| doremi 20.04.2005 16:30 |
I read that Roger, many years ago, was so angry and disgusted with Rolling Stone over RS's nasty treatment of Queen, over the years, that he personally wrote RS an angry letter. (rumored to have been written on paper from an airline airsickness bag!) That's my man Roger! Anyway...since we all are rejoicing currently in knocking RS for dissing Queen on RS's Immortals list, I would LOVE to see a copy of Roger's letter to RS! Does anyone have a copy of that issue and Roger's letter, that they can either scan or type up on QZ? Thanks! |
| ernie 20.04.2005 17:07 |
it's here: link |
| doremi 20.04.2005 17:39 |
Ernie!! Thank you SO VERY MUCH!!!! LMAO and I agree with every word Roger said. He was hilarious and sarcastic and RS deserved every word he said. But I LOVE that he stood proud of his band and said, quote: "I am a member of said group and extremely f*****g proud of its music and its achievements!" I adore Roger. Sometimes a publication needs to hear not from the fans, or the band's manager or publicist, but from the artist themselves. I applaud Roger for having the guts to personally take on RS and tell them to take a hike, while still showing his pride and dignity for his band (Queen) and their music and for telling RS they are nothing but an uninformed, politically biased rag sheet. As I always say...that's MY man, Roger!!!! Love you Roger! Big Smooch/Kiss xxxx |
| doremi 20.04.2005 17:44 |
Love his sarcasm and jabs at their political pointed/biased slant which wasn't even IN Queen's music...(unless you count GOOD meaningful songs like "Is This The World We Created", Las Palabras De Amor", and "Innuendo" which had POSITIVE social commentary.) Roger Quote "Thank you, oh thank you, for the pseudopolitical slant and personal dishonesty that you continue to peddle in your outdated, opinionated, down-home rag." |
| doremi 20.04.2005 17:44 |
Then I love when he stands up for Queen and against shoddy journalism. RS actually based their review on Queen's soundcheck? What idiots! "Thanks also for the finely tuned musical assessment of my group from our sound check! Grow up. You invented the bitterness. I pity you. You suck. You are boring and you try to infect us." Then he throws in this sarcasm knowing RS will slag him, but he stands up for his OWN solo work/music as well. "Awaiting your charming review of my current album in about eight months." I am IN LOVE with this man, do you hear!!!! :) |
| The Real Wizard 22.04.2005 11:59 |
While I admire Brian's ability to be humble and gracious, Roger is the kind of guy who simply says it as it is. Love 'em both. What year is this response from, anyway? Perhaps 81, because of its reference to Queen in South America... ?? |
| doremi 22.04.2005 12:18 |
I was wondering about that too, what year this is from, and the date of the letter and the RS issue. But yes, I agree. I was just saying yesterday...that I think it would be cool if ROGER did his own soapbox website. Roger is NEVER afraid to take on anyone, and tell it like it is, but,..he usually does so with an OUTRAGEOUS sense of humor. Unlike Brian, Roger doesn't take things or himself too seriously. he knows how to beat people at their own game, as evidenced in this letter. His letter tells RS off, and exactly what RS did wrong..but with total tongue in cheek, witty sarcasm. I laughed my A off. What a guy! :) |
| Daburcor? 22.04.2005 13:01 |
I'd love to have that letter as a poster... |
| doremi 22.04.2005 13:55 |
Dan Corson wrote: I'd love to have that letter as a poster...Lol! That would be great! |
| NOTWMEDDLE 22.04.2005 18:05 |
I applaud Roger for telling Rolling Stone to F*** OFF! |
| written_in_the_stars 22.04.2005 18:16 |
Actually what's the story behind this letter ????? |
| doremi 23.04.2005 14:55 |
Anyone know what the date and issue# is of this issue and what South America gigs Rolling Stone is referring to? |
| MadeInMadhouse 23.04.2005 16:59 |
Hmm Probably Mrs Deborah is worry about Alene!!! he he eh |
| monty-- 24.04.2005 10:24 |
Heh, I'm sure Rolling Stone's review didn't make Roger sleepy. |
| Sonia Doris 24.04.2005 10:30 |
can't help falling in love with this letter... i wish i could write like that... |
| MercuryArts 24.04.2005 11:58 |
I have that entire RS article. It is quite lengthy which is great just for the fact that Queen was given so much press in that Micky Mouse publication. (Sorry Mr. Disney) They report on the tour & do recgonize that it was monumental in its undertaking. But in the end it becomes a hatchet job by the reporter. Yes he based his entire review of their performance on the SOUND CHECK!! I haven't read the article in years so much of it escapes me. I do remember thinking that to a casual reader/non-fan iit wouldn't do anything to spark any intrest in the band. |
| doremi 24.04.2005 14:11 |
MercuryArts wrote: I have that entire RS article. It is quite lengthy which is great just for the fact that Queen was given so much press in that Micky Mouse publication. (Sorry Mr. Disney) They report on the tour & do recgonize that it was monumental in its undertaking. But in the end it becomes a hatchet job by the reporter. Yes he based his entire review of their performance on the SOUND CHECK!! I haven't read the article in years so much of it escapes me. I do remember thinking that to a casual reader/non-fan iit wouldn't do anything to spark any intrest in the band.Hey...watch it! Mickey Mouse releases Queen's records in the USA, (Disney owns Hollywood Records!) Lol. BTW, do you still have a copy of that Rolling Stone article you can scan and post on QZ? I really want to see THEIR lousy article...that caused Roger to write his Wonderful reply. Thanks! |
| LelietjevanDalen 19.04.2007 06:42 |
So, still no sign of the original RS article? |
| willem-jan 8923 19.04.2007 07:30 |
Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: While I admire Brian's ability to be humble and gracious, Roger is the kind of guy who simply says it as it is. Love 'em both. What year is this response from, anyway? Perhaps 81, because of its reference to Queen in South America... ??8 months before his solo album came out (at least, that's what he mentions somewhere at the end). edit: Bloody hell, I just read this topic is 2 years old, sorry for responding. This topic should be ignored..... |
| goodco 19.04.2007 07:31 |
edit |
| deleted user 19.04.2007 10:23 |
WHOOO!! Go Roger! I love when people like him don't take shit from anyone. |
| Micrówave 19.04.2007 12:49 |
Roger Taylor wrote: You suck.I couldn't have said it any better or been more descriptive. |
| redspecial85 19.04.2007 23:56 |
Hahahahaha... That pretty much said it all Rog... |
| lillian 21.04.2007 01:28 |
go roger. |
| LelietjevanDalen 26.04.2007 08:09 |
willem-jan wrote: edit: Bloody hell, I just read this topic is 2 years old, sorry for responding. This topic should be ignored.....Ignoring a serious question? I was planning on teaching my pupils some reading skills using the article and Roger's response, and since I still haven't found the original Rolling Stone article, I was asking if someone might have acquired it within those 2 years. Thank you very much. |
| AmeriQueen 26.04.2007 16:07 |
Hilarious! Everyone has their own taste and opinion about music, who's good, who's not, etc. I love Tarantino films, but some dislike his work and I can imagine why. I love NBA basketball but so many people don't and I can understand why. But of all cultural and artistic creations I love Queen's music best and cannot in any way identify how one could not be amazed by it. I concede that it just doesn't work for some people. But for a magazine like Rolling Stone to constantly treat them like a second rate act instead of the truth in that they are probably the single most popular rock band worldwide in history is just amazing. How can Rolling Stone go from writers to editors to publishers to print with such disrespect to them? It invalidates their magazine and produces a sense that they either have a personal issue with Queen, or they simply should start riding about cooking recipes because they don't know jack about music. If they swapped Queen with the Beach Boys they would be a lot more accurate with their assesment. |
| AmeriQueen 26.04.2007 17:46 |
The following is Rolling Stone Magazine's June 20th 1974 review of the album Queen II. Queen is a reasonably talented band who have chosen their models unwisely. On "Side Black," they venture into a lyrically muddled fairy-tale world with none of Genesis's wit or sophistication. They've also appropriated the most irritating elements of Yes's style — histrionic vocals, abrupt and pointless compositional complexity, and a dearth of melody. "Side White" is quite an improvement, containing many of the same muddled tendencies, but with the saving grace of timely and well-chosen power chords and some rather pretty tunes. But the album remains a floundering and sadly unoriginal affair. (RS 163) KEN BARNES Let's see... publication credibility on the subject of rock music = 0.000 Rolling Stone Magazine sucks more than anything else ever published, including the worst tabloids ever. And this Ken Barnes guy clearly is a joke. "But the album remains a floundering and sadly unoriginal affair." Queen II. Unoriginal. $20 says Freddie, Brian, Roger or John dissed this guy somehow. Surely one who can write and writes about music wouldn't feel this way about Queen's early masterpiece. That's too far beyond my comprehension. |
| Daniel Nester 27.04.2007 22:36 |
I think I posted a copy of his letter to Rolling Stone here on the QZ. |
| Daniel Nester 27.04.2007 22:40 |
Can't find on the QZ -- here it is from my site, scanned: link Enjoy! |
| goinback 28.04.2007 17:58 |
Read the Amazon reviews on Rolling Stone's latest Album Guide...no one else takes Rolling Stone seriously either thankfully: link |
