AHAHA what a joke! How can Rolling Stone magazine give Marquee Moon 2 stars in the 1979/1983 edition and then 5 stars in later editions?
I think that earlier edition should be deleted - they obviously change their mind so that earlier review becomes meaningless...

We had a discussion about this awhile back which can be found here (http://pub37.bravenet.com/forum/3172289350/show/714920)

Didn't Rolling Stone also pan Led Zeppelin when they first started?

Rolling Stone is all about telling their fans what they think they want to hear. The critics may have their own opinions, but they sure don't write about them.

Of course, all publications are afraid to go out on a limb on newer releases, then praise them more in hindsight when it's safer.

I don't understand why they include albums that they give 3 and 3.5 stars in their top 500 of all time list. You would think albums that are supposedly the best ever would be rated much higher. For example, they have The Byrds' "Younger than Yesterday" at #124 yet only give it only 3.5 stars. There are many others like that. It just doesn't make any sense to me.

As mentioned in the other thread the rating system Allmusic uses is different than most systems. They judge albums based on the other work by the artist....it isn't compared with other albums. So, Younger Than Yesterday would receive a 3.5 when stacked up against all of the other Byrds albums.

Were the critics who reviewed the album even the same? It has been decades, so it's probably new people reviewing it.

And have you never grown to like an album more than when you first heard it?

Actually Allmusic gives 'Younger than Yesterday' 5 stars. I thought we were talking about Rolling Stone magazine.

Oops. Well in that case didn't they poll a bunch of musicians and industry people to create that list? That's what they usually do for their lists. Maybe not though.

yes, that sounds about right and that would explain the poor ratings of some of the albums that appear on their list. I should have clued in to that.