| doremi 16.05.2005 13:06 |
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. |
| Maz 16.05.2005 13:15 |
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. |
| BEF 16.05.2005 13:22 |
|
| doremi 16.05.2005 13:23 |
Zeni wrote:What about RS's gay bashing "joke" about Freddie? If that's not sarcasm and an insult I don't know what is.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. |
| NOTWMEDDLE 16.05.2005 13:32 |
Rolling Stone pretty much, save for older reporters like David Fricke Anthony DeCurtis and Kurt Loder, hate Pink Floyd as well. Most of their new incompetent reviewers would give any post-Waters album two stars or less. Rolling Stone has given Britney Spears 3 stars or better and the same with phlEghMINEM(a/k/a rap's Porky Pig). |
| NOTWMEDDLE 16.05.2005 13:34 |
The new Pope probably hates Pink Floyd for the parody of one of the bible's psalms in Sheep. The new Pope looks like a crime lord. |
| Lester Burnham 16.05.2005 13:56 |
Extra extra, Rolling Stone hates Queen. Also, Thomas Edison invents the light bulb! Read all about it - you heard it here first, folks! |
| Thunderbolt of God 16.05.2005 14:56 |
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? |
| Lester Burnham 16.05.2005 15:00 |
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?Never have, never will. Although, if you want me to make a serious comment about this, ahem, perfectly good topic, then here it is. Stop wasting your time caring what a fucking rag has to say about your favorite band, because these people get paid to say whatever they want - good, bad, or downright ignorant. Rolling Stone has been a pile of shit for years, as it has now become fifty pages of trendy advertisements interspersed with political rantings and musings on how great the next flash-in-the-pan band is. I can't help but laugh that people get so up-in-arms about whatever Rolling Stone says, as if it's the end-all be-all of music publications. They are allowed to voice their opinion, just as you are yours; but getting pissed off about it certainly won't help any, as I'm sure the editor of that piece won't sign on here (a closet Queen fan!) and look at this message, then suddenly say, "Hm, maybe Arlene was right." If you're really that irritated about it, send a letter to the editor - posting about it on a message board won't make a difference. But Queen has been susceptible to every criticism because they've done stuff differently over the years - just like every band worth its salt. I think Keith Moon once said something along the lines of, "If you're considered gods by the press, then you're in for trouble." I also happen to agree about the 'Get Down, Make Love' part. First of all, it says a few things about the journalist: one, that he was able to quote such an obscure Queen song; and two, that he has a sense of humor about it. Where's the earth-shattering message in that song? I know Queen became masters of disposable pop, but 'Get Down, Make Love' isn't all that great of a song. Of course, it shouldn't be taken seriously, but neither should this journalist. |
| Knute 16.05.2005 15:04 |
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 be hard for his memory to escape that stigma because rags like RS are always going to throw it up there. And self-righteous religious 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 insane world we live in. |
| doremi 16.05.2005 15:16 |
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.Yes, but did you read my other examples of the other artists the Pope denounced, yet Rolling Stone didn't jump on those artists or use ANY of them or their songs as examples. You want to talk debauchery, I mean I like The Rolling Stones, But Why didn't Rolling Stone Magazine bring up their umpteen drug busts and Keith Richards being the Heroin King, or the bands' famous arrest with was it an orgy of the entire band eating hash brownies out of Anita Pallenberg's er...brownie? which has been scandal for decades. How about RS's precious Eagles' Glenn Frey had to have his entire inner nose tissue and bones rebuilt just so he could breathe because his years of MAJOR Truck load cocaine abuse literally destroyed the inside of his nose. The Eagles are also very outspoken for the gargantuan orgies they had with tons of women/groupies, coke, other drugs, etc. (all outlined as well in their music) and in graphic interviews which they LOVE to detail. What about all the drugs the Beatles did and John Lennons' Gay/Bi whatever affair with their Manager Brian Epstein..when Lennon was marred t Cynthia Twist with his child Julien? Why doesn't Rolling Stone Magazine bring any of that up? Give me a break. Most rock bands were as "debauched" if not MORE so than anything Queen ever did. RS just gets pleasure out of slamming Queen any chance it gets. Oh....and as for gay bashing Freddie, which......Lester....RS Magazine had no business doing as that is not journalism, it had no business in the article...it is slanted BIGOTRY.....and... ......FYI.......ALL OF QZ READ THIS......... ......Jann Wenner, Publisher, Editor In Chief, Founder of Rolling Stone Magazine, OPENLY outed himself as GAY...several years ago, this after being "supposedly" happily married for 2 decades with children. How dare RS Magazine Gay bash Freddie when its own Publisher, Jann Wenner is openly Gay...as are many of its writers too such as Anthony DeCurtis (who never outed himself, but his flamebouyance makes Freddie look like Mr. Macho man). RS Magazine couldn't be more hypocritical (and trashlike) in this manner. |
| Vad 16.05.2005 15:17 |
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. |
| doremi 16.05.2005 15:24 |
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.Dont you read?!!!! Before you open your mouth and write what you know nothing about? ...I put in all my posts about the Eagles' debauchery in their own lives, as a band, and in their music. CAREFULLY read all my posts before you show your incompetency...as I DID DETAIL The Eagles excesses as people, as a band, and in their song lyrics. But since you are too lazy to read before you write I have reposted what I said about THE EAGLES BELOW! How about RS's precious Eagles' Glenn Frey had to have his entire inner nose tissue and bones rebuilt with reconstructive surgery just so he could breathe because his years of MAJOR Truck load cocaine abuse literally destroyed the inside of his nose. The Eagles are also very outspoken, if not gleeful for the gargantuan orgies they had with tons of women/groupies, coke, other drugs, etc. (all outlined as well in their music) and in graphic interviews which they LOVE to detail. What about their songs?(Think of The Eagles "Witchy Woman" glorifying a female drug dealer, "Life In The Fast Lane", "Hotel California", etc,),... Hotel California was The Eagles' version of Queen's Jazz party..if not WORSE far more decadent and The Eagles glorifiied it! |
| Knute 16.05.2005 15:36 |
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. |
| doremi 16.05.2005 15:39 |
Knute wrote: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.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. |
| Knute 16.05.2005 15:44 |
Arlene R. Weiss wrote:Yeah and GG Allin could take the Eagles to school on that stuff! So what?Knute wrote: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.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. 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? |
| doremi 16.05.2005 15:53 |
Knute wrote:But...my point is that If Rolling Stone Magazine truly only meant it as a joke AT the new Pope, why did they not say ONE word about the other bands that The New Pope denounced, who DO have just as much STIGMA attached to them as well...and as I posted/said above...Arlene R. Weiss wrote: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?Knute wrote: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.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. ...Get Down Make Love's lyrics....have NOTHING to do with RS Magazine's bitchy comment GAY bashing Freddie at ALL! Also read where I said RS Publisher/Editor In Chieg Jann Wenner openly outed himself as GAY..so RS magazine is a bigoted HYPOCRITE. They just USED their (news article journalism) as a CLOUD to give them an open opportunity to slag/slam Queen. Have you never heard of what is known about the evils of the press as "Wag The Dog". Using the cover of "true news" to instead say something unethical or slanted? Go see Robert DeNiro and Dustin Hoffman in the scathing indictment of the press in the film Director Barry Levinson's satire, "Wag The Dog". Your mouth will drop open. BTW..that was based on the Bill Clinton/Monica Lewinsky/war on Saddam Hussein. |
| doremi 16.05.2005 16:00 |
<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.Thank you! Read my post from above: But...my point is that If Rolling Stone Magazine truly only meant it as a joke AT the new Pope, why did they not say ONE word about the other bands that The New Pope denounced, who DO have just as much STIGMA attached to them as well...and as I posted/said above... ...Get Down Make Love's lyrics....have NOTHING to do with RS Magazine's bitchy comment GAY bashing Freddie at ALL! Also read where I said RS Publisher/Editor In Chief Jann Wenner openly outed himself as GAY..so RS magazine is a bigoted HYPOCRITE. They just USED their "news article journalism" as a CLOUD to give them an open opportunity to slag/slam Queen. Have you never heard of what is known about the evils of the press as "Wag The Dog". Using the cover of "true news" to instead say something unethical or slanted? Go see Robert DeNiro and Dustin Hoffman in the scathing indictment of the press in the film Director Barry Levinson's satire, "Wag The Dog". Your mouth will drop open. BTW..that was based on the Bill Clinton/Monica Lewinsky/war on Saddam Hussein events. |
| Knute 16.05.2005 16:08 |
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 died 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. In other words, they would have not used that Freddie/Morrocan pool boy joke if people weren't gonna get it. Is it in bad taste? Yes perhaps, but we live in a tasteless society. |
| doremi 16.05.2005 16:15 |
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.Frey has been quite vocal about that surgery too. as well as he and Henley's partner in crime, Fleetwood Mac's Stevie Nicks...who also had her entire nose reconstructed with surgery and both she and Glenn Frey have Teflon coated METAL plates in their nose as their is NO cartilage left from all the cocaine abuse they both did, often together, as Nicks is friends with Frey and was lovers with Henley. You say this is not public perception, but I have known all of this crap all my life and I'm 43. I never have understood why the USA embraced The Eagles & Fleetwood Mac as squeaky clean when as I said they could GIVE Queen lessons in debauchery, drugs, etc. you name it. |
| Knute 16.05.2005 16:17 |
I think that has a lot to do with homophobic knee jerk reactions. |
| Knute 16.05.2005 16:21 |
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. |
| Maz 16.05.2005 17:06 |
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. |
| doremi 16.05.2005 18:06 |
Zeni wrote:I STILL don't get why people have this Stigma idea of Queen, and again as I said why not Fleetwood Mac or The Eagles. When I was in high school in the 1970's in both bands' heydey..all the talk among us in school was about both The Eagles and Fleetwood Mac's debauchery. We DID know, All of us, THEN. We all laughed at Stevie Nicks nearly oding from SWALLOWING cocaine...she had her stomach pumped and what about her song "Goldust Woman"? We all knew what The Eagles' "Hotel California", "Life In The Fast Lane", & "Witchy Woman" were about. And the "stoners" in my school who I hated loved blasting Steve Miller's "The Joker" on their car radios. Yet all of these artists are beloved by the USA and the baby boomer generation NOW as like you said as squeaky clean. When people of my generation grew into middleaged adults...did they PUT ASIDE or FORGET how debauched these bands were? Also I agree with what Knute said: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.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? |
| Carol! the Musical 16.05.2005 19:16 |
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?I completely agree with you, Arlene!! Many Americans have very positive ideas about Elvis, and seem to forget all the negative things he did during his lifetime, such as drugs. But their view on Freddie is completely different. They dislike him, and often inferiorize him because of his homosexuality. I´m not saying all Americans do this, because I know of a lot of Americans who enjoy and respect Freddie´s music, despite his sexuality. |
| Slightly Dazed 16.05.2005 19:27 |
>oh and what was the article where roger got pissed and wrote a lovely letter to them? Do tell me more! |
| doremi 16.05.2005 19:39 |
Ravenetta wrote: oh and what was the article where roger got pissed and wrote a lovely letter to them?Read this thread. Enjoy! link AND CLICK ON THIS LINK FOR THE LETTER!!!! link |
| doremi 16.05.2005 19:54 |
link BTW..the KEY word that Roger uses...all kidding aside..is when he lets loose on RS for their writing their review of Queen with a... ....SLANT! which is Exactly what they did AGAIN in their article regarding the New Pope and Rock & Roll, then slamming Queen which I brought up in this very TOPIC. That IS the point. Rolling Stone Magazine for over 20 years, only writes SLANTED, SUBJECTIVE articles and BITCHY comments/remarks/"jokes" having nothing to do with Queen's music and they use any opportunity they can to rag on Queen, just to be shitty. |
| OgreBattleField1980 16.05.2005 20:12 |
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 16.05.2005 20:14 |
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 .. |
| doremi 16.05.2005 20:23 |
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 ..You my dear..are a GENIUS! Great 2 posts. Thanks Mucho buncho! :) |
| OgreBattleField1980 16.05.2005 20:31 |
thank you Arlene *bows* i tend to go off when i see certain topics that pluck a nerve or two. |
| OgreBattleField1980 16.05.2005 20:41 |
Ya know , I never really thought about it... but i dont think i have good enough knowlege to really get into the serious discussion of Queen .. ive followed em since 91 adoringly but there are some people here as i read who know a hell of alot more than I do and not all of them are Americans .. most of which are british and such ... I wish i had some access to some of that knowlege but without looking like a complete idiot i sit here and i read and read and read and i know anything i want to know ... but sometimes i feel like replying to some of the topics and just saying what a load of crap some of the replys can be its like dude do ya have to be so serious about Queen or music in general , sure we are fans .. but some topics get really down and dirty to the point that ya just cant bother to read it all... ya know what im sayin? anybody? |
| sundar 16.05.2005 22:18 |
Want me to make a dig, I'm fuming. |
| goinback 16.05.2005 22:22 |
Well at least RS knew that GDML was a radio hit, unlike whoever put together the Queen compilations. Everyone I know in the US in the late '70s/early '80s knew that song, it got lots of airplay, and even NIN remade it. It was one of coolest parts of the concerts too because that's when they showed off all their new lights :) I think some of their comments are tongue-in-cheek honestly, but hey it wouldn't hurt to send it to Brian :) He should write them another letter on an airplane vomit bag just for old times' sake. |
| Mr.Jingles 17.05.2005 08:26 |
For a Queen fan reading 'Rolling Stone' is just like it is for a liberal to watch FOX News. Why even bother reading and watching that shit when you know you're going to get all pissed off. |
| ggo1 17.05.2005 09:27 |
So here's the thing... I'm a huge Queen fan, and I also have a subscription to Rolling Stone. I know the magazine rarely has anything nice to say about the band, but I've been arguing with people about how good Queen were since the 70's and if I didn't read any magazine that said something critical about Queen or Freddie, I'd be limited to "Train Drivers Monthly" and even they probably said something sarcastic about the Breakthru video. But my point is... Lighten Up... When I read it in the mag I grinned and moved on, I actually thought it was funny. Not gut busting laugh out loud funny, but at least mildly amusing. The sentence after the one about Get Down Make Love says "If the pope grew up on Mozart and then joined the Hitler youth at 14, shouldnt he be more worried about the corrupt moral influence of classical jams" The whole piece is about the moral credibility of the papacy, the point being that the pope shouldnt be concerning himself with Rock music, and particularly NOT bands such as Queen. I actually thought the writer had an admiration for Queen. (But not for a papacy that knowingly protects child molesters) Sometimes people take this stuff way too personally and writing strong letters to magazines about trivia pieces such as this doesnt do the band any good at all. Thats my thoughts on it. For what its worth. |
| An Ordinary Guy 17.05.2005 11:43 |
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.... |
| doremi 17.05.2005 11:50 |
Ravenetta wrote: thanks arlene :) but what did RS say that made roger so mad?I have never actually seen or read the review, but from what I understand, Roger wrote that letter to RS Magazine in response to RS writing a negative politically slanted show review of Queen in South America...but get this, to add stupidity to injury, the RS critic based his/her observations of Queen's performance...on a SOUND CHECK! How stupid is that? Any band is going to have flaws in a sound check. That's why it's CALLED a sound check. It's a test..for the sound, the instruments, sound board, monitors, the instrument techs, the band to warm up, loosen up, and test out song material on the planned setlist for the show, even the lights, etc. to CORRECT and FINETOOL any squeaky wheels so to speak. Any writer/journalist with a BRAIN knows you do NOT review a soundcheck. That's like going to a play and reviwing the Dress REHEARSAL, or reviewing a film Before the final approved, mastrered, edited cut, or reviewing a record/CD before the final mastered album...and this from supposedly, and especially at that time, I think the ear;y 1980's when RS Magazine had a reputation as the most esteemed, credentialed music press publication in the USA and pretty much globally. |
| doremi 17.05.2005 11:53 |
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....Excellent point and something I did NOT think of...could this slam be a result of and have some religous right wing bias from pressure from The Vatican or the Catholic Church here in the USA? HMMMM.... |
| Mr.Jingles 17.05.2005 12:15 |
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. |
| doremi 17.05.2005 12:32 |
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. |
| NOTWMEDDLE 17.05.2005 12:56 |
THE BEATLES WERE BETTER THAN ELVIS. The Beatles wrote their own songs, played their own insturments. John Lennon pissed the bible belt of the US off with his "bigger than Christ" statement which was mis-worded by the rednecks and caused the KKK to appear at Beatle gigs. The Beatles stopped touring because of it. Then, tensions and ego slowly killed the band, especially after Epstein's death but The Fab Four went out on top of their game whilst Elvis went out at the bottom of his. |
| teleman 17.05.2005 17:06 |
Arlene R. Weiss wrote:Sorry but I think you missed the mark on this one.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. Elvis never claimed Rock and Roll as being his "invention" He was a fan of the originators of the music. It was white America that proclaimed him The King. Nobody thinks Elvis was a saint anymore than Freddie. (Excepting overexcited fanatics) You get worked up far too easily. Who cares what Rolling Stone, the Pope or anyone else has to say? You have the gift of freedom of thought and to express yourself. Pretty much everyone posting here is a fan of Queen so share that and enjoy. |
| greantings 17.05.2005 21:05 |
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!This is hands down the best, most intelligent and interesting post I've ever read on QZ. Thanks, Lester! (No, I'm not sarcastic) |
| Grantcdn 17.05.2005 21:12 |
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.... |
| doremi 18.05.2005 10:38 |
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..........FYI.......ALL OF QZ READ THIS......... ......Jann Wenner, Publisher, Editor In Chief, Founder of Rolling Stone Magazine, OPENLY outed himself as GAY...several years ago, this after being "supposedly" happily married for 2 decades with children. How dare RS Magazine Gay bash Freddie and make HOMOPHOBIC, slanted, bigoted remarks towards Freddie's sexuality... ...when Rolling Stone's own Publisher, Jann Wenner is openly Gay...as are many of its writers too such as Anthony DeCurtis (who never outed himself, but his flamebouyance makes Freddie look like Mr. Macho man). RS Magazine couldn't be more HYPOCRITICAL (and trashlike) in this manner. |
| TheDrown 22.05.2005 03:38 |
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." -when it comes down to it, Rolling Stone isn't a journalistic magazine, as they'd like to think- regardless of personal opinion, they put flavor of the month actors, teen-bop idols, reality show stars, and so on, on their covers, and are 'mainstream' and 'top 100'. who knows why hundreds of journalists have bias- and many do- against Queen? i suppose there is some slight truth that journalists would like to be musicians, and therefore, have a sort of power in slagging off bands/artists, etc. its also worth thinking about, a popular trend is to focus on the artists who constantly are more famous for their exploits with thousands of drunk females, pounds of cocaine, drug addiction, and passing out on tour- these sorts of stories are what they enjoy writing about. honestly. in fact, look at recent Queen articles in Q, Mojo, whatever- any blurb excerpt from the article wouldn't be "that night they recorded "Save Me" or something- it'd be, "They kept an audience waiting til the Cocaine arrived". "Elton John: Freddie could party harder than me." and so forth. Nothing about music, work, sacrifice, anything- for some reason, this is what they like to focus on in music journalism. I don't need to read about that boring shit, because I can go down the street and see a dozen people who get wasted every night and have useless parties. That being said, how can Queen compare to other bands? There are no overdoses, no public displays of addiction, and so forth- but there is alot of work, prolific output, etc. Freddie was camp, yes- but by the same token, he really enjoyed the aspects of his work so often mocked. Like the ballet scene in IWTBF- *everyone* is amused at that, and takes it tongue-in-cheek- but Freddie didn't. And so, that sort of personality- a guy who, with the rest of his band, always thought about himself as a star, was determined to succeed and be a success, and so on, is not anything a music journalist can relate to. Someone who says, this tour had to be cancelled because we shot heroin every day, I was arrested for beating my girlfriend, we were so strung out on our second album it took an extra year to release- those, for whatever reasons, are the bands that are always going to get the respect they dont deserve. Fuck Rolling Stone. We Don't need them! |
| TheDrown 22.05.2005 04:04 |
I don't want my fellow Queen fans to get pissed at me for going a bit off topic, so know that I mean no disrespect to board rules, ok! thanks. Arlene.. you know, or should know, I respect you very much.. everything you write, I enjoy reading.. and we can agree to disagree on certain things, but I want to reply to you regarding your Elvis thoughts. For the first part dear, alot of the statements made are untrue. Honestly- regardless of whether you have disdain for Elvis, and I love him, neither of us can change *facts*. So remember, nothing I say is because I'm blinded by an admiration for Elvis. In fact, until 2003, I had the same opinion, litterally. And believed much of what you get from pop culture- the Elvis Vegas thing, "thank you very much", etc. In 2003 something thats unimportant garnered my interest, and, as when I'm curious about something, I delve into it, I've since read up. he could barely play guitar (Scotty Moore was his gtr slinger- Untrue. Factually, Elvis was incredibly gifted at guitar, bass, piano and so on- Elvis believed that, if someone is better than he is, it just makes sense to let them play. However, Elvis plays *lead* electric guitar on the 68 comeback special- to which Scotty has commented on was 'damn good'. Dancing and being attractive is a matter of personal opinion, as you already know. ..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. -completely FALSE. What you might be thinking of is Col. Parker insisting that he gets all of the publishing for any cut Elvis made. As for royalties, everyone got them- and for your examples? Here are exact quotes: 'Chuck Berry': "Elvis was the greatest who ever was, is, or ever will be." 'Little Richard': "Elvis was God-Given, there's no other explanation. A messiah comes around every few thousand years, and Elvis was it this time." 'Bo Diddly': "Elvis was color-blind." I could go on, from James Brown to B.B King, but you didn't list them as examples.. and for the record, Elvis didn't cut hardly any Berry tunes, and when he did add 'Johnny B. Goode' to his live act- it was in the 70s. Also, Elvis never ever credited himself for anything- during the hype in the 50s until the 70s, its been recorded at Madison Square Garden's press conference and other places- Elvis is *very* quick to give credit where credit is due. Again, I don't say this because I need to defend Elvis- it's just recorded fact. (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.) What artists are these? I know the black songwriter who wrote "Dont Be Cruel", etc. (and whose name is escaping me at the moment) had very nice things to say, especially as to how he became wealthy. I know that Elvis's singing backup group,The Sweet Inspirations, who would know better than you or myself, have been outright offended when it was suggested that Elvis could be racist in the slightest- in fact, one said he was the first man in the music industry they had met who treated them with absolute respect- and Mryna Smith had to be sedated when she heard Elvis was dead, thats how much it affected her. There are recordings of a 70s concert (an early 70s concert, before the decline) where Elvis, out of character, angrily stops a concert after hearing a racist remark- and explains that 'nigger' can apply to any skin color- which seems sort of anti-racist to me. (and also- in the 50s, pre-fame? Elvis was pulled over by police where he was dating- wait for it- a black girl. she was so scared, and E |
| deleted user 22.05.2005 10:56 |
Why in the world do you bother reading a magazine that you KNOW will upset you? Do the math. |
| KillerQueen840 22.05.2005 12:52 |
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.If the Pope is this crazy about Rock 'n Roll music, I would love to see what he has to say about rap. |