesting!) interview:

https://bradleybambarger.medium.com/interview-folk-rock-producer-joe-boyd-and-his-magical-mystery-tour-bde589ca3127

I thought the same.

fwiw I think the reissue of the "Fruit Tree" boxset in 1986 kick-started interest in Nick Drake in the UK. It was originally issued in 1979, but I don't know how much of an impact it made.

Yes, I remember that Tom D. But I think I first heard about Nick Drake the previous year, when Dream Academy released their Drake tribute 'Life in a Northern Town' and gave music press interviews about him.

Very probably, there was a single LP comp released around the same time. Getting "Five Leaves Left" out of Paisley Central Library was my introduction!

I think RS just left Nick Drake off because they didn't think much of him, not because his stuff was unavailable. They did that for a lot of artists in the blue volume, and actually they continued to do that in later editions - I think it was more of a space issue.

In retrospect, it's fascinating to think that writers so embedded in the music world of the time really saw Springsteen as less of a schtick than Bowie, The Clash "realer" than Siouxsie, etc. I lived by the blue guide for the first few years of my record buying, and it's pretty weird how conservative some of their choices were even for artists they were keen on - guiding me to Loaded for the Velvets, Siren for Roxy Music didn't create good first impressions. But these guides really valorize a very narrow range of rhythms and textures, stuff that's confined to the Americana/Power Pop/Traditional Soul these days.

oh that's right, Siren was the only 5-star Roxy album

I think RS just left Nick Drake off because they didn't think much of him, not because his stuff was unavailable.

I doubt that's the case -- look how many one- and zero-star reviews there are throughout the book. If they left out artists simply because they didn't like them, the book would be 1/3rd the size. And Fairport got a rave writeup (I think Sandy Denny and Steeleye Span were also favorably reviewed), so I doubt there was any kind of anti-English-folk bias.

and it's pretty weird how conservative some of their choices were even for artists they were keen on - guiding me to Loaded for the Velvets

The Velvet Underground and Nico also got five stars. For that matter, so did Public Image Limited's Metal Box, from Dave Marsh himself.

VU and Nico was out of print then, too, so it took a while to track it down. The book did guide me to Second Edition/Metal Box tho'. So yeah. The were up on reggae, which was maybe part of why they dug that. That said, This is Augustus Pablo was a weird choice to guide me towards when I wanted to explore dub, as it did not have that big Black Ark sound I wanted more of after hearing Black Market Clash. Great little record, but closer to Booker T and the MGs than the whacked out spacescape I was hoping for!

I don't think the Marsh etc perspective is really as complex folks are saying.....RS liked American pop music traditions and were suspicious of the British artists who didn't express reverence toward those traditions.

Forgot, when I first found those guides, one thing that was surprising to me was how many albums (including big ones by major artists) went OOP during the pre-CD era. (They usually noted that in the actual guide reviews while leaving those albums out in the preceding discography. I think most of the Aretha Franklin's Atlantic albums were OOP during publication of one guide.

xp ...and just didn't much like punk/New Wave (even if US-originating), yeah?

It's fun to compare DM's Richard Hell & the Voidoids blurb from the red book ("Jack Kerouac said everything here first, and far better. (...) Stick with the Ramones, or someone else with a sense of humor.") with Bangs' review in the blue book ("Hell is a true poet even though he thinks so (...) Essential to any modern music collection or anybody concerned about the dead-end quality of contemporary life in the West").

Some of the reviews read like responses to other critics, and maybe bent the stick a bit too far. Not that I don't love Blank Generation, but I think Bangs is responding to Marsh as much as he's trying to convince people to check it out. Similarly with Marsh's X hate, which feels like it's mostly a response to Christgau's (over-the-top?) praise for them.

xp ...and just didn't much like punk/New Wave (even if US-originating), yeah?

He liked the Pistols, Clash, Jam, Ramones -- as you'd expect him too -- but also Wire, XTC, and PiL. I think he may have changed his mind on X-Ray Spex, as I recall a song or two of theirs showing up in some list (favorably so) in the 1994 New Book of Rock Lists. He obviously wasn't into Devo at all, and (wrongly, imo, but I can sort of understand his perspective) didn't dig Television, but he utterly despised the Knack.

He dug disco, though. I'm leaving myself open to correction on this, but I believe he was the only reporter in a mainstream US publication at the time that called the 1979 Disco Demolition what it was, a racist and homophobic book-burning:

“Your most paranoid fantasy about where the ethnic cleansing of the rock radio could ultimately lead... White males, eighteen to thirty-four are the most likely to see Disco as the product of homosexuals, Blacks and Latins, and therefore they’re the most likely to respond to appeals to wipe out such threats to their security.”

xp I don't even necessarily love Blank Generation, but "Hell is a true poet even though he thinks so" is just the best f'in line...

The interesting (to me) line in Marsh's XTC blurb is "one of the few arty avant-gardists of the post-punk movement that can really rock out, which means that it sweats enough to earn its pretentions (and maybe even its nihilism)."

So I guess he basically thought arty stuff was pretentious, and someone like the Voidoids didn't "rock" enough to earn their nihilism, but XTC managed to win his approval on those grounds?

I've never been able to find the original source for this, but I remember Jim DeRogatis complaining about Dave Marsh leaving the Ramones out of his Heart & Soul book (this was decades after the fact) because Marsh allegedly said their music had "no blues."

DM's Wire piece doesn't really make clear why he likes them so much (even though he says their "motives are (...) self-consciously arty"); it's fairly descriptive.

Marsh definitely gravitated towards music that evinced, to whatever degree, some reflection of blues and/or r&b. He was well aware that this left some people out:

I think that there was something going on in the music of, let’s say, the MC5, the Dolls, the Sex Pistols, that is not going on in most other punk music. That’s a gross way to put it, and it’s unfair to all kinds of people – it’s unfair to Pete Shelley – but as a general thing, that was what was happening.

That doesn't mean he thought the Ramones or the Buzzcocks were worthless -- he dug them -- but it explains his viewpoint and biases.

yet he likes Wire1

!

Wait, was this thread revive a coincidence?

We added a bunch of features to the new @RollingStone site. One thing we're not doing any more: giving star ratings to new music. https://t.co/p70cBEByXq pic.twitter.com/uuhIPzKyC8

— Noah Shachtman (@NoahShachtman) August 18, 2022

Fantastic idea! I love everything about it. I give this idea three and one-half stars https://t.co/V9h4qqbFO0

— Jason Isbell (@JasonIsbell) August 18, 2022

If you’re into pop culture in 2022, you’re too sophisticated to let some arbitrary number guide your tastes.

Whoa! Shots fired!

I support this move (not that I visit RollingStone.com)

"So we'll tell you right away when a new single is an instant classic or an album is an absolute must-hear. After that, our critics will help you make up your own damn mind."

So, wut? This is a word based rating system?

Yeah, the reason given is asinine, but I agree, they should get rid of the star system.

There was value to it, and someone like the Penguin Guides used it well, but RS didn't. Pitchfork's famous numerical system is ridiculously stupid for that matter - nothing against the written reviews, but grading but tenths of a point like it was an Olympic event is fucking asinine.

*grading by tenths of a point

RS didn't give star ratings initially, and I think only starting using them in the early '80s. There was a period in the '80s, maybe '86-'87, where they dispensed with stars, then brought them back again in the late '80s.

When they were rocked to the core by Appetite for Destruction and were like -- oh shit, we gotta bring five stars back!!

(j/k)

(it did get five stars, tho)

lmao

I guess now that U2 and Springsteen have considerably slowed their output, RS has little use for 5-star ratings anymore.

i think star ratings are good when discussing an artist with a big catalogue (and when being used in good faith, obvs). like it makes sense to differentiate that yes, you should check out bob dylan because he made some good albums, however these are those albums and so on. of course for someone just putting out their first or second album in the 2020's — pfork's mad scientist score system makes about as much sense as no score system. of course, the way rs announces it is without sense of self-awareness whatsoever. chucklesigh

really enjoying this revive. i had both in the late 90s/early 2000s and very much used them as a guide — consistently low ratings for the cure and consistently high ones for springstink made sense to me. it was clear that they were completely backwards. the reviews were hilarious; i always remember thinking "these guys would get roasted if they said this shit now on the internet."

As mentioned in other threads, RS used to give 5-star reviews to artists they wanted exclusive interviews with. Unless Jagger's Goddess In The Doorway is some kinda otherwise-unheralded classic.

Here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wUk_Dqiow0A

I didn't read Wenner's bio, but apparently it talks about why RS pegged U2's misbegotten Songs of Innocence as AOY - apparently Wenner said to make it #1 on the grounds that U2 were his friends. He made that blatantly and unapologetically clear.

The Sticky Fingers bio, not his memoir.

Is that the album that was force-fed into everyone's iTunes?

mark prindle made me aware that the positive critique "rich phrasing" is used to describe jagger's vocal performance on goddess in the doorway in the rs review.

i'd like to describe that sort of music criticism itself as having a lot of rich phrasing, but probably not in the same way that rolling stone meant it.

xp yup, that's the one! (I actually like "Every Breaking Wave" but it belonged on No Line on the Horizon and it almost was.)

The book did guide me to Second Edition/Metal Box tho'. So yeah. The were up on reggae, which was maybe part of why they dug that.

All of the reggae entries — with the exception of The Harder They Come in the soundtracks section — were by one Randall Grass, who seemed to know his stuff.

agreed, 5 stars for Black Uhuru's "Red" iirc

Marsh actually suggested something similar in his RS 1983 entry, that the right compilation could make the Doors look decent ("forgetting that stuff like 'The End' ever existed, except as a mistaken plunge into pomposity").

― Montgomery Burns' Jazz (Tarfumes The Escape Goat)

if the doors hadn't written "the end", nico couldn't have done her version. check and mate, marsh.

When PIL released 'Death Disco' (aka 'Swan Lake') ahead of Metal Box, it was widely assumed that this was an anti-disco tune - death TO disco. Rotten had to point out that PIL were definitely pro-disco, so perhaps that softened old Disco Dave up.

I don't know who assumed that. There's a disco tune on the first album!

Perhaps the 'widely' is overstating it, but Danny Baker mentions it here in a long piece about PIL

The new Public Image single will be 'Death Disco', and not, as somewhat hopefully reported in another paper, 'Death To Disco'. In fact Wobble believes disco music to be the closest sound to what PIL are doing. Certainly, and believe me, I'd have no bones about stating otherwise were it the case, 'Death Disco' has one of the most powerful backlines to be heard this side of Chic. It fair knifes along, with John howling "See it through my eeyyyyyeeessss" over the whole ferocious affair.

https://www.fodderstompf.com/ARCHIVES/INTERVIEWS/nme79.html

Christgau was genuinely scared of Satanism and the occult, read his review of Ed Sanders' sensationalist Manson book The Family:

― Halfway there but for you

hey xgau, satan respects pronouns

― Kate (rushomancy)

like i wanna be fair xgau is right that the occult has power that can be dangerous if not handled carefully but sabbath were never going to do any harm to any of them, all cishet men know how to do with the occult is use it as an excuse to get super goddamn fucked up and high. that's why bowie's occultism was always so much more dangerous than sabbath's, because he possessed queer energy in addition to consuming fucking mountains of cocaine.

or strengthened by consuming mountains of cocaine!

Sabbath were Xtians who liked weird stuff and drugs

Was Sabbath generally seen as campy back in the day? (Not in a bad way - only in the sense that their shtick wasn't considered dangerous, just fun or at least amusing.) Granted this was 30+ years later when he cleaned up and mellowed out, but I was actually introduced to Sabbath/Ozzy by 9/11 of all things. It was Conan O'Brien's first show or first week back, and this sketch had the premise of Conan bringing Ozzy into the office to lift morale. This may have inspired the reality show that later aired on MTV, but Ozzy came off as innocuous - a feel-good and amusing presence.

It was actually a few weeks after 9/11. Here it is:

https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x9h60v

xgau is right that the occult has power that can be dangerous if not handled carefully

This is also why he was so flustered about Funkadelic quoting the Process Church on a couple of their records; the Sanders book made some vague accusations of human sacrifice against the group.

xxp speaking as someone who had just turned 14 when Blizzard Of Ozz came out (my intro to the band was the We Sold Our Souls comp after much radio listening), part of the appeal has always been the 50/50 mix of campy and scary, which can be shifted as per the subjective feelings of the listener, which accounts for their mass appeal in part

idk if the Process ever sacrificed anyone, but they sure were a fucked up cult which Clinton has since disavowed iirc?

I mean my favorite thing to do is sing "my name is Lucifer please take my hand"

So sleeve otm

\M/

all cishet men know how to do with the occult is use it as an excuse to get super goddamn fucked up and high. that's why bowie's occultism was always so much more dangerous than sabbath's, because he possessed queer energy in addition to consuming fucking mountains of cocaine.

ime neurodivergence has been a better indicator than queer energy of, uh, talents related to the occult in both women and men.

ikwym tho- e.g. Terence McKenna

por que no los dos?

por que no los dos?

― thinkmanship (sleeve)

i mean yeah given that i self-identify as a chaos lesbian because "disaster lesbian" makes it look like i have my shit together more than i actually do, my sample is biased, but the people i know are just part of that whole constellation, queer, neurodiverse, into occult shit, anarchist and/or communist, likes drugs, is really into synthesizers, you know, the whole thing

sounds like a fun gang <3

All of the reggae entries — with the exception of The Harder They Come in the soundtracks section — were by one Randall Grass, who seemed to know his stuff.

― Montgomery Burns' Jazz (Tarfumes The Escape Goat), Thursday, August 18, 2022 4:52 PM (six hours ago) bookmarkflaglink

agreed, 5 stars for Black Uhuru's "Red" iirc

― thinkmanship (sleeve),

I never took stars seriously, or xgau's letters either, just went by the text. A good reviewer can describe the review object and/or their own gut & head response to it well enough, that the reader can get a fair idea of whether they might like it or not: "Well enough" doesn't have to be any great piece of writing: if you already love something that xgau despises---and denounces, or just dismisses---then you can take his judgement on such music in a negative, Bizarro World way next time (and I've known people who do just that, on a regular basis). Lucky me, my tastes happened to coincide with his, more or less, for a long time, but I'm just using him as an example. I don't check reviews so much now.

xgau!

Paranoid [Warner Bros., 1970]
They do take heavy to undreamt-of extremes, and I suppose I could enjoy them as camp, like a horror movie--the title cut is definitely screamworthy. After all, their audience can't take that Lucifer bit seriously, right? Well, depends on what you mean by serious. Personally, I've always suspected that horror movies catharsized stuff I was too rational to care about in the first place. C-

Another one he got me to check out:

Master of Puppets [Elektra, 1986]
I feel at a generational disadvantage with this music not because my weary bones can't take its power and speed but because I was born too soon to have my dendrites rerouted by progressive radio.

This band's momentum can be pretty impressive, and as with a lot of fast metal (as well as some sludge) they seem to have acceptable political motivations--antiwar, anticonformity, even anticoke, fine. But the revolutionary heroes I envisage aren't male chauvinists too inexperienced to know better

they don't have hair like Samson and pecs like Arnold Schwarzenegger.

(Although I was already inclined to take a chance on them because of the hype this album was getting: hail and farewell, Cliff Burton.)

CANNOT KILL THE FAMILY

P sure by "progressive radio" he means the kinds of album-oriented rock radio stations that were regularly playing Zep, Floyd, Queen
and Tull alongside Sabbath and Purple. His point is that it's not too fast or heavy for him but too proggy and that's something that probably makes more sense to who was young enough to have grown up listening to all these bands that Xgau was already a cynical rock critic for.

This is also why he was so flustered about Funkadelic quoting the Process Church on a couple of their records; the Sanders book made some vague accusations of human sacrifice against the group.

... the Process Church, not Funkadelic, in case of confusion.

*to someone who was young

Re Xgau on Master of Puppets obv

sounds like a fun gang <3

― The 25 Best Songs Ever Ranked In Order (Deflatormouse)

it is but it's also the sort of life where it's a lot of work to stay healthy, we're all pretty fucked up and are trying to be less so

His point is that it's not too fast or heavy for him but too proggy I thought he might mean that, but made no sense to me, unless he found Cliff Burton's bass to be prog (proggy=prog?)(prog to me meant none of the bands you mention either)

Anyway, like I said, his prob, not mine, but at least he laid it out well enough, described some of their strong points well enough, that I felt and was proved right in going against his grade, so thanxgau

How's the original edition of The Rolling Stone Illustrated History of Rock & Roll? I was under the impression the entries written for that are pretty great. (I think the later edition was heavily re-done - not just updated, it replaced entries with new writing.)

Did they? I had a 1980-ish copy, and also whatever the current one was in 2004 (used as an elective class textbook) and it was kinda surprising how many essays were carried over, or at least had brief extensions.

I do think those are the sorts of bands he means, dow, that Kirk Hammett might have been hearing on rock station growing up in the 70s; maybe "album-oriented rock radio" would have been more accurate. It's clear enough to me what he's referring to - eight-minute compositions with multiple sections and bombastic dynamic contrasts, pseudo-classical instrumental passages (e.g. in the intro to "Battery" or the softer part of the title track, the Bach-inspired intro to "Damage Inc"), the (relative to a lot of things Xgau likes) emphasis on virtuosity, even e.g. the twinned guitar leads in "Battery".

that's the way I read it too. it's not 'prog' as in the traditional sense, drawing on classical, jazz, and other genres in an experimental style, but rather denser, more sophisticated arrangements within the existing metal framework.

Jesus christ, you guys! You have an opportunity to complain about Jann Wenner and Marsh at an extended length, and you end up fucking talking about Xgau? What the fuck is wrong with you?

1, I live near Marsh, in fancy-ass CT, which I assume is due to Barbara carr's earnings. I have seen him at various restaurants, all of which are at odds with his leftist/populist posturing, and all of which found him behaving in a Falstaffian manner.

but last spring I saw him at a lunch spot with what could only be a home health aide and —I guess it had to be Carr's grandson from another relationship? But what was unquestionable to me being around him at that time, and certainly compared to the dozen times I was around him since 1990, was Marsh's diminished comportment: I have heard from others that the reason they did that tribute to Dave Marsh thing via Zoom last year was down to his faltering cognition. It would seem to me, observing the kind of timid, needing his hand to be held behavior that was in effect last spring, that that tribute was intended to pat him on the head and remind him of his significance, after decades of him excoriating artists who had variously failed to live up to whatever standard he was enforcing at the time.

2. I have never understood the intrinsic appeal of Jann Wenner, having been around and being friends with people who worked for him: He seems to be kind of stupid, or at least irredeemably spoiled, long ago having squandered any talent or skill he might have had… If Mick Jagger or Bono consents to spend time with this guy, is it transparently that they are using him? Is his sucking up so gratifying that they continue to be friends with him over decades?

I’ve never heard anything positive about Wenner, so I’m not sure he is meant to have intrinsic appeal…?

I liked early 70s Marsh, especially when he actually got me to buy These Foolish Things and The Divine Miss M.

I don't mind Dave Marsh because growing up my local meteorologist's name was Dave Marsh and he was nice.

One of the first music books I ever bought was Marsh's The Book of Rock Lists, and I think it was a healthy experience to be challenged by someone whose taste differed so much from mine (and also, more conventionally, who recommended a lot of music I didn't yet know).

Marsh could be funny (like writing about a fictional compilation about masturbation songs), and when he is writing about something he loves (especially when it has a personal connection to him), he's great. The entry on "Soldier Boy" in his Heart & Soul book comes to mind.

Wenner just sounds so thoroughly terrible, but the people who worked with him early on, when RS was still based in San Francisco, seem to adore him. Cameron Crowe, Greil Marcus...Marcus was asked about this and the anecdotes he gave dated from like 1970. So I get the feeling Wenner was an amazing editor at the start, and that earned some lifelong good will from those close to him.

I have heard from others that the reason they did that tribute to Dave Marsh thing via Zoom last year was down to his faltering cognition. It would seem to me, observing the kind of timid, needing his hand to be held behavior that was in effect last spring, that that tribute was intended to pat him on the head and remind him of his significance, after decades of him excoriating artists who had variously failed to live up to whatever standard he was enforcing at the time.

I watched those Zooms, and didn't see any evidence of Marsh's allegedly faltering cognition. I thought the tribute was more about, "Let's celebrate people while they're still here rather than waiting until after they die." As for "excoriating artists who had variously failed to live up to whatever standard he was enforcing at the time," I mean, name a critic who has never done that. Hell, I can think of a few critics who only do that.

Cameron Crowe, Greil Marcus...Marcus was asked about this and the anecdotes he gave dated from like 1970. So I get the feeling Wenner was an amazing editor at the start, and that earned some lifelong good will from those close to him.

Crowe surely feels indebted to Wenner for giving a 16-year-old a shot. And Marsh has praised Wenner's early interviews, particularly the 1968 RS interview with Pete Townshend about his upcoming rock opera that, in terms of narrative, was much more coherent than the album ended up being. But I think Wenner soon reached a point of, "Boy oh boy, I get to hang out with rock stars!" and everything became fawning.

Yeah, and when Marcus complained about their initial review section, which consisted of whatever showed up in the mail, he was made their first review editor, and that's when his career in the rock press was established. He brought in some of the better writers from Crawdaddy, and also printed an over-the-transome denunciation of the MC5 debut by some kid named Lester Bangs (who of course later reversed his stance, with equal drama). The Rolling Stone Record Review, mass market pb, published by Stone's Straight Arrow Press, ca. '72, has some good stuff, like Ed Ward's encounter with a single by Little Feat, whom he's never heard of: "Strawberry Flats," with his take reminding me of encountering earliest Ubu---there's also some dated stuff in there, but it's not nearly as snotty as I remembered, or maybe I just haven't gotten that far. Very informative, anyway (Bangs gives tips on the Box Tops etc.)

*transom*

Here's Ward's review, w gratutitous follow-up which I posted onLittle Feat - S&D, C/D

First contact:
"Hamburger Midnight" b/w "Strawberry Flats"
Little Feat (Warner Brothers 7431)

This is the masterpiece. This is perhaps the best record I've heard in several months. As usual, Warner's has picked the wrong side as the A-side. "Hamburger Midnight" is indeed a fine song, reminiscent of Johnny Winter, crackling and sizzling through two minutes packed with incredible energy. Yet it pales against "Strawberry Flats," which must be one of thr definitive statements of "where youth is at today." Dig these {partial) lyrics:

Ripped off and run outta town/Got my git-tar burned/When I was clownin'/Haven't slept in a bed for a week/And my shoes feel like part of my feet/ Let me come down/Where I won't be burden to no-one/Let me around/Give me a hole to recline in...
Knocked on my friend's door in Mooody, Texas/Asked if he had a place for me/His hair was cut off and he was wearin' a suit/ He said,/
"Not in my house! Not in my house!"
/It seemed like part of a con-spir-a-cy.

The singer is "six hours out on Strawberry Flats" and trying to get past the school bus Texas roadblock where they're "stoppin' everybody who looks too weird." The music sounds like the Band taken one step further. and it is difficult to believe that they generate so much excitement in two minutes and 21 seconds. This anthem of the Age of Paranoia deserves to be in your collection and on every radio station in the country, although I realize as I write that it is wishful thinking. The group Little Feat seems to have ex-Mother Roy Estrada, a guy named George, and another guy named Payne in it. Warner Brothers says that they have an album coming. but they're not too sure when. Watch for it, and if you don't believe me, invest 77¢ or whatever in the single.
---Ed Ward 11-26-70 from The Rolling Stone Record Review(Pocket Book edition, August 1971)

― dow, Tuesday, March 2, 2021 4:03 PM (one year ago) bookmarkflaglink

follow-up:

He didn't yet recognize "a guy named George" as another Mother. wiki sez:
Formative years

Lowell George met Bill Payne when George was a member of Frank Zappa's Mothers of Invention. Payne had auditioned for the Mothers, but had not joined. They formed Little Feat along with former Mothers' bassist Roy Estrada and drummer Richie Hayward from George's previous band, The Factory. Hayward had also been a member of the Fraternity of Man whose claim to fame was the inclusion of their "Don't Bogart That Joint" on the million-selling Easy Rider film soundtrack. The name of the band came from a comment made by Mothers' drummer Jimmy Carl Black about Lowell's "little feet". The spelling of "feat" was an homage to the Beatles.

I always liked Ward’s reviews, and I believe he wrote the review of the soundtrack to Sun Ra’s Space Is The Place that contains the only mention (so far) of Bill Dixon in the pages of RS (though Dixon does have an entry in the RS “jazz” Record Guide).

If you're into logos/design – https://www.underconsideration.com/brandnew/archives/new_logo_for_rolling_stone_by_xyz_type.php

Is that no the "wrong way around" ?