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

Sir GH wrote: 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.
================

Rolling Stone magazine is nagged on more than just Queen forums. Many people complain because of BIAS towards certain groups (like the Beatles), their inconsistent reviews (they often rate different albums the SAME rating--which clashes with just about every other review place), and they change their views on a band when a person dies (Nevermind was rated 2 stars or something, then when Cobain died, they change it to 5 stars).

If you change ratings like that--that loses credibility with music fans.

It really isn't bang on.... 

Lennon at number 5 and Jackson at number 25? - that doesn't tie up with American culture as Jackson is huge over there. And if it's about singing ability - then Lennon at number 5?
Or is it about performance and influence (in the USA) ? - Freddie at 18 and Jackson at 25?

Lennon at 5, Mercury 18, and Jackson at 25 makes absolutely no sense.

But aside from that - 

Why would Led Zepplin  have been dismissed by the magazine so much, and Zepplin were/are big in the USA after all.... 

That's another one of the groups, along with Queen that the magazine have no time for. 

They are just a bias, grudge holding bunch of toss pots at rolling toilet roll magzine.

A 40 year long stretch of bad reviews and dismissal?- that's a little obvious, wouldn't you say?

Hence, aside from Wiki making note of it, and it generally recognised that it's a bias magazine who have an ongoing nature to dismiss great bands -  the reaction by folk on the comments of the 100 rolling stone greatest singers. Many have and are commenting  that Freddie doesn't belong that low, and if not at no.1 to 3, should at least be in the top 10. Anyone would have to be deaf to not recognise that.

The title says it all.

Jesus, they didn't even put a pic of Freddie on their cover when he died (just his name and dates).

Rolling Stone blows raw monkey.

Day dop wrote: 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?

Not really.  Lennon is an older artist, plus he's dead, and both of those factors would push his rating higher with Rolling Stones.  They are more into older music, and Jackson wouldn't fit into that.  Yes, he probably IS more popular with their target audience now, but not with their original audience, and it could be a snobbery issue to not put the popular famous one at the top, esp as he was a dancer as well.

I think that RS and other magazines like them always tried to be hipster, to dictate what is trendy and what is tacky.
In a way, they saw rock'n roll as a popular, three-chords and non-sophisticated kind of music, which is opposite to the prog rock and the over-the-top hard rock bands of the seventies.
Punk was their perfect argument to bash these bands, Queen was one of them and represented the rock'n roll flamboyance that they hated most.

You're right to take offense with Rolling Stone - they've been wrong for too long and have gotten away with it. 
That's why their mag can rot on the news stand and I'll never buy it, never even touch it.  The covers are modern but the system is medieval to me ...  for the value of music cannot be found between the written pages of Rolling Stone - only by each listener can that occur, making their own independent judgements on what to like and not like.   

I'm grateful instead for the rapid rise and expansion of You Tube, for instance, and free access via the internet to music around the world. At the touch of our screen we can now circumnavigate the world of music on our own, music from any period, and thus make our own informed choices & conclusions.  Borders and boundaries are melting away through the internet and so are the middlemen and censorship based upon commercial agendas.

I feel the ability to post & share music online is currently the greatest avenue to attract new Queen fans globally.

It's just  a shame that on WIKI they include Rolling toilet papers opinion of Queen on their page, or Freddie's.