What do you think?
Rate this book
Rolling Stone Album Guide: All New Reviews
A completely revised edition of the bestselling guide to popular recordings--featuring 2,500 entries and more than 12,500 album reviews. The definitive guide for the `90s.
- GenresMusicReferenceNonfiction
838 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1992
2 people are currently reading
239 people want to read
About the author
Anthony DeCurtis
48 books53 followersAnthony DeCurtis is an American author and music critic, who has written for Rolling Stone, The New York Times, Relix and other publications.
DeCurtis is now a contributing editor at Rolling Stone, where his work has appeared for more than thirty years. He holds a Ph.D. in American literature from Indiana University, and teaches in the creative writing program at the University of Pennsylvania. He is also a music critic for WFUV-FM, where he does on-air reviews.
DeCurtis's essay accompanying the Eric Clapton box set Crossroads won a Grammy in the "Best Album Notes" category, and on three occasions he has won ASCAP's Deems Taylor awards for excellence in writing about music. He has appeared as a commentator on MTV, VH1, the Today Show and many other news and entertainment programs. From 2006 through June of 2008 he directed and helped design the arts-and-culture curriculum at the City University of New York Graduate School of Journalism. He was an editorial consultant and the primary interviewer for "Joan Baez: How Sweet the Sound," a documentary for PBS American Masters.
DeCurtis is now a contributing editor at Rolling Stone, where his work has appeared for more than thirty years. He holds a Ph.D. in American literature from Indiana University, and teaches in the creative writing program at the University of Pennsylvania. He is also a music critic for WFUV-FM, where he does on-air reviews.
DeCurtis's essay accompanying the Eric Clapton box set Crossroads won a Grammy in the "Best Album Notes" category, and on three occasions he has won ASCAP's Deems Taylor awards for excellence in writing about music. He has appeared as a commentator on MTV, VH1, the Today Show and many other news and entertainment programs. From 2006 through June of 2008 he directed and helped design the arts-and-culture curriculum at the City University of New York Graduate School of Journalism. He was an editorial consultant and the primary interviewer for "Joan Baez: How Sweet the Sound," a documentary for PBS American Masters.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 14 of 14 reviews
August 8, 2013
Ten years later, along came a revised edition of Rolling Stone magazine's album reviews all packed into one increasingly thick volume.
The music world, especially pop, has expanded exponentially since the inception of recorded music and its ever increasing availability to the public. Yet, as fat as this book was becoming, its editors felt there was still room for the Kim Carneses and Irene Caras of the music world. Me, I would've pared things down a bit, trimmed the Meatloaf fat. I mean come on, some of these people hadn't put out an album in ages and back when they were current no one gave a shit about them anyway. I'm looking at you Ray Stevens!
Between the last RS guide and this one's publication in the early '90s, disco had long since died, the first wave of punk had petered out, new wave had flashed in the pan, these new things called synthesizers were dominating something called "adult contemporary," hard rock had fully formed into heavy metal, heavy metal birthed Cain and Abel opposites in death metal and hair bands, and hair bands were being summarily hacked off at the roots by grunge. Rolling Stone figured that that was probably enough material to warrant an updated version of their book.
Overall the reviews/reviewers seem more level-headed and that they are taking more pains to write with forethought. You don't see has many gavel-smack judgements passed on acts. It seems reviewers didn't want to be tied for life by print saying something like "boy bands are dead and gone forever!". Having said, there are still some fun reviews herein. Let me pick out a few good clips for you:
Uriah Heep
"It seems reasonably certainly that Uriah Heep is the real-life Spinal Tap."
Belinda Carlisle
"Carlisle's increasingly wobbly vibrato left her sounding like a flabby imitation of Cher."
MC5
"The band's first album presaged 2 Live Crew in its First Amendment testing - screaming 'Kick out the jams, motherfuckers!,' gravel-voiced Rob Tyner offended delicate sensibilities as well as eardrums."
Linear
"Linear is unlike most Miami-sound bubblegum acts in that it relies upon photogenic young guys (not photogenic young women) to fill in the vocal parts. Unfortunately, that's the only difference."
The music world, especially pop, has expanded exponentially since the inception of recorded music and its ever increasing availability to the public. Yet, as fat as this book was becoming, its editors felt there was still room for the Kim Carneses and Irene Caras of the music world. Me, I would've pared things down a bit, trimmed the Meatloaf fat. I mean come on, some of these people hadn't put out an album in ages and back when they were current no one gave a shit about them anyway. I'm looking at you Ray Stevens!
Between the last RS guide and this one's publication in the early '90s, disco had long since died, the first wave of punk had petered out, new wave had flashed in the pan, these new things called synthesizers were dominating something called "adult contemporary," hard rock had fully formed into heavy metal, heavy metal birthed Cain and Abel opposites in death metal and hair bands, and hair bands were being summarily hacked off at the roots by grunge. Rolling Stone figured that that was probably enough material to warrant an updated version of their book.
Overall the reviews/reviewers seem more level-headed and that they are taking more pains to write with forethought. You don't see has many gavel-smack judgements passed on acts. It seems reviewers didn't want to be tied for life by print saying something like "boy bands are dead and gone forever!". Having said, there are still some fun reviews herein. Let me pick out a few good clips for you:
Uriah Heep
"It seems reasonably certainly that Uriah Heep is the real-life Spinal Tap."
Belinda Carlisle
"Carlisle's increasingly wobbly vibrato left her sounding like a flabby imitation of Cher."
MC5
"The band's first album presaged 2 Live Crew in its First Amendment testing - screaming 'Kick out the jams, motherfuckers!,' gravel-voiced Rob Tyner offended delicate sensibilities as well as eardrums."
Linear
"Linear is unlike most Miami-sound bubblegum acts in that it relies upon photogenic young guys (not photogenic young women) to fill in the vocal parts. Unfortunately, that's the only difference."
October 23, 2017
The Rolling Stone Album Guide has been a regular bedside companion of mine. For any music lover, a paragraph or a page or two always entertains and educates.
Bad reviews tend to generate the biggest laughs. One is reminded why some acts should be obscure and forgotten, such as this gem about The Beautiful South: “Ideal for those who like the idea of popular music but wouldn’t be caught dead enjoying it.” Revivals of disco are always premature as we are reminded that “Grace Jones’s early recorded efforts support every popular misconception about disco; in other words, they suck.” Nostalgia for punk tends leave out observations like the one about The Stranglers who were “Repulsive even by punk standards.”
Even some big sellers get their comeuppance, none better than Gino Vanelli: “Virtually his entire career has been a progression from valley to gulley, and he qualifies as an absolute Il Duce of bad taste.” Some comparisons are like good bowling; they take down multiple targets as with Breathe, “If you ever have trouble understanding why the English think George Michael is a great soul singer, simply give this stuff a listen,” and “It seems reasonably certain that Uriah Heep is the real-life Spinal Tap.” There is something downright masterful in recognizing that “Bobby Sherman was a singer so blithely robotic and contrived that he made Shawn Cassidy seem like Robert Johnson.”
Accurately concise comments like those about Meat Loaf’s music as “Nutrition-free audio lunchmeat,” or Paul Anka being “Creepily fascinating” are awe-inspiring. Rolling Stone doesn’t spare both the million selling, “You can hear the entire catalogue of America’s wimpy hits recycled any night of the week by hapless folk duos in hotel bars—there’s no reason to endure the originals” or pretentious wannabies, “It would be tempting to say that Galaxie 500 plays music in the tradition of the Velvet Underground…except for the fact that had the Velvets been this pointless and self-indulgent, nobody would have remembered them long enough for there to be a tradition.” And I’m not sure whether to characterize their assessment of Yes, “Pointlessly intricate guitar and bass solos, caterwauling keyboards, quasi-mystical lyrics proclaimed in alien falsetto, acid-dipped album-cover illustrations: this British group wrote the book on art-rock excess” as good or bad.
But the real joy in this collection is in the essays about the inarguable greats. The longest are, rightly so, about Louis Armstrong, Elvis Presley and James Brown who “may never have captured the zeitgeist as Elvis Presley or the Beatles did, nor can he be said to have dominated the charts like Stevie Wonder or the Rolling Stones, but by any real measure of musical greatness—endurance, originality, versatility, breadth of influence—he towers over them all.”
Loving tributes to Patsy Cline, Sam Cooke, Miles Davis, Aretha Franklin, George Jones, B.B. King, and Johnny Cash (“Cash has stayed hungry”) remind us about the vast scope of exceptional American music. But even observations like, “About as ballsy as it gets, the MC5 were Motor City madmen making punk before its time” demonstrate that the editors understood the full scope and impact of American icons. As does their take on Professor Longhair: “Simply put, the New Orleans school of rock & roll is inconceivable without Longhair’s sweeping, profound technique.” Nor is the influence of technique forgotten in other genres, “Whether it’s Bobby Keys, David Sanborn or Clarence Clemons, every time a pop sax player starts to blow, it’s hard not to hear echoes of Junior Walker.”
In my view, they reach proper heights in assessing that “Duke Ellington was to 20th-century American music what Picasso was to modern art” as well as “Muddy Waters stands in that select group of American musical artists whose work altered the landscape, reaching across the years to mark everything that has come in its wake.” Merle Haggard has always been underrated by those who don’t understand his depth, but not so with Rolling Stone: “With Hag, it’s take it day to day, make your stand, and hope the sun comes up tomorrow.”
They get it with enlightening bits about other pioneers, such as “Listening to Led Zeppelin albums now, you notice everything the macho metallers haven’t been able to photo-copy: complexity, subtlety, idiosyncrasy, vision” or, at another end of the spectrum, “As the first generation of rock & roll artists are revered, so do they, almost without exception, revere Bill Monroe, who in their eyes is one of the most important figures influencing big beat music that emerged in the ‘50s.”
Some of the quirky comments also show flashes of poetry as in summations about The Smiths, “Hypersensitive, painfully shy, aggressively vegetarian, supposedly celibate, verbally unfettered, incurably tuneless…” and The Soft Boys, “Seriously strange and terrifically tuneful, the Soft Boys were perhaps the most engagingly deranged act to have washed up with the English new wave.”
And I was left smiling about two comments in particular, the first about the iconic Pink Floyd’s The Wall. “If you’re not inclined to listen to with the indecipherable liner notes in hands, however, you may wish this convoluted story included more guitar-ballad hooks like ‘Comfortably Numb.’” All I can add is: Amen! Lastly, when Rolling Stone came out with their list of the best 500 rock albums of all time a few years ago, it contained a rare correction when including Lou Reed’s Berlin in the list. In their original assessment they wrote: “With…a wizardly cast of rock pros, this rambling, morose tale of drug-crossed lovers goes nowhere.” Since this is one of my very favorite albums (I’m not sure I go through a month without listening to it), I’m in full agreement with their redaction of their first review.
Although this book is out of print, it would be worth it for any music lover who does not own it to peruse some used books stores for a copy. It will add life to all your albums, whether they're great or not.
Bad reviews tend to generate the biggest laughs. One is reminded why some acts should be obscure and forgotten, such as this gem about The Beautiful South: “Ideal for those who like the idea of popular music but wouldn’t be caught dead enjoying it.” Revivals of disco are always premature as we are reminded that “Grace Jones’s early recorded efforts support every popular misconception about disco; in other words, they suck.” Nostalgia for punk tends leave out observations like the one about The Stranglers who were “Repulsive even by punk standards.”
Even some big sellers get their comeuppance, none better than Gino Vanelli: “Virtually his entire career has been a progression from valley to gulley, and he qualifies as an absolute Il Duce of bad taste.” Some comparisons are like good bowling; they take down multiple targets as with Breathe, “If you ever have trouble understanding why the English think George Michael is a great soul singer, simply give this stuff a listen,” and “It seems reasonably certain that Uriah Heep is the real-life Spinal Tap.” There is something downright masterful in recognizing that “Bobby Sherman was a singer so blithely robotic and contrived that he made Shawn Cassidy seem like Robert Johnson.”
Accurately concise comments like those about Meat Loaf’s music as “Nutrition-free audio lunchmeat,” or Paul Anka being “Creepily fascinating” are awe-inspiring. Rolling Stone doesn’t spare both the million selling, “You can hear the entire catalogue of America’s wimpy hits recycled any night of the week by hapless folk duos in hotel bars—there’s no reason to endure the originals” or pretentious wannabies, “It would be tempting to say that Galaxie 500 plays music in the tradition of the Velvet Underground…except for the fact that had the Velvets been this pointless and self-indulgent, nobody would have remembered them long enough for there to be a tradition.” And I’m not sure whether to characterize their assessment of Yes, “Pointlessly intricate guitar and bass solos, caterwauling keyboards, quasi-mystical lyrics proclaimed in alien falsetto, acid-dipped album-cover illustrations: this British group wrote the book on art-rock excess” as good or bad.
But the real joy in this collection is in the essays about the inarguable greats. The longest are, rightly so, about Louis Armstrong, Elvis Presley and James Brown who “may never have captured the zeitgeist as Elvis Presley or the Beatles did, nor can he be said to have dominated the charts like Stevie Wonder or the Rolling Stones, but by any real measure of musical greatness—endurance, originality, versatility, breadth of influence—he towers over them all.”
Loving tributes to Patsy Cline, Sam Cooke, Miles Davis, Aretha Franklin, George Jones, B.B. King, and Johnny Cash (“Cash has stayed hungry”) remind us about the vast scope of exceptional American music. But even observations like, “About as ballsy as it gets, the MC5 were Motor City madmen making punk before its time” demonstrate that the editors understood the full scope and impact of American icons. As does their take on Professor Longhair: “Simply put, the New Orleans school of rock & roll is inconceivable without Longhair’s sweeping, profound technique.” Nor is the influence of technique forgotten in other genres, “Whether it’s Bobby Keys, David Sanborn or Clarence Clemons, every time a pop sax player starts to blow, it’s hard not to hear echoes of Junior Walker.”
In my view, they reach proper heights in assessing that “Duke Ellington was to 20th-century American music what Picasso was to modern art” as well as “Muddy Waters stands in that select group of American musical artists whose work altered the landscape, reaching across the years to mark everything that has come in its wake.” Merle Haggard has always been underrated by those who don’t understand his depth, but not so with Rolling Stone: “With Hag, it’s take it day to day, make your stand, and hope the sun comes up tomorrow.”
They get it with enlightening bits about other pioneers, such as “Listening to Led Zeppelin albums now, you notice everything the macho metallers haven’t been able to photo-copy: complexity, subtlety, idiosyncrasy, vision” or, at another end of the spectrum, “As the first generation of rock & roll artists are revered, so do they, almost without exception, revere Bill Monroe, who in their eyes is one of the most important figures influencing big beat music that emerged in the ‘50s.”
Some of the quirky comments also show flashes of poetry as in summations about The Smiths, “Hypersensitive, painfully shy, aggressively vegetarian, supposedly celibate, verbally unfettered, incurably tuneless…” and The Soft Boys, “Seriously strange and terrifically tuneful, the Soft Boys were perhaps the most engagingly deranged act to have washed up with the English new wave.”
And I was left smiling about two comments in particular, the first about the iconic Pink Floyd’s The Wall. “If you’re not inclined to listen to with the indecipherable liner notes in hands, however, you may wish this convoluted story included more guitar-ballad hooks like ‘Comfortably Numb.’” All I can add is: Amen! Lastly, when Rolling Stone came out with their list of the best 500 rock albums of all time a few years ago, it contained a rare correction when including Lou Reed’s Berlin in the list. In their original assessment they wrote: “With…a wizardly cast of rock pros, this rambling, morose tale of drug-crossed lovers goes nowhere.” Since this is one of my very favorite albums (I’m not sure I go through a month without listening to it), I’m in full agreement with their redaction of their first review.
Although this book is out of print, it would be worth it for any music lover who does not own it to peruse some used books stores for a copy. It will add life to all your albums, whether they're great or not.
January 20, 2008
One can't help but disagree with certain choices in a book like this, but I think over time this has proven to be the most all-around useful guide to good rock n roll (and to some extent blues, jazz and country) out there. I like the format, personally: alphabetical by artist exclusive of genre (at least in the edition I have), star ratings for all the albums at the beginning of each review, then a general discussion of the artist and his/her/their evolution chronologically. My personal view is that the editors somewhat overvalue The Rolling Stones and The Who, undervalue The Grateful Dead and David Bowie; they're right on with Springsteen and Dylan. Everyone else will find different things to gripe over, but this will always remain a valuable reference to all but the most jaded "classic rock" connoisseurs.
July 21, 2012
Handy for looking up things but the reviews of the albums and singers are way too opinionated. It seems like everyone I like is dissed in the reviews. I would like more facts, less subjectivity.
May 18, 2017
This was my bible for some years.
March 28, 2013
Great book to flick through, going from one musician to another. Unfortunately I now use the "allmusic" website which has more information, a far larger database and the added advantage of being able to just click on a link to go to another area of interest. This is the 1992 book. I am also lucky enough to have the1979 one which is, I think better. The most recent edition misses out just too many bands to be worthwhile getting. What makes the first edition so good is the black or white attitude to the artists. The ones they like are praised, but there is little that is subtle about those not appreciated. Donny Osmond "This is not the reincarnation of Shaun Cassidy. Well crafted garbage - trash is too elevated a description"
July 4, 2016
This is an interesting artifact. It was a valuable resource for me in the pre-Internet era to explore new (to me) music. Now, it's interesting to go back and read RS' long-since revised "authoritative" rankings.
June 7, 2007
This is my Bible.
December 16, 2007
Suprisingly readable for a book like this. Very reliable despite a strange affection for Def Leppard. (Pour Some Sugar On Me is a great song, don't get me wrong.)
December 20, 2009
To this day, I know of no other work of the kind that has accomplished what the critics in this book have done. Classic.
October 8, 2011
They have so many albums!!!
April 5, 2022
As with the Penguin Guide to Recorded Classical Music for the classical world, this was the go-to reference for rock until the Internet opened things up.
September 2, 2012
This was a bible. Before the internet, you read music reviews in magazines and when Rolling Stone compiled older reviews into one tome, it was amazing to sit and flip through.
April 24, 2015
not bad
Displaying 1 - 14 of 14 reviews