| kruh 06.12.2012 07:07 |
Hello people! Lately I often read critical reviews in Rolling Stone magazine. It seems to me that the critics of this magazine do not like Queen. I can agree with, some things, but it seems to me that there is not a lot of good reviews. What do you think! Am I biased because I'm a fan! Does the fans of other bands can say the same! Or is there any other reason. Best regards, Gregor! |
| mgq39 06.12.2012 09:21 |
Haha I am also a Queen fan, but some of the stuff they say like Queen throws "crap at a fan and if it sticks that's good and if it does not well that's good" is just ridiculous I know they made a lot of songs but they put something into everyone of them evergreen it was musical talent or lyrical, from what I heard they hated Led Zepplin and The Beatles, but then they got famous and as you see now the magazine changed their mind, ha they are supposed to be a rock magazine, but they never put Queen on their cover and they put Lol Wayne on it that is just stupid, anyways I think they are supposed to be a rock magazine they named themselves after a rock band correct me if I am wrong. |
| mgq39 06.12.2012 09:23 |
Errors sorry I am on my phone even if instead of evergreen and Lil instead of lol* |
| Vocal harmony 06.12.2012 10:00 |
Rolling Stone is exspensive printed toilet paper. It's a bunch of third rate journalists picking something controversial to write so they can get their names noticed. Does their opinion matter? No! |
| The Real Wizard 06.12.2012 10:35 |
Nonsense. Rolling Stone is an excellent magazine. They just have their tastes, like anyone else. It's mostly US-centric. They even panned the Led Zeppelin debut album. Rush didn't start getting good reviews until a few years ago. It isn't a bad magazine because certain writers don't like a select few bands. They have excellent insight into what's happening right now. |
| antiden 06.12.2012 11:00 |
Rolling Stone is a load of shit. That's it. |
| malicedoom 06.12.2012 11:21 |
Amen. Rolling Stone blows raw monkey. |
| DLCVinnuendo 06.12.2012 11:24 |
that magazine sucks!!!! |
| brENsKi 06.12.2012 11:38 |
typical asinine comments. not liking a band does not make the magazine crap. their content is usually very readable stuff. like everything in life, work with what you know - they'll never like queen - but that doesn't make most of their reviews lacking in objectivity. and in response to mgq39 who said: "I think they are supposed to be a rock magazine they named themselves after a rock band correct me if I am wrong" happy to oblige - they DID NOT name themselves after a rock band the magazine title came from a 1950 Muddy Waters song "Rollin' Stone" |
| GratefulFan 06.12.2012 12:27 |
Old news to many of us, but some newer fans will appreciate this classic from Rolling Stone: link The strength of the vitriol in this one never fails to drop my jaw either: link |
| brENsKi 06.12.2012 12:59 |
in fairness, the comparison of Mustapha and Hernando's Hideaway is kinda right you can hear slowed down versions of the Mustapha melody in Alma Cogan, Johnnie Ray, 4 Lads and Arthur Fielder's versions |
| ParisNair 06.12.2012 14:42 |
GratefulFan wrote: Old news to many of us, but some newer fans will appreciate this classic from Rolling Stone: link The strength of the vitriol in this one never fails to drop my jaw either: linkThe new fans will also find this letter from Roger to Rolling Stone interesting- link |
| GratefulFan 06.12.2012 14:56 |
^ Which was in response to this: link (an excerpt - not sure if the full version is online somewhere...I'm sure it is/was as I did read it in it's entirely in the past after reading about the air sick bag note in one bio or other) |
| mgq39 06.12.2012 15:28 |
To brENski: I had a feeling I was wrong about how they named their magazine thanks for the correction. |
| waunakonor 06.12.2012 17:00 |
I always thought it was named after Like a Rolling Stone, so that's new.
Anyway, from browsing their website occasionally, I tend to notice a lot of bias toward The Rolling Stones and Bob Dylan, which makes sense. Their top two songs of all time are Satisfaction and Like a Rolling Stone. Also, apparently Bob Dylan and Mick Jagger are better frontmen than Freddie Mercury. Really? Really?
I sometimes like reading one or two of their Queen reviews for a good chuckle, particularly Jazz. They're fascists because they act kind of arrogant? Really, Rolling Stone? Really? There's a lot more I could say about it, but I'll leave it at that. The first time I read that review I was kind of horrified, and started half believing some of it, but then I read through it again and realized that the guy hardly had a clue what he was talking about, so I had a good laugh.
The best part is that their original review for Queen link is extremely favorable. This guy sees them as an energetic emerging talent who will stay around for a long time, and for good reason. I'm not really sure what happened since then.
brENsKi wrote: not liking a band does not make the magazine crap.Possibly, but that doesn't mean I should read it even if I hardly respect their opinions at all. :) |
| sundar 06.12.2012 21:31 |
Do not cheapen toilet paper please. I would not think of sullying my shit, much less wiping my ass, with the trite that is on that magazine, notwithstanding the cost of its paper. Sorry, should have clicked on reply with quote, but this is in response to what "Vocal harmony" said ... "Rolling Stone is exspensive printed toilet paper. It's a bunch of third rate journalists picking something controversial to write so they can get their names noticed. Does their opinion matter? " |
| Ozz 06.12.2012 23:06 |
Rolling Stone Is a very biased music magazine. I read it for years, and they were always the same: If they could , they would do a whole magazine special of what Bob Dylan pooped in the morning. Gawd they love insanely the guy. They also love anything that resembles Punk Attitude, and if it's a marketing scam pulled by malcolm mclaren even better. They don't care about the quality of the music, They care about some stereotypical rocknroll rebel attitude . For them, rock, punk is serious business. Springsteen , Dylan and Shit. That's why Queen never fit. Queen is one of those bands that never took themselves seriously. They do rock to entertain. Not to make a political statement. But they're popular, and that always pissed them off I've met a lot of people that hate Queen for that same reason that they take some stuff too seriously. like: "Punk is the real thing", "Dylan is God", "Rock is about not changing evar.. like AcDc, Iron Maiden or Kiss" I just Laugh |
| Jazz 78 07.12.2012 10:01 |
After a story Rolling Stone did on Queen when they were first touring South America appeared and to Roger's disliking, he wrote to the editors in response on an air sickness bag... which they printed. The editors even made note of it at the end of his letter. Served them right! |
| jones904 07.12.2012 18:52 |
They get paid to write bad reviews |
| OhioBobcat555 07.12.2012 22:44 |
It really pisses me off when people defend RS. Obviously they have a right to do whatever the heck they want... but they are completely disingenuous and that just does it for me. How can you be a major rock and music magazine and literally shun bands as Queen? A band that made huge impacts on music as we know... 300 million records sold worldwide... how can they be muted by this terrible magazine? And "smaller" bands that still have a major talent as Dream Theater or Rush... Gawd they hate prog bands or bands that have plans to do something. It's like the American publication "Sports Illustrated" completely ignoring a team as the Raiders just because they have a reputation for having a lot of characters on their team. The Raiders make it to the Super Bowl and the magazine of sport fails to acknowledge them at all in the biggest game in the world. Imagine that. BTW, I agree with a couple of posters. RS is all about a certain image. You would think that Mercury's persona was perfect for any image of rock... almost punk in the "FU" attitude he took... but RS is filled with ex-"musicians" that could never make it. Especially in context when Queen came out and journalists realized they had a plan and were going through with it and having success, it was too much for their egos. The unwritten rule then in music was that all bands had to spend time underground playing little bars for years. Queen had huge plans and made no bones about it. And hence you can see that exact animosity in that ridiculous Jazz post... but that sums up the attitude at the time. RS has the image of a guy wearing a leather jacket or a torn tee shirt with blue jeans. Freddie just pissed them off. BTW, I love that. Freddie and Queen are proving to be timeless as we all know. |
| waunakonor 07.12.2012 23:04 |
OhioBobcat555 wrote: the biggest game in the worldI generally agree with your post, but lol. And I'm saying that as an American who hardly cares about soccer/football to the rest of the world. |
| Ozz 08.12.2012 01:59 |
the biggest /best game in the world is Football (Soccer) by far. World Cup, you know? :D |
| thomasquinn 32989 08.12.2012 06:51 |
The Real Wizard wrote: Nonsense. Rolling Stone is an excellent magazine. They just have their tastes, like anyone else. It's mostly US-centric. They even panned the Led Zeppelin debut album. Rush didn't start getting good reviews until a few years ago. It isn't a bad magazine because certain writers don't like a select few bands. They have excellent insight into what's happening right now.I heartily disagree. IMHO, Rolling Stone is like conceptual art: no real content, but masses of pretentious bullshit on the side. They are to rock 'n roll what Down Beat is to jazz: institutionalized nay-saying, jealousy and ulterior motives. There are plenty of good music magazines, but I don't see how RS was ever one of them. |
| The Real Wizard 08.12.2012 10:27 |
link Read this, and you can thank me later :-) |
| Day dop 08.12.2012 21:41 |
Having Freddie at no.18 on their best singers ever list was no surprise, coming from a magazine that's slagged them off and dismissed Queen for almost 40 years. That magazine isn't worthy of being wiped on my arsehole. |
| YAFF 12.12.2012 23:58 |
The Real Wizard wrote: Nonsense. Rolling Stone is an excellent magazine. They just have their tastes, like anyone else. It's mostly US-centric. They even panned the Led Zeppelin debut album. Rush didn't start getting good reviews until a few years ago. It isn't a bad magazine because certain writers don't like a select few bands. They have excellent insight into what's happening right now.A critic should be able to review material based on the genre not personal taste. Those idiots give every Dio album one star with a few exceptions but if they understood metal they'd realize Dio was one of the greatest. Rolling Stone is a joke. Their reviews hold no value. Critics are pretty much useless anyway. |
| YAFF 13.12.2012 00:00 |
Day dop wrote: Having Freddie at no.18 on their best singers ever list was no surprise, coming from a magazine that's slagged them off and dismissed Queen for almost 40 years. That magazine isn't worthy of being wiped on my arsehole.Agreed. Freddie is easily Top 5 if not at the top. RS has no credibility with intelligent readers |
| MercuryArts 14.12.2012 12:41 |
I take no credit for this quote, but as we all know, if the record buying public over the last 45 years bought only the albums RS gave good reviews to & ignored all the albums they dismissed as poor, said record collector would have the worst music collection ever! I think this is from either John Paul Jones or Jimmy Page. I can't remember. |
| deleted user 14.12.2012 13:15 |
Well, all I can say is who will ever remember the names of the Rolling Stone writers? Whereas Freddie will be remembered and loved forever! Those who can, do! Those who cannot, criticize! |
| deleted user 14.12.2012 13:35 |
ParisNair wrote: The new fans will also find this letter from Roger to Rolling Stone interesting- linkLovely! Kudos to Roger! |
| tomchristie22 15.12.2012 07:38 |
ParisNair wrote: The new fans will also find this letter from Roger to Rolling Stone interesting- linkI'd never heard of this, that's brilliant haha. |
| PrimeJiveUSA 16.12.2012 14:11 |
Rolling Stone(like most print magazines) is becoming obsolete as is their snooty views on music. The writers and editors are competing with each other as to who is more "hip". I know they are online, too...but yawn...how many other music-related websites are there? |
| malicedoom 19.12.2012 11:22 |
I've seen that before (Roger's letter to R.S.) - love it. Go, Roger. |
| Mr.Jingles 03.01.2013 07:22 |
Ozz wrote: Rolling Stone Is a very biased music magazine. I read it for years, and they were always the same: If they could , they would do a whole magazine special of what Bob Dylan pooped in the morning. Gawd they love insanely the guy. They also love anything that resembles Punk Attitude, and if it's a marketing scam pulled by malcolm mclaren even better. They don't care about the quality of the music, They care about some stereotypical rocknroll rebel attitude . For them, rock, punk is serious business. Springsteen , Dylan and Shit. That's why Queen never fit. Queen is one of those bands that never took themselves seriously. They do rock to entertain. Not to make a political statement. But they're popular, and that always pissed them off I've met a lot of people that hate Queen for that same reason that they take some stuff too seriously. like: "Punk is the real thing", "Dylan is God", "Rock is about not changing evar.. like AcDc, Iron Maiden or Kiss" I just LaughI couldn't agree more. Rolling Stone gives reviews based on personal relationships with artists rather than talent. Going back to Dylan and Springsteen, Rolling Stone gives also good reviews to artist that support their socio/political ideology. That's why bands like Queen were never like by Rolling Stone. Queen never had a political agenda, and hardly ever made light of social issues on their songs. What's more enraging about Rolling Stone is that they can't get more annoying as far as politics go by pushing their liberal agenda. I'm kinda liberal myself, but every single issue was in 2012 had an article about Obama being America's messiah, and Romney being the country's worst nightmare. To make matters worse for Rolling Stone, they tend to back away from their own comments. When Nirvana's 'Nevermind' came out they gave the album a mixed review, but upon witnessing how much had the album done to change the whole music scene of the 90s, they change their mind. Now they put the album on top of every 'Best Albums Ever' list. |
