Record Guide

Hurdy Gurdy Man

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2013
Posts
911
Reaction score
63
Does anyone enjoy consulting the Rolling Stone Record Guide for much reference?I'm waiting for a used 1990's print to arrive from Amazon that was either entirely written or edited by renown music critic Anthony DeCurtis.Used to keep a copy handy throughout most of the 80's and early 90's.......................
 

PHILLK

Junior Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2013
Posts
6
Reaction score
1
I still collect record guides/Encyclopdedias, etc., Rolling Stone, Vox, NME, Trouser Press, Virgin, basically any and all reviews or guides.

Sure, the internet has made these books somewhat obsolete, but I enjoy having a reference library on the shelves.

My favourite are the editions of the International Encyclopedia of Hard Rock and Heavy Metal by Tony Jasper and Derek Oliver.
 

joe

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Posts
6,717
Reaction score
1,595
Location
Cascadia
I have the first three editions. There wasn't much media back then about record reviews. I've gone through the 2nd. edition hundreds of times back in the day. The main contributor was Dave Marsh who was know for his hate of heavy metal and Yes. Other contributors also had a hate for heavy metal, hard rock and heavy psych. Uriah Heep, Sabbath, Hawkwind, Rush, etc. were just ridiculed. Here's a couple of examples:

C_v8CEAXUAA-889.jpg

rs-rush-1979.jpg

p1030325.jpg
 

Lynch

Here for the cookies and the tunes
Joined
Jan 5, 2010
Posts
32,251
Reaction score
11,187
Location
The Land of Sky Blue Waters
The shitbags the run and work for Rolling Stone Mag are just that, shitbags. They couldn't find water if they fell out of a boat. They wouldn't know talent if it bit them in the ass. They're so dumb, they'd sell the car to get gas money.

Seriously, this is the nicest shit I can say about them. If a Rolling Stone editor was standing on the street corner and someone came by and set them on fire, I wouldn't piss on them to put it out. The most idiotic rag mag in the history of music. Teen Beat got more things right than Rolling Stone did.

They are good for one thing though, that is, if you feel like overspending on paper to shred to put on the bottom of your hamster cage.
 

Lynch

Here for the cookies and the tunes
Joined
Jan 5, 2010
Posts
32,251
Reaction score
11,187
Location
The Land of Sky Blue Waters
The main contributor was Dave Marsh who was know for his hate of heavy metal and Yes. Other contributors also had a hate for heavy metal, hard rock and heavy psych. Uriah Heep, Sabbath, Hawkwind, Rush, etc. were just ridiculed. Here's a couple of examples:

Yeah, Dave Marsh was/is the epitome of why I have zero respect for the rag mag. Was just looking through some stuff on Black Sabbath online, ended up somehow on Marsh's wikipedia page and saw this quote. If this doesn't let you know what a clueless bastard the guy is, I don't know what will:


In 1976, he wrote that Led Zeppelin had an "insurmountable flaw" in drummer John Bonham (who has topped multiple all-time greatest drummers lists), whom he saw as "something like clinically incompetent" and responsible for marring every Zeppelin album to date
 

Hurdy Gurdy Man

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2013
Posts
911
Reaction score
63
I for one feel that the Rolling Stone guides have always been hard on the Moody Blues' catalog.Apparently,if the editors involved in just about all editions had their way,the combo would NEVER have gotten into the hall of fame.Incomprehensible to me how they can downplay the band's obviously sizeable contributions towards the advent of prog rock.Just the pairing of the Moodies with the London Symphony Orchestra alone was certainly monumental achievement...at least for it's time..........
 

Find member

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
30,655
Posts
1,064,718
Members
6,354
Latest member
edmerka

Members online

Top