Like many critics, Anthony DeCurtis often fields complaints from readers who object to his reviews. But DeCurtis says he makes a particularly tempting target because he is senior features editor and occasional critic for the nation`s biggest-selling pop music publication, Rolling Stone magazine.
”Sometimes I want to say to these people who criticize me, `I`m sure you would take my job if you could,` ” DeCurtis said. ”I think these criticisms come from an emotional place, rather than any genuine desire to see or create the greatest journalistic product.”
Rock enthusiasts of every stripe will probably have a lot to say about a new book co-edited by DeCurtis. ”The Rolling Stone Album Guide” (Random House; $20) has been updated to include reviews of records released over the past decade. (It also deletes many out-of-print recordings featured in previous editions.) The 2,500 or so reviews featured in the book were written by four critics within a year`s time.
DeCurtis` rolling tome is just the latest entry in the record review book sweepstakes. Other popular guides include ”The Trouser Press Record Guide”
(Collier Books; $18.95), which focuses on alternative rock recordings; and the ”The Christgau Record Guide: The `80s” (Pantheon; $17.95), a compilation of updated reviews by renowned Village Voice pop music critic Robert Christgau.
The emergence of these review-oriented publications raises some questions: What methods are employed when compiling such books, and what critical criteria do reviewers go by? And, why would a reader want to wade through so many reviews-it`s well known critics aren`t always in step with the public.
For instance, in critiquing the Police`s 1983 classic ”Synchronicity,”
writer Jim Green asserts in ”The Trouser Press Record Guide,” ”Most of the records simply can`t be taken seriously by anyone but a chowderhead and/or indiscriminate music fan.”
Reviewing Mariah Carey`s multimillion-selling debut album in the new Rolling Stone guide, Paul Evans opines: ”This ersatz soul music is breathtaking in its wrongheadedness-skill and passion slaving over piffle.”
”I`m fully anticipating attacks,” DeCurtis said, referring to response to the Rolling Stone guide. ”No human being, including me, is going to agree with everything in it. But these are serious books, and the writers really came at the work with a lot of intensity.”
DeCurtis` premonition already has come true. As if to boldly illustrate the differing philosophies and approaches of critics, some fellow reviewers are challenging the Rolling Stone guide, which is billed as ”the definitive guide to the best of rock, pop, rap, jazz, blues, country, soul, folk & gospel.”
Christgau writes a monthly record review column for the Village Voice and is author of consumer guides devoted to the pop music of the 1970s and 1980s. Though he expresses ”tremendous admiration” for the Trouser Press guide, Christgau is less effusive about the Rolling Stone book. Despite the fact that he has not read the updated guide, he speculated it could be ”useful.”
”Judging from previous Rolling Stone guides, I imagine the book would offer a solid, conventional overview of this music against which you could test more eccentric opinions,” Christgau said.
But Christgau has doubts about the way the Rolling Stone book was conceived. He believes the editors should have assigned an African-American writer to critique some of the records. He also questions whether four writers could accurately assess thousands of records.
”There`s no way four writers are going to review everything,” Christgau said. ”They may have played them, but they didn`t engage them. To me, it seems like a completely fraudulent concept and a lousy way to do a record guide.”
Not everyone is as skeptical. Robert Scott Lefsetz, publisher of the music-industry tip sheet the Lefsetz Letter, said books like the Rolling Stone guide are ultimately healthy for the music business.
”Ever since its inception, popular music has been denegrated,” Lefsetz said. ”Putting out a book like this helps music in general, because it takes a serious approach to something.”
Though some may criticize DeCurtis` modus operandi, the fact is that methods and criteria vary.
For instance, while DeCurtis employed only four writers who started from square one, ”Trouser Press Record Guide” editor Ira A. Robbins recruits more than 40 reviewers.
”Since I don`t profess to know it all, I always look for people to write about the genres I`m not interested in or curious about,” Robbins said. ”I`d much rather take somebody who`s a friend of mine and say, `We see eye to eye on this. Why don`t you write something on it?` than try and fake it.”
DeCurtis defends the decision to use four writers, saying it was a way to ensure a consistent tone.
”By using fewer writers, readers can, hopefully, develop a relationship with the reviewers. You can read an entry by, say, J.D. Considine, and respond to it by saying, `Well, judging from the rest of the stuff in here this guy`s crazy,` or, `I really trust this writer`s tastes, so I`ll trust his recommendation on this other thing I haven`t heard.` I imagined a dialogue with a thinking reader.”
