marvin Posted February 17, 2005 Share Posted February 17, 2005 In the late 1970's and then again in the early 1990's, RS issued these publications which were a pretty comprehensive and all-encompassing look at *most* popular music artists and their albums. I used to read these books from front to back, making note of any album that was rated with 5 stars, regardless of the genre, and making a point to try and find the album/cd.While browsing through the local book store today, I noticed that RS has finally issued an update: "The Rolling Stone All New Album Guide" -the first such update in 13 years. I quickly thumbed through the book and noticed that the Raspberries and Eric Carmen are no longer in the book. Some of the music standard-bearers are still there, but it seems that acts that were marginally successful have been replaced by the flavors of the month such as Outkast, Justin Timberlake etc.Yet another reason to question RS' logic.Marvin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aggiesjc Posted February 17, 2005 Share Posted February 17, 2005 It figures. To hell in a handbasket... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Benfer Posted February 18, 2005 Share Posted February 18, 2005 When I was growing up, my best friend took the Rolling Stone Record Guide as gospel. If they like it, he liked it. If they hated it, he hated it. I have a copy from 1979. I used to get so mad at some of their reviews. In my edtion, they rate Eric as follows:* Boats Against The Current* Change Of Heart** Eric CarmenA strong intelligent pop-ballad singer, ERIC CARMEN was his solo debut after leaving Raspberries in 1975. But one couldn't help feeling he was more convincing as a rocker in his original band, despite his two hits ("Never Gonna Fall In Love Again" and 'All By Myself"). BOATS sank in a sea of corny syrup. CHANGE was more of the same.Dave MarshCorny syrup!!?? If he thought that was corny syrup, I wonder what he thought of "She Remembered" from the Geffen album. I'm sorry, but I strongly disagree with that review. BOATS was a masterpiece and CHANGE was filled with very catchy tunes. Even if the rest of the album was crap, "Desperate Fools" alone would make this a 2-star album. None of Eric's albums (other than WD) deserve less tha 4-stars. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gordharris Posted February 18, 2005 Share Posted February 18, 2005 Craig Benfer, I think he is wrong also.Boats Against The Current album- was a great surprise of excitement for me, all the songs are a get up and go, and sing along tunes.I was really impressed with Burton Cummings in background vocals.I consider Boats...... Number one after Eric Carmenssolo album, even though Erics first solo is number one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marvin Posted February 18, 2005 Author Share Posted February 18, 2005 Dave Marsh adored the 'berries. In his "Rock Book of Lists" from 1980 or so, he selected "Overnight Sensations" as the top song of 1974. Unfortunately he's been less than thrilled with Eric's solo work, but hey there are many other critics who feel the same way. Marsh has a real affinity for R&B/Soul and Springsteen. In fact, his wife is works in association with Jon Landau -Springsteen's manager. Marvin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mannoman Posted February 18, 2005 Share Posted February 18, 2005 Marv,I was speaking to a songwriting friend yesterday who has been at it for about 30 years. He is still recording (I sent you the link the other day) but said it is virtually impossible to get recognition these days because the business is being run by kids. He said they have no sense of history about the music business. For those interested in his music just click the link for some mp3 snippets. Dakota - Deep 6 Ted Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darlene Posted February 20, 2005 Share Posted February 20, 2005 I always got the impression that Dave Marsh loved Raspberries, so I'm floored by his being so TERRIBLY off the mark about Eric's solo work. What's up with THAT? Dave apparently has sunk in a sea of (or at least his brain got lost in) confusion. He's completely oblivious to the whole point of BOATS, so I must question what became of his judgement after Raspberries. I like Bruce, but I don't think his music is the be-all and end-all. --Darlene Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
popdude Posted February 20, 2005 Share Posted February 20, 2005 Speaking of "The New Rolling Stone Album Guide," I found this gem of a review in the Journey section:"Steve Perry clobbers power ballads like an old Italian lady with an umbrella catching a pickpocket on bingo night." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darlene Posted February 20, 2005 Share Posted February 20, 2005 That presents quite a picture... --Darlene Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marvin Posted February 20, 2005 Author Share Posted February 20, 2005 Darlene with all due respect, there is quite a difference between Eric's solo work and his work with the Raspberries. Dave Marsh's connection to Springsteen makes it very tough for him to be un-biased, but I have read some reviews where he's been very critical of Springsteen's work.Marvin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darlene Posted February 21, 2005 Share Posted February 21, 2005 Marv, I would certainly HOPE that there's a difference between Eric's solo work and what he did with the Berries. Solo is a totally different thing. As an orchestral or chamber musician, I have to be part of a well-oiled machine. If anyone can hear ME on a recording, or recognize my style, I'm in trouble. And if I decide to articulate even a little differently than others in my quartet, the performance is ruined, or at least, imprecise or slipshod. My job is to fit in perfectly with everyone else and follow the conductor's orders. I'm not allowed to interpret at all, except for what's been agreed on. On solo work, I'd BETTER let it all hang out. If I don't use every possible means of expression, my own way, my playing will become boring, or, at best, an imitation of someone else's interpretation. Which would mean I'm not artistic enough to think of how to do it my own way. Two TOTALLY different ways of playing, and I'd best NEVER confuse them!I realize that playing in a rock band is different than playing in a symphony orchestra or a string quartet, but it's still an ENTIRELY different approach than solo work. A rock band is like a marriage--not only must members agree totally on the musical expressions and way of presenting them, but also must get along perfectly together, or it can be disastrous. As a solo artist, one has to consider, unfortuneately, among other things, what record execs want, and I'm sure many are way off base. Then the artist has to balance that with what he/she wants to do. I don't know of any artist whose work with a group isn't totally different than solo work. There's no way it can be the same! --Darlene Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew C. Clark Posted February 21, 2005 Share Posted February 21, 2005 I also have that 1983 book which I got as a Christmas present in 1984. That book forgot the group Fotomaker three albums. They also forgot Billy Squier "The Tale Of The Tape" (1980), "Don't Say No" (1981) (which the name Chris Squire (of the group "Yes") has "Don't Say No" as the album title as well) & "Emotions In Motion" (1982). When I read Rolling Stone magazine back then, they gave Billy's "Don't Say No" ** (2 stars) out of 5 stars. Billy's "Emotions In Motion" was *** (3 stars) out of 5. Matt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marvin Posted February 21, 2005 Author Share Posted February 21, 2005 What I was trying to say was, just because you like the music of a band, doesn't necessarily mean you're going to like the solo music of the individuals within that band. The Beatles are a prime example of this. Marvin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darlene Posted February 21, 2005 Share Posted February 21, 2005 Maybe the problem is that people, upon hearing a band, try to pidgeonhole the members of the band into producing only the sound/type of music of the group. Music is ever-evolving. How many bands kept their sound/focus EXACTLY the same? Your point about Beatles is VERY well taken, Marv.EVERYONE (or nearly) adored the Beatles. But when it came to their solo work, people immediately divided, and vehemently so. You're exactly right: liking (or even LOVING) the music of a band doesn't mean you will like the solo music of its individual bandmembers. Being in a band (or any performing group)is sort of like a chemical reaction: the product of the combined members is different from ANY of the individuals. When one looks at the metamorphoses Beatles went through, it becomes very clear just how much the music of a band can evolve, let alone that of its individual artists. --D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marvin Posted February 21, 2005 Author Share Posted February 21, 2005 Totally agree Darlene. Just look among us how many people prefer Eric's solo music over the 'berries' music and vice versa.Marvin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darlene Posted February 21, 2005 Share Posted February 21, 2005 Hey, I've been guilty of doing the same thing, as I've listened to groups and solo albums. As Kafka says, "Guilt is unquestionable." I accept mine... --D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.