Rolling Stone magazine is only good for wiping your bumhole with.

... with their well known long grudges on particular bands,  especially Queen. That is bad journalism, discrediting decent British bands for their own agenda.
Freddie as 18th greatest singer according to those turds? When he always does magnificently in other polls, often no 1 or 2. All those bad reviews and a Night at the opera as their 230th best album?

And Wiki...  please don't include Rolling Stones old grudge filled opinions on your page.

Actually, come to think of it - Rolling stone magazine isn't even worthy of touching my bumhole.

Rant over.

im just guessing but i take it you dont like this mag lol

never really read it, only ever heard the name, but if as you say they put queen and other bands down and are like the shitty journalists from the papers, i agree with you then because oh how i could go on about how i hate journalism and news papers. i shall save you my rant dear im feeling calm tonight and would love to get a desent nights sleep tonight :P doubt thats possible though lol

I don't read it, but is it THAT bad?

Just looking at various reviews on their website for Queen just there.
Its actually a disgrace. The biography is half arsed (Killer Queen was their first top 20 hit apparently), Flash Gorgon,Hot Space and The Works got the exact same review, ANATO got the highest review....3 and a half stars. I mean, SERIOUSLY? I would have added another star to that, I wouldnt give it 5 stars, but it certainly deserves 4 and a half.

Seems like someone has a grudge against Queen. Couldn't be that their jealous no? :P

They dont seem to "get" Queen at all. You would not learn anything from their top 500. Almost every album is mainstream and commercial . I thought from reputation they were a serious magazine but looking more closely they are not even worth slightly bothering about.

Yeah, Rolling Stone magazines grudge against Queen is a known old story..

Even on the wiki page about Rolling stone,  there's a mention of their dislike for various bands - 

"Rolling Stone magazine has been criticized for reconsidering many classic albums that it had previously dismissed. Examples of artists for whom this is the case include, among others,The Beatles, Led Zeppelin, Black Sabbath, AC/DC, The Beach Boys, Nirvana, Weezer, 2pac, Radiohead, Outkast and also Queen."

I thought the News of The World paper was a great substitute for toilet paper. 

either way, magazines are like newspapers, and as one of my uni lecturers once say; 

"Respect the papers...but don't anything those people write...ever"

I'm trying to remember the last time Rolling Stone actually 'mattered'.

Anyone?  Anyone?  Maybe mid-to-late 70's??

Rolling Stone still does matter, very much.

Yes, they have a very US-centred view of the music scene, because that is their audience.  It is still a very diverse and worth while music magazine.  There is much great music to be exposed to, and Rolling Stone provides plenty of information about what's happening, well beyond the mainstream.

Queen forums are just about the only place where I see people nagging on them.  Just because they don't hire writers that like Queen doesn't mean the magazine is to be written off entirely.  Take your blinders off, folks.

Take the blinders off?

Take a look at their top singers list, and then come back and say that, unless you have seen it already and are blinkered.

Day dop wrote: Take the blinders off?

Take a look at their top singers list, and then come back and say that, unless you have seen it already and are blinkered. =============================================================================================

He's right, though - just because we think they're a bunch of tossers and don't agree with them doesn't mean they don't know what their target audience is, or don't know how to write.  Queen ain't big in the USA remember.

With Lennon at number 5, who's voice wasn't that great technically, and certainly not better than Merucry's - fan or not, and Micheal Jackon at number 25 (I am not a fan of his) - wouldn't shoving Jackson higher be better for their target audience in the USA?

So, baring that in mind - Freddie at 18 doesn't really make sense. His voice was much more powerful than Lennon's, and my view is his voice was more powerful than Jackon's, but then as a fan, I would say that, although I do believe it to genuinely be the case anyway.  But as I say - I don't believe it's about target audiences with Jackson so low.

I think it would've hurt them to put Freddie higher, truth known. I think it's a shitty magazine with grudge filled opinions on certain groups. Also, remember it isn't just Queen they do it with, but Queen are the main group they slag off and dismiss, for sure.

I find it funny how no one mentioned that Rolling Stone thinks that Bob Dylan (who is my 2nd favourite artist, behind Queen) is a better singer than Freddie or Michael Jackson (whom I hate).

If you type in Rolling stone top 100 singers - and read the comments by people, a hell of a lot of people are disgusted about Freddie's placing. I don't like Jackson, but a majority are saying Freddie and Jackson should be at the top (or something similar)

Day dop wrote:

Take a look at their top singers list, and then come back and say that, unless you have seen it already and are blinkered.

=================

If the list's primary criteria is impact on American popular culture, I'd say it's just about bang on.

If anyone should be complaining about the list, it should be because of the omissions of Frank Sinatra and Bing Crosby.  Considering Queen were never really fashionable in the US, the fact that they put Mercury in the top 20 actually surprised me.