The New Rolling Stone Record Guide [Paperback]

Rolling Stone Press (Author), Dave Marsh (Editor), John Swenson (Editor)

Product Details

• Paperback: 648 pages
• Publisher: Random House; Rev Sub edition (October 12, 1983)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0394721071
• ISBN-13: 978-0394721071
• Product Dimensions: 9 x 6.1 x 1.1 inches
• Shipping Weight: 1.9 pounds
• Average Customer Review: 3.2 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (12 customer reviews)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #533,921 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

More About the Author

Discover books, learn about writers, read author blogs, and more.

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

7 of 7 people found the following review helpful:

4.0 out of 5 stars good, reasonably comprehensive guide to popular music, August 2, 1996

By A Customer

This review is from: The New Rolling Stone Record Guide (Paperback)

This is a great book to rummage through used record bins, help build
a good record collection. It's best used to introduce you to new artists. Even
if you don't agree with their general evaluation of an artist, most readers find the
relative ranking of albums within the artist is reasonable. Some problems though: the jazz and blues
section is very poor is coverage (hence the other book that followed this) and they typically
pan any progressive music and love anyone once associated with their magazine (check out reviews of
Yoko Ono and Patti Smith, ughh!). Biggest problem is inconsistent ratings across editions. For example,
there is not one Doors album with the same rating across all three editions. Evaluating music is rather subjective
but when the rater can't even decide what the value is, well there's little point is there?

4 of 4 people found the following review helpful:

4.0 out of 5 stars A very good, almost indispensible (but flawed) music guide., March 21, 2000

By A Customer

This review is from: The New Rolling Stone Record Guide (Paperback)

I used to have this book and it got lost somewhere along the way. Although I vehemently disagreed with many of the reviews, I found it an indispensible source of information on both known and little known singers and groups, which helped me make many wise purchases. It is long out-of print and I hope somebody will be able to come up with a copy in reasonably good condition. I am keeping it on my wish lists at several sites until then. I have the newest edition (Rolling Stone Album Guide, 1992), and it covers many new groups and singers, more types of music and speaks in a more unified voice, because it was written by only four critics this time, instead of over fifty. However, I was disappointed to see how many important groups and singers from the previous edition (1983) were not even mentioned, even in passing, just omitted entirely. Although the 1992 edition is more up-to-date, I prefer this one. At least it has an honorable mentions page for those singers and groups it was not seen fit to write a full review about. On the other hand, I was pleased to see some more negative opinions of some of the artists still reviewed in the 1992 edition had been revised more favorably. Time and thought are not always so unkind, just sometimes. I agree with the reader whose review stated Dave Marsh's lack of input into the 1992 edition greatly hindered it. However, I feel both the 1983 and 1992 editions are well worth having and may possibly review the 1992 edition separately. However, I still have several major caveats with both editions. Most of the critics are rather narrow- minded and do not like anything too arty, spacy, avant-garde, or experimental. I also find it unfortunate that they find way too many artists too commercial, formulaic, untalented, or without other merits. If they were only more open-minded and progressive, but then they wouldn't be critics,would they? They just overanalyze everything too much. Too much training can be a bad thing and take away a lot of your spontaneity and ability to just sit sit back, relax and enjoy things like music and art. I promise if I review the 1992 edition of this book separately, my review will be considerably shorter and will probably refer back to this one. I just felt the need to compare the 1983 and 1992 editions and get some other feelings about critics (a necessary evil) off my chest. I'm sure many of you readers would agree with quite a few of my points. If not, well of course it's a free country and everyone is entitled to their opinion, agreeable or not, just as long as they can express it without getting too obnoxious.

5 of 6 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars A great resource, August 6, 2000

By 

Brian D. Rubendall (Oakton, VA) - See all my reviews
(HALL OF FAME REVIEWER)    (REAL NAME)   

This review is from: The New Rolling Stone Record Guide (Paperback)

I bought "The New Rolling Stone Record Guide" when it first came out in 1983 and still have my original dog eared copy. What makes the book so excellent is the incisive, witty and often biting commentary on the albums reviewed. I must have purchased over one hundred albums through the years based upon its recommendations. If you can find a copy, it is WELL worth the effort.