Do not cheapen toilet paper please. I would not think of sullying my shit, much less wiping my ass, with the trite that is on that magazine, notwithstanding the cost of its paper.
Sorry, should have clicked on reply with quote, but this is in response to what "Vocal harmony" said ...
"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? "
Ozz · Member since
Rolling Stone
Is a very biased music magazine.
I read it for years, and they were always the same:
If they could , they would do a whole magazine special of what Bob Dylan pooped in the morning. Gawd they love insanely the guy.
They also love anything that resembles Punk Attitude, and if it's a marketing scam pulled by malcolm mclaren even better.
They don't care about the quality of the music, They care about some stereotypical rocknroll rebel attitude .
For them, rock, punk is serious business. Springsteen , Dylan and Shit.
That's why Queen never fit.
Queen is one of those bands that never took themselves seriously. They do rock to entertain. Not to make a political statement.
But they're popular, and that always pissed them off
I've met a lot of people that hate Queen for that same reason that they take some stuff too seriously.
like: "Punk is the real thing", "Dylan is God", "Rock is about not changing evar.. like AcDc, Iron Maiden or Kiss"
I just Laugh
Jazz 78 · Member since
After a story Rolling Stone did on Queen when they were first touring South America appeared and to Roger's disliking, he wrote to the editors in response on an air sickness bag... which they printed. The editors even made note of it at the end of his letter. Served them right!
jones904 · Member since
They get paid to write bad reviews
OhioBobcat555 · Member since
It really pisses me off when people defend RS. Obviously they have a right to do whatever the heck they want... but they are completely disingenuous and that just does it for me. How can you be a major rock and music magazine and literally shun bands as Queen? A band that made huge impacts on music as we know... 300 million records sold worldwide... how can they be muted by this terrible magazine? And "smaller" bands that still have a major talent as Dream Theater or Rush... Gawd they hate prog bands or bands that have plans to do something.
It's like the American publication "Sports Illustrated" completely ignoring a team as the Raiders just because they have a reputation for having a lot of characters on their team. The Raiders make it to the Super Bowl and the magazine of sport fails to acknowledge them at all in the biggest game in the world. Imagine that.
BTW, I agree with a couple of posters. RS is all about a certain image. You would think that Mercury's persona was perfect for any image of rock... almost punk in the "FU" attitude he took... but RS is filled with ex-"musicians" that could never make it. Especially in context when Queen came out and journalists realized they had a plan and were going through with it and having success, it was too much for their egos. The unwritten rule then in music was that all bands had to spend time underground playing little bars for years. Queen had huge plans and made no bones about it. And hence you can see that exact animosity in that ridiculous Jazz post... but that sums up the attitude at the time. RS has the image of a guy wearing a leather jacket or a torn tee shirt with blue jeans. Freddie just pissed them off. BTW, I love that. Freddie and Queen are proving to be timeless as we all know.
waunakonor · Member since
[QUOTE] [b]OhioBobcat555 wrote:[/b]
the biggest game in the world[/QUOTE]
I generally agree with your post, but lol. And I'm saying that as an American who hardly cares about soccer/football to the rest of the world.
Ozz · Member since
the biggest /best game in the world is Football (Soccer) by far.
World Cup, you know? :D
thomasquinn 32989 · Member since
[QUOTE] [b]The Real Wizard wrote:[/b]
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.[/QUOTE]
I heartily disagree. IMHO, Rolling Stone is like conceptual art: no real content, but masses of pretentious bullshit on the side. They are to rock 'n roll what Down Beat is to jazz: institutionalized nay-saying, jealousy and ulterior motives. There are plenty of good music magazines, but I don't see how RS was ever one of them.
Having Freddie at no.18 on their best singers ever list was no surprise, coming from a magazine that's slagged them off and dismissed Queen for almost 40 years. That magazine isn't worthy of being wiped on my arsehole.
YAFF · Member since
[QUOTE] [b]The Real Wizard wrote:[/b]
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.[/QUOTE]
A critic should be able to review material based on the genre not personal taste. Those idiots give every Dio album one star with a few exceptions but if they understood metal they'd realize Dio was one of the greatest. Rolling Stone is a joke. Their reviews hold no value. Critics are pretty much useless anyway.
YAFF · Member since
[QUOTE] [b]Day dop wrote:[/b]
Having Freddie at no.18 on their best singers ever list was no surprise, coming from a magazine that's slagged them off and dismissed Queen for almost 40 years. That magazine isn't worthy of being wiped on my arsehole. [/QUOTE]
Agreed. Freddie is easily Top 5 if not at the top. RS has no credibility with intelligent readers
MercuryArts · Member since
I take no credit for this quote, but as we all know, if the record buying public over the last 45 years bought only the albums RS gave good reviews to & ignored all the albums they dismissed as poor, said record collector would have the worst music collection ever!
I think this is from either John Paul Jones or Jimmy Page. I can't remember.
Unknown
Well, all I can say is who will ever remember the names of the Rolling Stone writers? Whereas Freddie will be remembered and loved forever!
Those who can, do! Those who cannot, criticize!
Unknown
[QUOTE] [b]ParisNair wrote:[/b]
The new fans will also find this letter from Roger to Rolling Stone interesting-
