QueenZone discussion #537026

Arlene R. Weiss wrote: You will note though, that Rolling Stone adds their little and "EVEN" the Eagles. (The Eagles are critical darling favorites of RS so I noticed right away that RS added in the italicized "EVEN" as if to say How dare the Pope rag on and denounce one of Rolling Stone's babies!

Zeni wrote:

Arlene R. Weiss wrote: You will note though, that Rolling Stone adds their little and "EVEN" the Eagles. (The Eagles are critical darling favorites of RS so I noticed right away that RS added in the italicized "EVEN" as if to say How dare the Pope rag on and denounce one of Rolling Stone's babies!

That's not how I read that comment. I think RS is saying "even The Eagles, who have never caused any public hystreria and critical outcry that the other bands have." California Rock is, after all, the definition of innocuous, Hotel California be damned. No writer would switch from condemnation to such obvious sarcasm as that paragraph clearly does. And besides, why even read Rolling Stone at this point? We know they hate Queen, we know they have always hated Queen, and we know they will always hate Queen. I find that by not reading RS, I enjoy music a lot more.

Thunderbolt of God wrote: Do you people (i.e. Lester Burnham, etc) never stop to consider whether or not anyone actually wants to read your bitchy little comments about perfectly good topics?

Knute wrote: Freddie is still the only major rock star to have died of AIDS. His excesses, whether true or not are part of his public mythological persona now. It's going to hard for his memory to escape that stigma because rags like RS are always going to throw it up there. And self-righteous religeous leaders are always going to use Freddie as an example of an immoral lifestyle leading to it's natural conclusion. I wish it weren't true but that's the kind of world we live in.

Vad wrote: So, what Arlene is trying to tell us is that RS (which I've never read cause they're musical incompetents) deserve to be burned in hell cause they hate Queen, but she might be some kind of hero cause she hates Eagles, satanized by her without any special reason.

Vad wrote: So, what Arlene is trying to tell us is that RS (which I've never read cause they're musical incompetents) deserve to be burned in hell cause they hate Queen, but she might be some kind of hero cause she hates Eagles, satanized by her without any special reason.

Knute wrote:

Vad wrote: So, what Arlene is trying to tell us is that RS (which I've never read cause they're musical incompetents) deserve to be burned in hell cause they hate Queen, but she might be some kind of hero cause she hates Eagles, satanized by her without any special reason.

LOL! Sorry Arlene, he's got you there. You are displaying nepotism. Just like Rolling Stone does.

Arlene R. Weiss wrote:

Knute wrote:

Vad wrote: So, what Arlene is trying to tell us is that RS (which I've never read cause they're musical incompetents) deserve to be burned in hell cause they hate Queen, but she might be some kind of hero cause she hates Eagles, satanized by her without any special reason.

LOL! Sorry Arlene, he's got you there. You are displaying nepotism. Just like Rolling Stone does.

I don't get you. Didn't you read my post above yours! The Eagles could TEACH and GIVE LESSONS to Queen on how to party, do drugs, and be debauched.

Knute wrote:

Arlene R. Weiss wrote:

Knute wrote:

Vad wrote: So, what Arlene is trying to tell us is that RS (which I've never read cause they're musical incompetents) deserve to be burned in hell cause they hate Queen, but she might be some kind of hero cause she hates Eagles, satanized by her without any special reason.

LOL! Sorry Arlene, he's got you there. You are displaying nepotism. Just like Rolling Stone does.

I don't get you. Didn't you read my post above yours! The Eagles could TEACH and GIVE LESSONS to Queen on how to party, do drugs, and be debauched.

Yeah and GG Allin could take the Eagles to school on that stuff! So what? They didn't say Freddie was a terrible person that justified the Pope's inane ramblings. They're pointing out the silliness of it all by using dark humor. Like I said, fair or not, Freddie has a stigma attached to him. Did you read my post?

<b><font color = "crimson">ThomasQuinn wrote: I took the liberty of sending them an appropriately biting e-mail: Rolling Stone, once heralded as one of the greatest music magazines in the world, now decayed and embittered, a pulpy mass of spite and hate spread under the guise of intelligent matter. Why does this seem vaguely reminiscent of Nazi propaganda magazine 'Der Sturmer'? Will you be adding cheap pornographic propaganda next? RS presents us with it's absolutely charming music 'reviews'. My apologies for using the quotation marks, but I cannot bring myself to viewing these pieces of text as genuine reviews. Objectivity, an essential component of a review, is nowhere to be found; either RS likes you, and thus all your reviews are unimaginably kind and positive, or RS hates you, which happens in the majority of cases, and you will never see anything but subjective envy by the musically challenged (which seems to be the main criterion for getting a job as a reviewer for the RS) for a review of your latest album. As if this Rupert Murdoch-type reviewing, usually named slanting, isn't enough, the RS can't resist slipping their bitter hate into other articles. Take, for instance, the RS' response to pope Benedict's pathetic remarks about 'Satanic' Rock & Roll. The RS cannot bear to go without slanting at least one of their most hated bands, in this case Queen, as often as possible. Interesting, that RS has to resort to cheap jokes, reminiscent of bad comedians making fun of their audiences in cheap joints (yes, 'cheap joints' is a hint at the state you are in now, RS!), to entertain the reader. Of course, this is the easiest way out when no person able to comment in a sensible way on events is present, which is, it is painfully obvious, the case. Furthermore, RS does not bother to check their facts. 'Get Down Make Love' one of Queen's hits? Please, how ignorant must one be to say, let alone believe, that. Shouldn't a professional music magazine be aware that a song which was no crowd-favourite by a long run, and was not a single-release anywhere in the world was not a hit? The level RS is at, at this time, is not even high enough to take too much notice of. In fact, the only two emotions in place when looking upon it's current state of decayed glory are pity and malicious joy. Because, in the end, RS is good for a cheap laugh, no more, no less. How ironic, isn't it? The fact that the type of humour you yourself employ as a means of entertaining the reader is what you are yourself a victim (or more appropriately: the subject) of. Yours, Caspar Mulders Netherlands P.S.: I wonder if you even have the guts to respond to this message. Somehow I doubt it.

Knute wrote: But here's where you and I disagree. The Eagles do not have a detrimental stigma surrounding them. Most people think the Eagles are as squeeky clean as Mickey Mouse's asshole. They're All American, Mom's apple pie in the public's eye. Freddie is percieved as a promiscuous and charismatic gay performer who dies of Aids. Is this correct or not? You or I know he was much more than that. But we are talking public perception. Hell, I didn't know Glen Frey had his nose reconstructed and I thought I knew a shitload of rock trivia.

Arlene R. Weiss wrote: Your mouth will drop open. BTW..that was based on the Bill Clinton/Monica Lewinsky/war on Saddam Hussein events.

Zeni wrote:

Arlene R. Weiss wrote: Your mouth will drop open. BTW..that was based on the Bill Clinton/Monica Lewinsky/war on Saddam Hussein events.

No, it wasn't. The release of the movie and Clinton's missile attack against Bin Laden were around the same time. It was coincidence, not an attempt by the filmmakers to editorialize. As for the debate over The Eagles, it's moot. The fact that you have to educate us about their illicit deeds should end the conversation. The Eagles, regardless of reality, were never viewed as a wicked band. They were not the perceived threat to young boys in the same way that Queen was, and in the twenty-five years since their heyday, their image has only increased. What purpose would it serve, in a sarcastic article, to bring up aviary misdeeds when no one understands it? It's like trying to explain the punchline to a really bad joke.

Knute wrote: I mean look at Elvis. That dude was hardly a saint. Died on the crapper and was a bloated mess filled with drugs. Yet he is damn near a diety.

Arlene R. Weiss wrote: Elvis was a drug addled, boozing, gun toting, womanizing waste who died YOUNGER than Freddie due to his own excesses, and on the toilet. How low can someone sink? Yet people in the USA act like Elvis is a Saint, especially....the moral majority bible belt...the VERY same people who canonized Elvis...ostracized Freddie. How ironic and hypocritcal is that?

Ravenetta wrote: oh and what was the article where roger got pissed and wrote a lovely letter to them?

OgreBattleField1980 wrote: God save the Queen .....and Rolling Stone magazine sucks .... nuff said ... im not anti eagles , though i am anti crap .. erm rap .. retards attempting poetry (lol)... I like good rock music , and i think there is a little of it in every good band ... depending on what your tastes are.

OgreBattleField1980 wrote: Not bad for my first post in quite some time I might add , and Freddie , bisexual or not, critisized or not, will always be a musical genious in my eyes. Especially after watching the second disc of GVH1 with the bohemian rhapsody stuff... that alone ought to shut Rolling stone right up ..

Ravenetta wrote: thanks arlene :) but what did RS say that made roger so mad?

An Ordinary Guy wrote: Isn't there any relation between the rock'n'roll damnation by the new pope and the fact that Queen had that concert in Italy during the national mourning for the late John Paul II? I don't know, just hit me as a bit weird. The probability of such a relation....

Mr.Jingles79 wrote: Elvis is the best example of a FABRICATED superstar. Think about it, the guy had as much talent as a member of a boy band.

Arlene R. Weiss wrote:

Mr.Jingles79 wrote: Elvis is the best example of a FABRICATED superstar. Think about it, the guy had as much talent as a member of a boy band.

While I appreciate and respect that Elvis "crossed over" rock & roll from African Americans to the USA and then worldwide caucasian audience and made it "acceptable" to quote music scholars, etc. I am not impressed with Elvis's music at all and never have been. I agree that Elvis was more of a heartthrob teen idol, who then became a hearttrob middleaged idol to screaming women. He didn't write most of his own hits (everybody from Little Richard to Eddie Rabbitt and Mac Davis did), he could barely play guitar (Scotty Moore was his gtr slinger), he couldn't dance (woopy, he shook his hips), he wasn't particularly attractive...and... ..if you listen to Little Richard, Chuck Berry, Bo Diddley, whose songs Elvis made hits without giving them a penny in royalties...per them, (and I wholeheartedly agree), Elvis ripped off their music and money, he got rich and famous and the credit for "inventing" rock & roll for being a "pioneer" and "architect" of R&R, but they did, NOT him. And every interview I have ever read or seen with these black American artists, they are still resentful and fuming at Elvis and bible belt America over this. I also agree that whatever contributions Elvis did, or did not do for music, well so did Queen. Yet as I said, Elvis was also debauched and a hypocrite at that (portraying himself as a clean cut gospel singing church going all American boy). You also never heard of Freddie toting guns and psychotically going off the deep end randomly shooting at TVs, threatening people, AND (having what Elvis's close circle knew as his music "mafia" a bunch of lowlife hustlers and petty criminals, including his manager the FAKE Colonel Tom Parker, who all used threats, violence, and scare tactics to get what they wanted). So why does Queen get singled out for their excesses and not their music contributions and Elvis's "contributions" overshadow all wrongdoing and cleanse him of any wrongdoing and make him a saint? Give me a break.

Lester Burnham wrote: Extra extra, Rolling Stone hates Queen. Also, Thomas Edison invents the light bulb! Read all about it - you heard it here first, folks!

Grantcdn wrote: Rolling Stone has always trashed Queen because the writers/editors are bigoted and aren't musicians....they usually seem to like the three chord stuff....and yes...they always reference Freddie's sexuality because it's a trash magazine.....I'm surprised they don't run 4 page articles about how straight Bob Dylan is (is he? I don't know and don't care what happens in the bedrooms or backseats of this world) arrrghhghgh.......isn't this supposed to be a music mag....

Arlene R. Weiss wrote: The Current May 19th issue of Rolling Stone Magazine with Orlando Bloom on the cover, once again takes nasty aim at Queen, and Freddie as well. Page 38 has a scathing indictment of the New Pope's denouncement of Rock & Roll, which actually is on spot and fine and with which I agree. But, through the course of the article, in discussing the artists that The New Pope denounced, Rolling Stone Magazine seems to take immense sarcastic pleasure in using it as an open opportunity to insult and slap Queen & Freddie in the face. Here's the quote... "The new Pope Benedict XVI has been denouncing rock for years. In 1996, he gave a sermon in St. Peter's Square warning of "satanic messages", singling out depraved characters such as Queen, the Beatles, the Stones, and EVEN the Eagles. Doesn't he realize there is a serious spiritual message in Queen hits like "Get Down Make Love" with eucharistic resonances in the lines "I suck your mind/You blow my head." The article goes on to say, quote, "Ratzinger (The New Pope) was the top Vatican commando under Pope John Paul II, where he earned a reputation as a hatchet man, smacking down any hint of disobedience like Freddie Mercury using a riding crop on the new Moroccan pool boy." If you read the entire article, other than referring to the other artists the New Pope singles out in the New Pope's denouncement of R&R, being The Beatles, the Stones, and the Eagles..there are NO other mentions about ANY of these other artists and RS uses these artists strictly within the ACTUAL denouncement reference that the NEW Pope made, ONLY. You will note though, that Rolling Stone adds their little and "EVEN" the Eagles. (The Eagles are critical darling favorites of RS so I noticed right away that RS added in the italicized "EVEN" as if to say How dare the Pope rag on and denounce one of Rolling Stone's babies! Then, of all the artists above, all who had ruder, certainly more "evil" lyrics and tunes,... (Think of The Eagles "Witchy Woman" glorifying a female drug dealer, "Life In The Fast Lane", "Hotel California", etc,),... ...(WORST of all---think of The Rolling Stones' "Sympathy For The Devil"...of ALL songs for crying out loud!!!! or "Under My Thumb"), (think the Beatles' "Helter Skelter", etc). Rolling Stone Magazine makes NO reference AT ALL to ANY of these other artists' "evil" lyrics or deeds. But....who does Rolling Stone Magazine pick for a song and lyrics, in a very sarcasticly worded insulting "joke"? ha ha NOT!...Queen! Then...with the reference to The New Pope's hardline tactics..where does Rolling Stone Magazine get off making a nasty sexual, gay bashing joke about Freddie? (The "smacking down any hint of disobedience like Freddie Mercury using a riding crop on the new Moroccan pool boy.") remark. I was LIVID when I read this! Why does RS constantly rag On Queen...geez louise. BTW....I am from the USA and I am proud to say..I HATE The EAGLES, always have, always will! Glenn Frey And Don Henley write the most self indulgent corporate crap quasi country excuse for rock I've ever heard. And I HATE Frey's voice it sucks! The only decent thing about that band is Joe Walsh's guitar playing.