Hello people! Lately I often read critical reviews in Rolling Stone magazine. It seems to me that the critics of this magazine do not like Queen. I can agree with, some things, but it seems to me that there is not a lot of good reviews.
What do you think!
Am I biased because I'm a fan!
Does the fans of other bands can say the same!
Or is there any other reason.
Best regards, Gregor!
mgq39 · Member since
Haha I am also a Queen fan, but some of the stuff they say like Queen throws "crap at a fan and if it sticks that's good and if it does not well that's good" is just ridiculous I know they made a lot of songs but they put something into everyone of them evergreen it was musical talent or lyrical, from what I heard they hated Led Zepplin and The Beatles, but then they got famous and as you see now the magazine changed their mind, ha they are supposed to be a rock magazine, but they never put Queen on their cover and they put Lol Wayne on it that is just stupid, anyways I think they are supposed to be a rock magazine they named themselves after a rock band correct me if I am wrong.
mgq39 · Member since
Errors sorry I am on my phone even if instead of evergreen and Lil instead of lol*
Vocal harmony · Member since
Rolling Stone is exspensive printed toilet paper. It's a bunch of third rate journalists picking something controversial to write so they can get their names noticed. Does their opinion matter? No!
The Real Wizard · Member since
Nonsense. Rolling Stone is an excellent magazine. They just have their tastes, like anyone else. It's mostly US-centric.
They even panned the Led Zeppelin debut album. Rush didn't start getting good reviews until a few years ago.
It isn't a bad magazine because certain writers don't like a select few bands. They have excellent insight into what's happening right now.
antiden · Member since
Rolling Stone is a load of shit. That's it.
malicedoom · Member since
Amen.
Rolling Stone blows raw monkey.
DLCVinnuendo · Member since
that magazine sucks!!!!
brENsKi · Member since
typical asinine comments. not liking a band does not make the magazine crap.
their content is usually very readable stuff. like everything in life, work with what you know - they'll never like queen - but that doesn't make most of their reviews lacking in objectivity.
and in response to mgq39 who said: [i]"I think they are supposed to be a rock magazine they named themselves after a rock band correct me if I am wrong"[/i]
happy to oblige - they DID NOT name themselves after a rock band the magazine title came from a 1950 Muddy Waters song "Rollin' Stone"
GratefulFan · Member since
Old news to many of us, but some newer fans will appreciate this classic from Rolling Stone:
in fairness, the comparison of Mustapha and Hernando's Hideaway is kinda right
you can hear slowed down versions of the Mustapha melody in
Alma Cogan, Johnnie Ray, 4 Lads and Arthur Fielder's versions
ParisNair · Member since
[QUOTE] [b]GratefulFan wrote:[/b]
Old news to many of us, but some newer fans will appreciate this classic from Rolling Stone:
(an excerpt - not sure if the full version is online somewhere...I'm sure it is/was as I did read it in it's entirely in the past after reading about the air sick bag note in one bio or other)
mgq39 · Member since
To brENski: I had a feeling I was wrong about how they named their magazine thanks for the correction.
waunakonor · Member since
I always thought it was named after Like a Rolling Stone, so that's new.
Anyway, from browsing their website occasionally, I tend to notice a lot of bias toward The Rolling Stones and Bob Dylan, which makes sense. Their top two songs of all time are Satisfaction and Like a Rolling Stone. Also, apparently Bob Dylan and Mick Jagger are better frontmen than Freddie Mercury. Really? Really?
I sometimes like reading one or two of their Queen reviews for a good chuckle, particularly Jazz. They're fascists because they act kind of arrogant? Really, Rolling Stone? Really? There's a lot more I could say about it, but I'll leave it at that. The first time I read that review I was kind of horrified, and started half believing some of it, but then I read through it again and realized that the guy hardly had a clue what he was talking about, so I had a good laugh.
The best part is that their original review for Queen http://www.rollingstone.com/music/albumreviews/queen-19731206 is extremely favorable. This guy sees them as an energetic emerging talent who will stay around for a long time, and for good reason. I'm not really sure what happened since then.
[QUOTE] [b]brENsKi wrote:[/b]
not liking a band does not make the magazine crap.
[/QUOTE]
Possibly, but that doesn't mean I should read it even if I hardly respect their opinions at all. :)
