Page 1 of 1

Rolling Stone: Love it? Hate it?

PostPosted: Sun Feb 26, 2006 6:18 pm
by SilentBobX
Got an opinion on Rolling Stone, supposedly the finest music magazine in all of existence(not my opinion, btw). Post it. Should the entire thing be burned to the ground, the ashes shat upon and left for dead? Or could it be cool again with some minor tweaking? Or do you think it's the greatest thing on paper since Playboy?

I'll offer my opinions. First:

What I like: Their glowing tribute to the late, great, Hunter Thompson, their focus on new bands, the Road Rage and Nat'l Affairs columns. Altho sometimes it gets me worked up over how absolutely fucked up this country is and how even more fucked up it's becoming. Also, their album reviews are extensive and I like how they try to give as much decent coverage to otherwise unseen and unknown artists as they can.

What I hate: How in so many articles, they dis the military, yet 5 pages later they have an ad for either the Air Force or Army. Their weird stance on drugs, ie, one article, they went on about the rights of people to smoke pot, and a few months later, they're all over sports supplements and the 'scourge' of meth. Their constant flip flopping on that bugs me to no end. Also, their movie reviews by Peter Travers are agonizing to read at times. Sometimes I read a review and wonder if he even saw the movie at all. I know it's a music magazine, but maybe they should just stop doing movies and movie coverage altogether. And one final thing: Is it just me, or does everyone they support for president seem to crash and burn immediately after the magazine hits the stands? But then again, it's not like they, or the voters elect presidents.

All in all, I'd probably suggest a huge shakeup at RS needs to be in order. I like the magazine, yes, but it needs fixing.

Thoughts? Discussion? Angst? Post your Fear and Loathing and let the world know

PostPosted: Sun Feb 26, 2006 6:31 pm
by Seppuku
Naturally some of the finest in modern literature has been featured within their pages, mostly courtesy of Hunter- specifically Fear and Loathing on the Campain Trail, F&L at The Watergate and that little Las Vegas Book. Also they deserve all the kudos they get for giving such journalists as Cameron Crowe a place where they can vent themselves. And he was only 15 at the time. Those articles on Neil Young, Led Zeppelin and the Allman brothers are brilliant.

OK now cut to 30 years later. I don't buy too many copies of the Rolling Stone, it's normally twice the price here because of import costs. However I'll occasionally grab a copy, and when I do I'm usually quite disappointed at what I find. There are a lot of music magazines here in Blighty, and some would consider them the best quality in the world, so when I scan through something like the RS and see a 60/40 advertisement/article arrangement, I can't help but be a little disappointed. And their political coverage is insipid at best. You no longer have Hunter waxing about Hubert Humphrey's treacherous tactics, instead you have dry, "I want the liberals to win. They won't. But I still want them to!" bleating.

Personally i figure if Rolling Stone folded today, Jann Wenner would be one of the only people crying about it.

(Also I don't see why this can't go in the General Interest forum. Though I guess there is the possibility of this being Invaded by the 'tics from Outter Space- the poli-tics of course).

PostPosted: Sun Feb 26, 2006 6:57 pm
by burlivesleftnut
Why is this in EFBR? I am going to move to music because I actually think this is relevant to that Forum.

PostPosted: Sun Feb 26, 2006 6:58 pm
by Shane
I think it's not too great of a magazine, but I don't hate it.

PostPosted: Sun Feb 26, 2006 6:59 pm
by Keepcoolbutcare
i can cum on a blank piece of paper, have a gypsy decipher it's meanings, and it would be better music criticism than what Rolling Stone offers...oh wait, we're not in the EFBR anymore, are we?

PostPosted: Sun Feb 26, 2006 7:00 pm
by Shane
I don't like the music they talk about in it.

PostPosted: Sun Feb 26, 2006 7:02 pm
by Ribbons
Wait, the Rolling Stones are writing a book now?

PostPosted: Sun Feb 26, 2006 7:04 pm
by unikrunk
No real opinion of the zine, don't ever read it anymore.

However, when I was around 10 I would always flip though it, and there was always this ad in the back for band T's. I wanted the Smiths T, having never heard them. In my mind, they were this raging punk band.

/big surprise a few years later

PostPosted: Sun Feb 26, 2006 7:05 pm
by SilentBobX
I put it here in the EFBR cause RS is a magazine, and I didn't believe at the time it fit into the 'music' category per se since it wasn't about any particular artist or type of music. But if it fits here, so much the better.

PostPosted: Sun Feb 26, 2006 7:07 pm
by Seppuku
keepcoolbutcare wrote:i can cum on a blank piece of paper, have a gypsy decipher it's meanings, and it would be better music criticism than what Rolling Stone offers...


I see...a dog with its head split in half.

Tell me where that's from my fellow geeks and win a life-time subscription to Rolling Stone's sister mag The Weekly Whore.

PostPosted: Sun Feb 26, 2006 7:11 pm
by unikrunk
the watchmen

"its a butterfly"

PostPosted: Sun Feb 26, 2006 7:16 pm
by Gheorghe Zamfir
And I actually dig the magazine, I don't make too much of a habit of picking it up, but if I'm flying somewhere I usually make a point to pick up a copy, and more foten than not end up reading it front to back. More than anything else I think they still run some of the best interview pieces of any magazines, when I read an interview in Rolling Stone I really feel like they've actually sat down and had a genuine conversation, rather than chatted on the phone for ten minutes about the questions they got in some promotional booklet.

PostPosted: Sun Feb 26, 2006 7:16 pm
by Seppuku
D'you got it krunk!

Anyway back to RS- they do occasionally come out with something readable. Like when they had the 100 Most Influential Artists issue, where you'd get people like Smokey Robinson, Van Morrison and Patti Smith writing about, respectively, Marvin Gaye, Ray Charles and Bob Dylan. I guess when they use their past clout to pull in names as big as that they've got some cred, but apart from that I'm still glad I voted for the "Hate it" option.

Though I'll agree with George when it comes to the interviews, they're definitely a lot more readable than something you would read in the broadsheets. At least RS actually bothered to do some research into whoever they're talking to.

PostPosted: Sun Feb 26, 2006 7:24 pm
by Bob Samonkey
seppukudkurosawa wrote:
keepcoolbutcare wrote:i can cum on a blank piece of paper, have a gypsy decipher it's meanings, and it would be better music criticism than what Rolling Stone offers...


I see...a dog with its head split in half.

Tell me where that's from my fellow geeks and win a life-time subscription to Rolling Stone's sister mag The Weekly Whore.


I am reading it right now. Watchmen not RS

PostPosted: Sun Feb 26, 2006 7:30 pm
by Seppuku
Bob Poopflingius Maximus wrote:
seppukudkurosawa wrote:
keepcoolbutcare wrote:i can cum on a blank piece of paper, have a gypsy decipher it's meanings, and it would be better music criticism than what Rolling Stone offers...


I see...a dog with its head split in half.

Tell me where that's from my fellow geeks and win a life-time subscription to Rolling Stone's sister mag The Weekly Whore.


I am reading it right now. Watchmen not RS


You know I was re-reading it the other day, and I caught the picture on the back of Alan Moore for the first time. He reminded me of a certain Zoner who shall remain nameless (Dennis MM).

Image

This is Dennis MM above.

Image

And this is the author of Watchmen Alan Moore.

Spooky no?

PostPosted: Sun Feb 26, 2006 7:36 pm
by Bob Samonkey
HAHAHAHA. They are like twins!!

PostPosted: Sun Feb 26, 2006 7:37 pm
by Keepcoolbutcare
the Watcher will be pleased by this comparison...

PostPosted: Sun Feb 26, 2006 7:53 pm
by unikrunk
Bob Poopflingius Maximus wrote:I am reading it right now. Watchmen not RS


To continue the threadjack: Watchmen is great, but Miracleman is the best of his work, IMHO -- if it ever gets out of legal limbo and back in print, pick it up.

PostPosted: Sun Feb 26, 2006 8:23 pm
by El Scorcho
I hate RS for a couple reasons. They tell the general public what music is "good" and what isn't, and they don't even pretend that they're not politically biased, which proves they're fucking ALF and they don't care about alienating millions of potential readers.

PostPosted: Sun Feb 26, 2006 8:28 pm
by Adam Balm
El Scorcho wrote:I hate RS for a couple reasons. They tell the general public what music is "good" and what isn't, and they don't even pretend that they're not politically biased, which proves they're fucking ALF and they don't care about alienating millions of potential readers.


Would it be better if they did pretend that they're not politically biased?

PostPosted: Sun Feb 26, 2006 8:30 pm
by Seppuku
El Scorcho wrote:I hate RS for a couple reasons. They tell the general public what music is "good" and what isn't, and they don't even pretend that they're not politically biased, which proves they're fucking ALF and they don't care about alienating millions of potential readers.


A couple points, critics are there to criticize...it's in the job description. So this involves saying Yaddda Ya is bad and Yadda Yay is great. It can get a little masturbatory at times, but you can't expect a music magazine to not form opinions on music.

And I don't quite understand the second part, you're saying that they'd be more creditable if they pretended not to have a political leaning? That would sort of be ignoring the era they came from don't you think- they emerged when the counter-culture was at its height, when the hippies were winning and it genuinely looked like there was gonna be a peaceful revolution. So despite me saying that their coverage is insipid (which it is), I'd be even more disappointed if they dropped it altogether, because it's what they've always been about.

PostPosted: Sun Feb 26, 2006 8:40 pm
by ZombieZoneSolutions
Hate is a little strong, ambivalent is more concise.

I think RS is the kind of magazine you might read when your
12 or 13 and just getting into music in terms of its fashion
elements; the goofy iconic worhship that is the domain of the
pre-adolescent / tweener. In short, it's an advertorial for youth
oriented product placements, not a music magazine.

PostPosted: Sun Feb 26, 2006 8:41 pm
by Iconoclastica
All I know is that an arrogant, untalented ditz that I went to high school with (who in 2002 said, and I quote word for word, that "John Mayer is to modern music what Bob Dylan was to the 60s") writes for them now. How the hell do they decide who is and who isn't a veritable music critic? What ever happened to the clout and (at least some semblance of) insight that came with the job?

No wonder rock has been hanging on to dear life by a thread, hooked up to a fucking respirator for the last however many years . . . ::sniffle::

PostPosted: Sun Feb 26, 2006 9:19 pm
by DennisMM
RS had its run as a music magazine. I'd say that ended 15 or more years ago. It published and still does some very strong non-music writing, though too much of what they write about is other pop media (TV, movies) in an unsophisticated manner.

Where does one turn for solid music writing and journalism these days? Spin? It seems to have headed in the RS direction, at least when I used to take a look at it. The Source published some interesting hip-hop oriented material but was so full of crap about beefs and rivalries when last I read it that it grew quite tiresome.

PostPosted: Sun Feb 26, 2006 9:23 pm
by SilentBobX
One of the biggest pet peeves I've ever had with Rolling Stone was their top 500 songs of all time list. I hate lists, personally cause all they do is cause arguments. But after reading this list I noticed that KISS didn't have one single song on this list. Now I'm no KISS army nut or anything like that, but to me, it kinda smacked of payback for Gene Simmons' personal like of George Bush(anyway, it's a theory of mine). I read the list and saw shit from every flavor of the month fuckhead imaginable, but nothing by KISS.

As for the interviews, I like some of them too, and their constant assault against the religious right is applaudable as well. And yes, the interviews do seem alot better than anything read in just about any movie magazine. So at least they get that right

PostPosted: Sun Feb 26, 2006 9:55 pm
by MiltonWaddams
MTV and Rolling Stone used to be a viewing window for what the music industry had to offer. Now they are a cog in the music industry machine.

They probably didn't have any KISS songs on the list because KISS has never made a good song.. ever.

PostPosted: Sun Feb 26, 2006 10:45 pm
by burlivesleftnut
keepcoolbutcare wrote:i can cum on a blank piece of paper, have a gypsy decipher it's meanings, and it would be better music criticism than what Rolling Stone offers...oh wait, we're not in the EFBR anymore, are we?


Someone has probably mentioned this, but I am too lazy to check. What I really hate about Rolling Stones criticism is that they have some kind of weird rule that you have reference all kinds of arcane musical acts in order to review music. It boggles my mind the number of times I have read a review and wonder who the fuck the reviewer was comparing the subject to.

PostPosted: Sun Feb 26, 2006 11:29 pm
by El Scorcho
Adam Balm wrote:
El Scorcho wrote:I hate RS for a couple reasons. They tell the general public what music is "good" and what isn't, and they don't even pretend that they're not politically biased, which proves they're fucking ALF and they don't care about alienating millions of potential readers.


Would it be better if they did pretend that they're not politically biased?


No... What the fuck? It's a fucking expression. It means that the magazine is so unabashedly leftist that it's ridiculous. I'm not suggesting it should try to cover that up. But to be successful in business (especially printing something that claims to be a "music magazine"), I'm pretty sure you're not supposed to put out a product that shits on what tons of people believe in, unless you're totally fucking stupid and only run a bad magazine just for the fun of it, and not to make money.

PostPosted: Mon Feb 27, 2006 12:35 am
by buster00
I liked it better before it became a fashion mag.

Still, I've got a current issue right in front of me.

I can not stop staring at Mariah's moist, supple breasts.

They deserve every Grammy you can throw at 'em.

PostPosted: Mon Feb 27, 2006 1:30 am
by DennisMM
El Scorcho wrote:It means that the magazine is so unabashedly leftist that it's ridiculous. I'm not suggesting it should try to cover that up. But to be successful in business (especially printing something that claims to be a "music magazine"), I'm pretty sure you're not supposed to put out a product that shits on what tons of people believe in, unless you're totally fucking stupid and only run a bad magazine just for the fun of it, and not to make money.


Rolling Stone has been around for 39 (edit: originally typed 30, came back to correct) years and continues to make tons of fucking money while "shitting on what tons of people believe". After a drop in circulation and a change of direction, the magazine has returned to more or less its previous editorial mix and circulation has increased. What does that say?

PostPosted: Mon Feb 27, 2006 1:38 am
by Adam Balm
El Scorcho wrote:But to be successful in business (especially printing something that claims to be a "music magazine"), I'm pretty sure you're not supposed to put out a product that shits on what tons of people believe in, unless you're totally fucking stupid and only run a bad magazine just for the fun of it, and not to make money.


I dunno man. One of the best magazines ever is devoted ENTIRELY to shitting on what tons of people believe in...

:oops:

PostPosted: Mon Feb 27, 2006 1:47 am
by buster00
Adam Balm wrote:I dunno man. One of the best magazines ever is devoted ENTIRELY to shitting on what tons of people believe in...

:oops:



Whatta link! Gracias, amigo!

PostPosted: Mon Feb 27, 2006 5:02 am
by Fievel
I haven't read the magazine in years, but I just found a link to this story...
Pretty freaking good!!!

Best Rolling Stone Story In Years

PostPosted: Mon Feb 27, 2006 9:57 am
by SilentBobX
Milton, Milton, Milton. KISS had more than just ONE good song. KISS is one of the greatest bands of all time but to say they never made ONE good song is a completely asinine statement. Maybe my love of music isn't as deep as some true 'music fans' but KISS didn't break attendance and box office records set by the Beatles and pretty much own the 1970s by sucking.

Rock and Roll All Night
Strutter
Black Diamond
Shout It Out Loud
Rise to it
Unholy
I Stole Your Love
Love Gun

These are not at least 'good' songs?

I can't wait for when you get older and none of whatever you listen to makes the cut with any current top 500 that RS makes in 10-15 years. They'll probably have Jessica Simpson or Britney Spears in the top 5 and proclaim at least one of them the Janis Joplin or Grace Slick of their time.

At the very least, give these songs a chance. Some of them are hardly timeless, but it's great music to me, and I'm guessing, to a good deal more people.

PostPosted: Mon Feb 27, 2006 4:07 pm
by DinoDeLaurentiis
Hehehe... I hope a you donna mind, eh paisan, I added a the 'nother option to a your poll...

PostPosted: Tue Feb 28, 2006 7:04 pm
by Brocktune
the one thing that i do like about rolling stone, is the top ten from ten years ago they have on the last page. i always get a kick out of seeing what garbage everyone was buying ten years ago.

that is to say, IF rs still pulishes said chart. i wouldnt know, as the mere thought of touching a copy of that filty rag sends me into uncontrollable fits of wretching up to and including soiling myself.

PostPosted: Wed Sep 13, 2006 2:10 pm
by Gheorghe Zamfir
Little help, anyone have the recent issue of Rolling Stone with Dylan on the cover? Inside (I think in the letters section, somewhere near the beginning) they have some Rolling Stone books, one of them is a kind of music trivia book, if anyone has the issue handy and can pop in the name and author of that book for me I'd much appreciate it (searched the net much as I could and came up high and dry).

PostPosted: Wed Sep 13, 2006 2:18 pm
by The Vicar
Rolling Stone is caca.
70% of its content are ads.
Is anyone still reading it?

Certainly not what it used to be, but then again what is?

PostPosted: Wed Sep 13, 2006 3:03 pm
by MiltonWaddams
SilentBobX wrote:These are not at least 'good' songs?

I can't wait for when you get older and none of whatever you listen to makes the cut with any current top 500 that RS makes in 10-15 years. They'll probably have Jessica Simpson or Britney Spears in the top 5 and proclaim at least one of them the Janis Joplin or Grace Slick of their time.

At the very least, give these songs a chance. Some of them are hardly timeless, but it's great music to me, and I'm guessing, to a good deal more people.


The original question was why KISS didn't have any songs in the top 500 songs of all time. My arguement is because their songs aren't that good. Some people consider Candle in the Wind to be great music, but it's not. Since when is ticket and album sales a representation of any (let alone musical) talent? KISS is all show, no talent. I like how when you step on someone's musical toes, they react as if you'd fucked their mother.

Although, I will concede the shitfest that is "Rock and Roll All Night" was relatively powerful for the time that it was released, and even though it sucks, it should be on a list of 'Greatest' (meaning 'important, powerful, or relevant' which those lists usually imply) songs of all time. This could be because Rolling Stone has a political bias, which it most certainly does, or that it has it's head up it's ass, which it most certainly does.

I wanna rock and roll all nite and party every day
I wanna rock and roll all nite and party every day
I wanna rock and roll all nite and party every day
I wanna rock and roll all nite and party every day
I wanna rock and roll all nite and party every day
I wanna rock and roll all nite and party every day
I wanna rock and roll all nite and party every day
I wanna rock and roll all nite and party every day
I wanna rock and roll all nite and party every day
I wanna rock and roll all nite and party every day
I wanna rock and roll all nite and party every day
I wanna rock and roll all nite and party every day
I wanna rock and roll all nite and party every day

That's the actual amount of times that phrase is repeated in the song.. IT'S A CLASSIC!

Rollingstone recently celebrated its 1000th issue. Elvis, Dylan, Lennon, Jagger, Springsteen, Bono, Madonna, Coldplay. Now repeat that 1000 times. <-- Steven Colbert joke.

Re: Rolling Stone: Love it? Hate it?

PostPosted: Fri Mar 20, 2009 3:21 am
by Seppuku
I just got through "The Best of the Rolling Stone," which I picked up for 20p at Oxfam. It works as well as a history of the last 40 years of pop cult'jah as almost any other book I've read. I know I've spent some time bitching above, but this book really turned me around. I think we underestimate how big this magazine's legacy is. Without Rolling Stone, none of these movies would have been made: Heathers, The Right Stuff (Tom Wolfe was assigned the article by Jann Wenner, before it exploded into a book), Born on the Fourth of July, The China Syndrome, Silkwood, Boogie Nights, Almost Famous, F&L and quite a few more. Instead of whittling its journos' articles down to bite-sized pieces, they told them to come back with another few thousand words. They wrote articles on AIDS while the rest of the press was still acting squeamish. They did Woodward & Bernstein-style undercover pieces trying to expose the hazardous "safety procedures" of the nuclear industry, which helped plant a seed of doubt in the mind of the general public about this miracle power. And they employed writers like Ken Kesey and William Burroughs to do pretty much whatever the hell they wanted.

My point is, I was being kinda misguided earlier in the thread. When a magazine's spent that long changing the world, acting as a haven for journalists who had nowhere else to go in America, you don't just judge them by the latest issue. Just because The Rolling Stones haven't done a thing worth a damn for, like, forever, doesn't make Jumping Jack Flash any less awesome a song. Some of us have only so much to give to the world, and they gave more than a music rag had any right.

Peter Travers is still a douchenozzle, though.

Re: Rolling Stone: Love it? Hate it?

PostPosted: Fri Mar 20, 2009 9:37 am
by Vegeta
Rolling Stone Magazine has been utter crap since I've been able to read. The fact that any reads it and the magazine itself still exists is beyond explanation.

Re: Rolling Stone: Love it? Hate it?

PostPosted: Thu Apr 02, 2009 1:15 pm
by Spandau Belly
I have to say, I can't believe this magazine is really still around. A couple of you have touched on its main weakeness but I'll come right out and ask what this magazine is about? Who is it for?

It is a completely unfocussed magazine.

It feels like its foundation is rock music but then it gets out into other genres and then it gets out into other pop culture (television, movies etc) and then it gets into American politics.

I guess I feel like this magazine is like George Clooney. It does a bunch of sell-out commercial stuff so that it can pay for what it thinks it is really about. Only unlike how you can choose to go see either Goodnight And Good Luck or Ocean's 11, Rolling Stone kinda jumbles it all into one magazine.

Just looking at the covers I find it hard to believe there's somebody out there who feels that even half the issues produced in any given year are of general interest to them. It's just so scattered. It feels like one issue for dad, then one issue for the teenage daughter, then one issue for the college age son, then back to dad.

Like I said, who I think this magazine really is is the cranky record store clerk who just wishes it was still the 1970s. When they run some big story celebrating how some old rocker like Sting or Bob Dylan is still alive or whatever, that feels the most sincere. Then they run some story about Gossip Girl or 50 Cent it just feels like they're aiming broad and hoping to make money.

Re: Rolling Stone: Love it? Hate it?

PostPosted: Thu Apr 02, 2009 3:40 pm
by minstrel
I used to read Rolling Stone a lot, back when the music I liked was popular. The fact that I only read it rarely now is indicative of how old I've gotten. I don't recognize anybody on the magazine's covers most of the time these days, and the names on the bestselling music lists are rather mysterious to me as well. I'm a fuddy-duddy or something now.

Re: Rolling Stone: Love it? Hate it?

PostPosted: Fri Jul 31, 2015 11:06 pm
by Ribbons
Seppuku wrote:Peter Travers is still a douchenozzle, though.


Long-time Rolling Stone film critic Peter Travers fighting for his job