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!
Thread
Posts in chronological order
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.
Errors sorry I am on my phone even if instead of evergreen and Lil instead of lol*
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!
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.
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.
Rolling Stone is a load of shit. That's it.
Amen.
Rolling Stone blows raw monkey.
Rolling Stone blows raw monkey.
that magazine sucks!!!!
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 think they are supposed to be a rock magazine they named themselves after a rock band correct me if I am wrong"
happy to oblige - they DID NOT name themselves after a rock band
the magazine title came from a 1950 Muddy Waters song "Rollin' Stone"
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 think they are supposed to be a rock magazine they named themselves after a rock band correct me if I am wrong"
happy to oblige - they DID NOT name themselves after a rock band
the magazine title came from a 1950 Muddy Waters song "Rollin' Stone"
Old news to many of us, but some newer fans will appreciate this classic from Rolling Stone:
http://www.rollingstone.com/music/albumreviews/jazz-19790208
The strength of the vitriol in this one never fails to drop my jaw either:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2000/dec/07/tvandradio.television2
http://www.rollingstone.com/music/albumreviews/jazz-19790208
The strength of the vitriol in this one never fails to drop my jaw either:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2000/dec/07/tvandradio.television2
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
you can hear slowed down versions of the Mustapha melody in
Alma Cogan, Johnnie Ray, 4 Lads and Arthur Fielder's versions
GratefulFan wrote:
Old news to many of us, but some newer fans will appreciate this classic from Rolling Stone:
http://www.rollingstone.com/music/albumreviews/jazz-19790208
The strength of the vitriol in this one never fails to drop my jaw either:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2000/dec/07/tvandradio.television2
The new fans will also find this letter from Roger to Rolling Stone interesting-
http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6030/5980195685_509916c25f_o.png
^ Which was in response to this:
http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/queen-holds-court-in-south-america-19810611
(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)
http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/queen-holds-court-in-south-america-19810611
(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)
To brENski: I had a feeling I was wrong about how they named their magazine thanks for the correction.
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.
Possibly, but that doesn't mean I should read it even if I hardly respect their opinions at all. :)
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.
brENsKi wrote:
not liking a band does not make the magazine crap.
Possibly, but that doesn't mean I should read it even if I hardly respect their opinions at all. :)