Rolling Stone The Beatles The Ultimate Album by Album Guide

[lampie1970]

Got mine today:

http://gifts.barnesandnoble.com/Rolling-Stone-Beatles-Special-2011/e/9780594288053

I know some of yall think:  Phooey but some might like to pick it up. It is basically anywhere Rolling Stone is sold.

[mervap]

Guides like that are never completely "phooey"...anything that can get someone thinking about the whys and hows and whats of how a classic record is made, as well as some opinions about the work in question, is worthy of a check-out. But one has to go into them knowing that some of it is fact and some of it is opinion. When I was a wee lad of 13, I read a book called "The Beatles Illustrated Record" by Roy Carr and Tony Tyler...I was riveted to see stories about who wrote these classic tunes and how the albums were recorded. However, both Carr and Tyler were Lennon fans and thought Paul was a soppy balladeer. I carried that opinion away and for years missed out on Macca's early solo career. Ms. Lampie, I know you wouldn't fall into such a trap...and it would matter one whit to you if Paul was a soppy balladeer....or a taxicab driver...or a matador. You'd love him all the same!

[Kylenz]

I would get this in a heartbeat if I ever see it in shops here in NZ. Love these kinds of magazine special editions. I have an Uncut magazine looking at the career of Paul McCartney, album-by-album. Always a pleasure to read others' impressions of albums in print.

[chris]

crazy. i owned the book "the beatles illustrated record". i loved that book. i bet i was right around age 13 too. small world. luckily, i was too young and naive to know about bias for or against paul.

and about that same age, i used to regularly check out a book sold at the mall (remember going to malls? does anyone do that anymore) that gathered every review rolling stone ever made at that time. i just loved looking at and reading all of those 5 star beatle reviews. what you have, lampie, just might be from that very book i used to look at. for some reason, i considered rolling stone magazine the rock and roll bible at an early age. must be why i subscribed to that mag-o-adverisements for as long as i did.

not that i have any insider knowledge or anything, but i always thought a great review from rolling stone mag was worth more somehow, than a great review from any other rock mag. no doubt because of those early 5 star beatles reviews i read when i was just a pup.  

[lampie1970]

Ms. Lampie, I know you wouldn't fall into such a trap...and it would matter one whit to you if Paul was a soppy balladeer....or a taxicab driver...or a matador. You'd love him all the same!

Tis true!!! I love me some Paulie. I was watching something the other day and I was all just: i love that man...i LOVE that man!! i LOOOOOOOOOOOVE that man....The restraining order doesnt expire til 2013...

[Borris]

I don't have this book, but it reminds me of the times I've spent with books on pop/rock music. When I was growing up in the seventies I got a book called the Encyclopaedia of Rock. I used that to explore a lot of music. It was complementary to the Beatles but I think by that time the Sgt Pepper line had become "it's not really as great as we originally thought" I'm more interested in glowing reviews from the time, as for me the error is in our present jaded appreciation, rather than that of the time when the album meant colour, imagination and a new way of seeing. Reading Lennon remembers that really extensive interview with John at the time of POB in late teenage years/maybe early twenties had a similar effect on me as Merv had with the Carr & Tyler book. John was the genius and Paul was phoney. But Paul's work & George's and indeed an appreciation of Ringo crept up on me over time. My favourite book on the Beatles is Ian MacDonald's Revolution in the Head, which discusses all the tracks as they were recorded, how they were recorded, musical lyrical/conceptual ideas. Just fascinating and MacDonald has a nose for the qualities all four Beatles bring.

I don't have such a high opinion of Rolling Stone, didn't really come across it until later and I have a love for a number of Progressive bands particularly Yes, although RS reviewed Yes favourably up to and including Close to the Edge they back peddled afterwards and were stupidly contemptuous and very puritanical about what Rock music should be about.

For me the music of the Beatles, Paul & George solo, Brian Wilson and the Beach Boys, Yes, is all music of beauty that lifts me up and inspires me and too much rock journalism seems to be about rock attitude & grit which I don't find very interesting.