| Day dop 26.07.2011 13:53 |
... with their well known long grudges on particular bands, especially Queen. That is bad journalism, discrediting decent British bands for their own agenda. Freddie as 18th greatest singer according to those turds? When he always does magnificently in other polls, often no 1 or 2. All those bad reviews and a Night at the opera as their 230th best album? And Wiki... please don't include Rolling Stones old grudge filled opinions on your page. Actually, come to think of it - Rolling stone magazine isn't even worthy of touching my bumhole. Rant over. |
| lifetimefanofqueen 26.07.2011 16:02 |
im just guessing but i take it you dont like this mag lol never really read it, only ever heard the name, but if as you say they put queen and other bands down and are like the shitty journalists from the papers, i agree with you then because oh how i could go on about how i hate journalism and news papers. i shall save you my rant dear im feeling calm tonight and would love to get a desent nights sleep tonight :P doubt thats possible though lol |
| catqueen 26.07.2011 16:31 |
I don't read it, but is it THAT bad? |
| Djdownsy 26.07.2011 16:32 |
Just looking at various reviews on their website for Queen just there. Its actually a disgrace. The biography is half arsed (Killer Queen was their first top 20 hit apparently), Flash Gorgon,Hot Space and The Works got the exact same review, ANATO got the highest review....3 and a half stars. I mean, SERIOUSLY? I would have added another star to that, I wouldnt give it 5 stars, but it certainly deserves 4 and a half. Seems like someone has a grudge against Queen. Couldn't be that their jealous no? :P |
| AlbaNo1 26.07.2011 16:50 |
They dont seem to "get" Queen at all. You would not learn anything from their top 500. Almost every album is mainstream and commercial . I thought from reputation they were a serious magazine but looking more closely they are not even worth slightly bothering about. |
| Day dop 27.07.2011 07:54 |
Yeah, Rolling Stone magazines grudge against Queen is a known old story.. Even on the wiki page about Rolling stone, there's a mention of their dislike for various bands - "Rolling Stone magazine has been criticized for reconsidering many classic albums that it had previously dismissed. Examples of artists for whom this is the case include, among others,The Beatles, Led Zeppelin, Black Sabbath, AC/DC, The Beach Boys, Nirvana, Weezer, 2pac, Radiohead, Outkast and also Queen." |
| Isle0fRed 27.07.2011 10:30 |
I thought the News of The World paper was a great substitute for toilet paper. either way, magazines are like newspapers, and as one of my uni lecturers once say; "Respect the papers...but don't anything those people write...ever" |
| malicedoom 27.07.2011 11:01 |
I'm trying to remember the last time Rolling Stone actually 'mattered'. Anyone? Anyone? Maybe mid-to-late 70's?? |
| The Real Wizard 27.07.2011 17:40 |
Rolling Stone still does matter, very much. Yes, they have a very US-centred view of the music scene, because that is their audience. It is still a very diverse and worth while music magazine. There is much great music to be exposed to, and Rolling Stone provides plenty of information about what's happening, well beyond the mainstream. Queen forums are just about the only place where I see people nagging on them. Just because they don't hire writers that like Queen doesn't mean the magazine is to be written off entirely. Take your blinders off, folks. |
| Day dop 27.07.2011 18:41 |
Take the blinders off? Take a look at their top singers list, and then come back and say that, unless you have seen it already and are blinkered. |
| Thistle 27.07.2011 18:49 |
Day dop wrote: Take the blinders off? Take a look at their top singers list, and then come back and say that, unless you have seen it already and are blinkered. ============================================================================================= He's right, though - just because we think they're a bunch of tossers and don't agree with them doesn't mean they don't know what their target audience is, or don't know how to write. Queen ain't big in the USA remember. |
| Day dop 27.07.2011 19:06 |
With Lennon at number 5, who's voice wasn't that great technically, and certainly not better than Merucry's - fan or not, and Micheal Jackon at number 25 (I am not a fan of his) - wouldn't shoving Jackson higher be better for their target audience in the USA? So, baring that in mind - Freddie at 18 doesn't really make sense. His voice was much more powerful than Lennon's, and my view is his voice was more powerful than Jackon's, but then as a fan, I would say that, although I do believe it to genuinely be the case anyway. But as I say - I don't believe it's about target audiences with Jackson so low. I think it would've hurt them to put Freddie higher, truth known. I think it's a shitty magazine with grudge filled opinions on certain groups. Also, remember it isn't just Queen they do it with, but Queen are the main group they slag off and dismiss, for sure. |
| MadTheSwine73 27.07.2011 19:23 |
I find it funny how no one mentioned that Rolling Stone thinks that Bob Dylan (who is my 2nd favourite artist, behind Queen) is a better singer than Freddie or Michael Jackson (whom I hate). |
| Day dop 27.07.2011 19:28 |
If you type in Rolling stone top 100 singers - and read the comments by people, a hell of a lot of people are disgusted about Freddie's placing. I don't like Jackson, but a majority are saying Freddie and Jackson should be at the top (or something similar) |
| The Real Wizard 27.07.2011 22:45 |
Day dop wrote: Take a look at their top singers list, and then come back and say that, unless you have seen it already and are blinkered. ================= If the list's primary criteria is impact on American popular culture, I'd say it's just about bang on. If anyone should be complaining about the list, it should be because of the omissions of Frank Sinatra and Bing Crosby. Considering Queen were never really fashionable in the US, the fact that they put Mercury in the top 20 actually surprised me. |
| Gregsynth 28.07.2011 01:07 |
Sir GH wrote: Rolling Stone still does matter, very much. Yes, they have a very US-centred view of the music scene, because that is their audience. It is still a very diverse and worth while music magazine. There is much great music to be exposed to, and Rolling Stone provides plenty of information about what's happening, well beyond the mainstream. Queen forums are just about the only place where I see people nagging on them. Just because they don't hire writers that like Queen doesn't mean the magazine is to be written off entirely. Take your blinders off, folks. ================ Rolling Stone magazine is nagged on more than just Queen forums. Many people complain because of BIAS towards certain groups (like the Beatles), their inconsistent reviews (they often rate different albums the SAME rating--which clashes with just about every other review place), and they change their views on a band when a person dies (Nevermind was rated 2 stars or something, then when Cobain died, they change it to 5 stars). If you change ratings like that--that loses credibility with music fans. |
| Day dop 28.07.2011 08:03 |
It really isn't bang on.... Lennon at number 5 and Jackson at number 25? - that doesn't tie up with American culture as Jackson is huge over there. And if it's about singing ability - then Lennon at number 5? Or is it about performance and influence (in the USA) ? - Freddie at 18 and Jackson at 25? Lennon at 5, Mercury 18, and Jackson at 25 makes absolutely no sense. But aside from that - Why would Led Zepplin have been dismissed by the magazine so much, and Zepplin were/are big in the USA after all.... That's another one of the groups, along with Queen that the magazine have no time for. They are just a bias, grudge holding bunch of toss pots at rolling toilet roll magzine. A 40 year long stretch of bad reviews and dismissal?- that's a little obvious, wouldn't you say? Hence, aside from Wiki making note of it, and it generally recognised that it's a bias magazine who have an ongoing nature to dismiss great bands - the reaction by folk on the comments of the 100 rolling stone greatest singers. Many have and are commenting that Freddie doesn't belong that low, and if not at no.1 to 3, should at least be in the top 10. Anyone would have to be deaf to not recognise that. |
| Over the Field 28.07.2011 10:24 |
The title says it all. |
| malicedoom 28.07.2011 10:40 |
Jesus, they didn't even put a pic of Freddie on their cover when he died (just his name and dates). Rolling Stone blows raw monkey. |
| catqueen 28.07.2011 18:38 |
Day dop wrote: With Lennon at number 5, who's voice wasn't that great technically, and certainly not better than Merucry's - fan or not, and Micheal Jackon at number 25 (I am not a fan of his) - wouldn't shoving Jackson higher be better for their target audience in the USA? Not really. Lennon is an older artist, plus he's dead, and both of those factors would push his rating higher with Rolling Stones. They are more into older music, and Jackson wouldn't fit into that. Yes, he probably IS more popular with their target audience now, but not with their original audience, and it could be a snobbery issue to not put the popular famous one at the top, esp as he was a dancer as well. |
| Matheusms 28.07.2011 21:27 |
I think that RS and other magazines like them always tried to be hipster, to dictate what is trendy and what is tacky. In a way, they saw rock'n roll as a popular, three-chords and non-sophisticated kind of music, which is opposite to the prog rock and the over-the-top hard rock bands of the seventies. Punk was their perfect argument to bash these bands, Queen was one of them and represented the rock'n roll flamboyance that they hated most. |
| queenUSA 29.07.2011 16:20 |
You're right to take offense with Rolling Stone - they've been wrong for too long and have gotten away with it. That's why their mag can rot on the news stand and I'll never buy it, never even touch it. The covers are modern but the system is medieval to me ... for the value of music cannot be found between the written pages of Rolling Stone - only by each listener can that occur, making their own independent judgements on what to like and not like. I'm grateful instead for the rapid rise and expansion of You Tube, for instance, and free access via the internet to music around the world. At the touch of our screen we can now circumnavigate the world of music on our own, music from any period, and thus make our own informed choices & conclusions. Borders and boundaries are melting away through the internet and so are the middlemen and censorship based upon commercial agendas. I feel the ability to post & share music online is currently the greatest avenue to attract new Queen fans globally. |
| Day dop 30.07.2011 08:15 |
It's just a shame that on WIKI they include Rolling toilet papers opinion of Queen on their page, or Freddie's. |