Rolling Stone Record Guide's Rock Revisionism

Good discussion at rockcritics.com about the original Rolling Stone Record Guides. I remember both of these from the late 70's/early 80's, both co-edited by Dave Marsh. They were more brutal and honest in their reviews than the travesty that was the 2004 update (although the Rob Sheffield reviews were worth a laugh). These were some of the first record guides, so they were considered essential among record geeks. Later as the Rock canon got bigger and more coverage, Marsh's guides got left in the dust. And the difference between the first guide and the second also played out in its revisionism. As pointed out at rockcritics.com, AC/DC's catalog was given more stars on its second go-round than the first. And even today rock revisionism takes place. That's why guides are what they are. A snapshot of a time. But like most of history, things do change.