QueenZone discussion #1149209

Thirteen years after their last album, and 17 years after the death of incomparable frontman Freddie Mercury, Queen are looking, once again, like champions of the world. With a new singer — Paul Rodgers, formerly of Bad Company and Free — a new album and a monumental tour covering 20 countries in 11 weeks, the band with the bestselling album in the history of the U.K. is making a dramatic return to the spotlight.

Micrówave wrote:   So then who pays THEM?   If you write for a magazine, like it or not, you represent them.  That's why they hired you.    So there is a THEM after all.   The only magazine columnust that I'd ever consider paying per article is Rick Reilly.  He's no longer writing for SI, which is exactly why I let my subscription expire.      

Micrówave wrote: Not sure what you're pissing at, Michael, but ok. So you read Alan Light magazine... or whatever. I'll stick to reading regular magazines WHO employ people to (1) write the articles, (2) edit, (3) mail out subscriptions, (4) take phone orders, (5) run the presses, (6) replace the staples in the binding machine, etc., etc., etc. And then when I see the stapler replacer out on the street, I'll thank him for the wonderful article on Q+PR.  And then he can explain that he just stapled the magazine together, and we'll go out looking for you to clear up symantics.

Charlie Brown wrote: ^ Hello Michael, Rolling Stone magazine has a editorial staff  just like every other magazine and editorial staffs tend to have a certain viewpoint and the viewpoint of  Rolling Stones staff has tended to be very negative towards Queen not just in terms of their music but of them as people. If memory serves the review of Jazz was so insulting that it prompted Roger to write a letter on the nearest available piece of paper, which happened to be an air sickness bag.

Michael Allred wrote:

Charlie Brown wrote: ^ Hello Michael, Rolling Stone magazine has a editorial staff  just like every other magazine and editorial staffs tend to have a certain viewpoint and the viewpoint of  Rolling Stones staff has tended to be very negative towards Queen not just in terms of their music but of them as people. If memory serves the review of Jazz was so insulting that it prompted Roger to write a letter on the nearest available piece of paper, which happened to be an air sickness bag.

It's Rolling Stone's intent to obliterate Queen. Heck I remember the jollies they had when Freddie died, I believe the headline went "We're glad the fag's dead!" or something to that effect. Newspapers have editorial staffs as well and for example will often support certain political viewpoints BUT that's kept seperate from the actual articles and reserved only for those "from the editor" pieces. If that wasn't the case, they would lose any shred of journalistic credibility. The facts are that critics, in general, have never liked Queen's music, it does not however mean that there was some sort of ridiculous back room shadiness working towards discrediting Queen's music and derailing their career. To attribute a handful of reviews over the past few decades to an overall attack on Queen by an entire magazine as a whole is leaning into JFK conspiracy lunacy. With all due respect Michael i believe that you are quite mistaken on this topic. You give the rhetorical example of the "We're glad the fag's dead!" headline which actually proves my point. They thought so little of Freddie that they didn't even bother putting him on the cover when he died.  As far as i know  the whole Queen group has never appeared on the cover of Rolling Stone. And Freddie has only appeared as a small part of a collage on the magazines 40th anniversary cover. Jann Wenner co-founder and still publisher of the magazine seems not to like Queen. And the people he tends to hire have similar sensibillities as his, not just in music but politics. Which is why who ever the democratic candidate for president is will receive glowing cover stories about themselves in Rolling Stone every election. Which is not to say that people with rightist opinions never have pieces published in the magazine because people like PJ O'Rourke have over the years. Its not a conspiracy but a mindset.

Charlie Brown wrote:

                              Michael Allred wrote:                              

                                                              Charlie Brown wrote:                               ^ Hello Michael, Rolling Stone magazine has a editorial staff  just like every other magazine and editorial staffs tend to have a certain viewpoint and the viewpoint of  Rolling Stones staff has tended to be very negative towards Queen not just in terms of their music but of them as people. If memory serves the review of Jazz was so insulting that it prompted Roger to write a letter on the nearest available piece of paper, which happened to be an air sickness bag.                              

It's Rolling Stone's intent to obliterate Queen. Heck I remember the jollies they had when Freddie died, I believe the headline went "We're glad the fag's dead!" or something to that effect.                               Newspapers have editorial staffs as well and for example will often support certain political viewpoints BUT that's kept seperate from the actual articles and reserved only for those "from the editor" pieces. If that wasn't the case, they would lose any shred of journalistic credibility.               The facts are that critics, in general, have never liked Queen's music, it does not however mean that there was some sort of ridiculous back room shadiness working towards discrediting Queen's music and derailing their career. To attribute a handful of reviews over the past few decades to an overall attack on Queen by an entire magazine as a whole is leaning into JFK conspiracy lunacy. With all due respect Michael i believe that you are quite mistaken on this topic. You give the rhetorical example of the "We're glad the fag's dead!" headline which actually proves my point. They thought so little of Freddie that they didn't even bother putting him on the cover when he died.  As far as i know  the whole Queen group has never appeared on the cover of Rolling Stone. And Freddie has only appeared as a small part of a collage on the magazines 40th anniversary cover. Jann Wenner co-founder and still publisher of the magazine seems not to like Queen. And the people he tends to hire have similar sensibillities as his, not just in music but politics. Which is why who ever the democratic candidate for president is will receive glowing cover stories about themselves in Rolling Stone every election. Which is not to say that people with rightist opinions never have pieces published in the magazine because people like PJ O'Rourke have over the years. Its not a conspiracy but a mindset.                                              

                                                                             

                              Michael Allred wrote:                              

                                                              Charlie Brown wrote:                                              

                                                                                 

                                                                             

Plenty of celebrities did not appear on the cover of RS after they died, does that mean the magazine has something against them as well? Similarly, Queen only had a window of a few years when they were truly HUGE in America in the late 70s early 80s, that's it. One must consider that Queen were not the only news story of the day back then. It's nothing more basic then "Who was more relevant to American music?" at the time and it's likely Queen would not have been in the top 10 of any critic or music journalist in the country. You mention Jann Wenner and said it seems he does not like the band. To my knowledge he has never made any such comment publically to back that up. On the contrary, Wenner is a big cheese at the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and as we all know, Queen were inducted a few years back while other, more popular American bands have yet to get in like KISS. Surely at some point we would have seen a quote or *something* from Wenner saying "Well, they're not my first choice to get inducted." or something along those lines. Its true Michael that not every celebrity that departs this world appears on the Cover of RS but those other celebrities aren't one of the most well regarded vocalists of all time. And yes Queen was inducted into the Hall of Fame but 3 years after they became eligible so it doesn't seem like Mr. Wenner or his associates  were in a huge hurry to put them in. As for Kiss being more popular according RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) Queen has around 13 million certified units sold in the US than Kiss.