Customer Reviews

The New Rolling Stone Record Guide

5 star:		(4)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(3)

 

 

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?

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.

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.

I just love this book. I don't go with all the opinions expressed, e.g. Dylan's 'Live at Budokan' is regarded unworthy of having been recorded, 'Ziggy Stardust' marginally better, and the Doors & Pink Floyd trashed... BUT, most of the reviews are spot on and this is a magnificent record of what's what and who's who for the 60s & 70s rock & folk scene. I use it to discover gems, which are mostly available now as remastered discs. Elvis, the Stones, Hendrix & Dylan are the only artists that are honoured by more than a page. That's right by me. If you collect music, you really can't do without this.

The 1983 edition of THE NEW ROLLING STONE RECORD GUIDE is the best book on music ever written. Dave Marsh has very tough standards for music. He is not afraid to strongly criticize bands that are considered by most other critics to be untoucable. For example, check out his tough criticism of the Doors. And when Dave Marsh loves a band, he gives it praise as no other rock critic is capable of doing. For example, check out his kind words about Bruce Springsteen. In 1992, an update to this book was published. Unfortunately, Dave Marsh had nothing to do with that version, and, as a result, it is grossly inferior to the 1983 edition.

had this book,sold it at a moving sale,love this book,it is so much fun to read. i love how the knock all the BAD LPs that should have never been produce and the come up with the words of insult for them. long live the freedom of the press!!!!

This edition contains an astounding number of revisionist interpretations of some of the greatest acts in rock history that are just flat out nonsense. You are better off finding yourself a copy of the 79/80 edition. Marsh, in particular, is just full of it - when he isn't being completely hypocritical (the hachet job he does on the Doors and X, to name but two, should prompt one to dismiss this entire volume).

This book has been very informative to me, but I've found some mistakes which makes me not sure if I should trust a lot of things from this book. I'm sure most of it is true, but still a book like this shouldn't have mistakes. One mistake being for Triumvirat saying that they were from Finland when they're really from Germany. Another mistake is under the discography for Spirit. It says the album, 12 Dreams Of Dr. Sardonicus, was released in 1967 when it was really released in 1971. I also do not agree with a lot of reviews in this book. I mean how could they give EVERY Black Sabbath album the same rating which was 1 star? This book also doesn't have complete discographies if the album wasn't released in the US which is annoying. It's also missing a lot of great bands such as Amon Düül II who deserve to be in the book.

One is tempted to give this book the "bullet" so liberally employed by the contributors, since The New Rolling Stone Record Guide is useful only as a discography (and even at that it is spotty). The reviews are dominated by the overwhelming egotism and elitism of authors Marsh and Swenson, and are for the most part grossly out of touch with the general audience the work is supposed to be aimed at. This does stand as a good example of why Rolling Stone has to be considered with MTV as one of the two institutions that helped kill off good music. Dave Marsh is to rock and roll what Howard Cosell was to sports, only even more obnoxious and less perceptive. He is biased against many genres (particularly progressive); and even on those occasions when he does see fit to try honest analysis instead of a witty critical barb, seems incapable of offering any geniune insight into the music: His and Swenson's writing is every bit as pretentious as they frequently accuse various artists of being. The Rolling Stone Encyclopedia of Rock and Roll published at about the same time is a much better and informative reference work.

I did enjoy the pictures from the first guide, but the unacceptable Rush bashing on the part of the 1979 reviewer annoys me tremendously. In any event, John Swenson does an excellent job of righting the wrong that Alan Niester once perpetuated. Other than that, I am not particularly fond of the denigration of Yes, esp. with respect to TALES FROM TOPOGRAPHIC OCEANS, however this book was very informative and I enjoyed it overall. IMHO, the only record guide that is comparable to this 1983 version is the ALL MUSIC GUIDE TO ROCK. As far as I am concerned, the 1992 guide was a waste of paper.