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...
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.
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
Bob Poopflingius Maximus wrote:I am reading it right now. Watchmen not RS
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
Adam Balm wrote:I dunno man. One of the best magazines ever is devoted ENTIRELY to shitting on what tons of people believe in...
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.
Seppuku wrote:Peter Travers is still a douchenozzle, though.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest