The Current May 19th issue of Rolling Stone Magazine with Orlando Bloom on the cover, once again takes nasty aim at Queen, and Freddie as well.
Page 38 has a scathing indictment of the New Pope's denouncement of Rock & Roll, which actually is on spot and fine and with which I agree.
But, through the course of the article, in discussing the artists that The New Pope denounced, Rolling Stone Magazine seems to take immense sarcastic pleasure in using it as an open opportunity to insult and slap Queen & Freddie in the face.
Here's the quote...
"The new Pope Benedict XVI has been denouncing rock for years. In 1996, he gave a sermon in
St. Peter's Square warning of "satanic messages", singling out depraved characters such as
Queen, the Beatles, the Stones, and EVEN the Eagles. Doesn't he realize there is a serious spiritual message in Queen hits like "Get Down Make Love" with eucharistic resonances in the lines "I suck your mind/You blow my head."
The article goes on to say, quote,
"Ratzinger (The New Pope) was the top Vatican commando under Pope John Paul II, where he earned a reputation as a hatchet man, smacking down any hint of disobedience like Freddie Mercury using a riding crop on the new Moroccan pool boy."
If you read the entire article, other than referring to the other artists the New Pope singles out in the New Pope's denouncement of R&R, being The Beatles, the Stones, and the Eagles..there are NO other mentions about ANY of these other artists and RS uses these artists strictly within the ACTUAL denouncement reference that the NEW Pope made, ONLY.
You will note though, that Rolling Stone adds their little and "EVEN" the Eagles. (The Eagles are critical darling favorites of RS so I noticed right away that RS added in the italicized "EVEN" as if to say How dare the Pope rag on and denounce one of Rolling Stone's babies!
Then, of all the artists above, all who had ruder, certainly more "evil" lyrics and tunes,...
(Think of The Eagles "Witchy Woman" glorifying a female drug dealer, "Life In The Fast Lane", "Hotel California", etc,),...
...(WORST of all---think of The Rolling Stones' "Sympathy For The Devil"...of ALL songs for crying out loud!!!! or "Under My Thumb"),
(think the Beatles' "Helter Skelter", etc).
Rolling Stone Magazine makes NO reference AT ALL to ANY of these other artists' "evil" lyrics or deeds.
But....who does Rolling Stone Magazine pick for a song and lyrics, in a very sarcasticly worded insulting "joke"? ha ha NOT!...Queen!
Then...with the reference to The New Pope's hardline tactics..where does Rolling Stone Magazine get off making a nasty sexual, gay bashing joke about Freddie? (The "smacking down any hint of disobedience like Freddie Mercury using a riding crop on the new Moroccan pool boy.") remark.
I was LIVID when I read this! Why does RS constantly rag On Queen...geez louise.
BTW....I am from the USA and I am proud to say..I HATE The EAGLES, always have, always will! Glenn Frey And Don Henley write the most self indulgent corporate crap quasi country excuse for rock I've ever heard. And I HATE Frey's voice it sucks! The only decent thing about that band is Joe Walsh's guitar playing.
Thread
Posts in chronological order
You will note though, that Rolling Stone adds their little and "EVEN" the Eagles. (The Eagles are critical darling favorites of RS so I noticed right away that RS added in the italicized "EVEN" as if to say How dare the Pope rag on and denounce one of Rolling Stone's babies!
That's not how I read that comment. I think RS is saying "even The Eagles, who have never caused any public hystreria and critical outcry that the other bands have." California Rock is, after all, the definition of innocuous, Hotel California be damned. No writer would switch from condemnation to such obvious sarcasm as that paragraph clearly does.
And besides, why even read Rolling Stone at this point? We know they hate Queen, we know they have always hated Queen, and we know they will always hate Queen. I find that by not reading RS, I enjoy music a lot more.
You will note though, that Rolling Stone adds their little and "EVEN" the Eagles. (The Eagles are critical darling favorites of RS so I noticed right away that RS added in the italicized "EVEN" as if to say How dare the Pope rag on and denounce one of Rolling Stone's babies!
That's not how I read that comment. I think RS is saying "even The Eagles, who have never caused any public hystreria and critical outcry that the other bands have." California Rock is, after all, the definition of innocuous, Hotel California be damned. No writer would switch from condemnation to such obvious sarcasm as that paragraph clearly does.
And besides, why even read Rolling Stone at this point? We know they hate Queen, we know they have always hated Queen, and we know they will always hate Queen. I find that by not reading RS, I enjoy music a lot more.
What about RS's gay bashing "joke" about Freddie? If that's not sarcasm and an insult I don't know what is.
Rolling Stone pretty much, save for older reporters like David Fricke Anthony DeCurtis and Kurt Loder, hate Pink Floyd as well. Most of their new incompetent reviewers would give any post-Waters album two stars or less. Rolling Stone has given Britney Spears 3 stars or better and the same with phlEghMINEM(a/k/a rap's Porky Pig).
The new Pope probably hates Pink Floyd for the parody of one of the bible's psalms in Sheep. The new Pope looks like a crime lord.
Extra extra, Rolling Stone hates Queen. Also, Thomas Edison invents the light bulb! Read all about it - you heard it here first, folks!
Do you people (i.e. Lester Burnham, etc) never stop to consider whether or not anyone actually wants to read your bitchy little comments about perfectly good topics?
Do you people (i.e. Lester Burnham, etc) never stop to consider whether or not anyone actually wants to read your bitchy little comments about perfectly good topics?
Never have, never will.
Although, if you want me to make a serious comment about this, ahem, perfectly good topic, then here it is. Stop wasting your time caring what a fucking rag has to say about your favorite band, because these people get paid to say whatever they want - good, bad, or downright ignorant. Rolling Stone has been a pile of shit for years, as it has now become fifty pages of trendy advertisements interspersed with political rantings and musings on how great the next flash-in-the-pan band is.
I can't help but laugh that people get so up-in-arms about whatever Rolling Stone says, as if it's the end-all be-all of music publications. They are allowed to voice their opinion, just as you are yours; but getting pissed off about it certainly won't help any, as I'm sure the editor of that piece won't sign on here (a closet Queen fan!) and look at this message, then suddenly say, "Hm, maybe Arlene was right." If you're really that irritated about it, send a letter to the editor - posting about it on a message board won't make a difference. But Queen has been susceptible to every criticism because they've done stuff differently over the years - just like every band worth its salt. I think Keith Moon once said something along the lines of, "If you're considered gods by the press, then you're in for trouble."
I also happen to agree about the 'Get Down, Make Love' part. First of all, it says a few things about the journalist: one, that he was able to quote such an obscure Queen song; and two, that he has a sense of humor about it. Where's the earth-shattering message in that song? I know Queen became masters of disposable pop, but 'Get Down, Make Love' isn't all that great of a song. Of course, it shouldn't be taken seriously, but neither should this journalist.
Freddie is still the only major rock star to have died of AIDS. His excesses, whether true or not are part of his public mythological persona now.
It's going to be hard for his memory to escape that stigma because rags like RS are always going to throw it up there. And self-righteous religious leaders are always going to use Freddie as an example of an immoral lifestyle leading to it's natural conclusion.
I wish it weren't true but that's the kind of insane world we live in.
It's going to be hard for his memory to escape that stigma because rags like RS are always going to throw it up there. And self-righteous religious leaders are always going to use Freddie as an example of an immoral lifestyle leading to it's natural conclusion.
I wish it weren't true but that's the kind of insane world we live in.
Freddie is still the only major rock star to have died of AIDS. His excesses, whether true or not are part of his public mythological persona now.
It's going to hard for his memory to escape that stigma because rags like RS are always going to throw it up there. And self-righteous religeous
leaders are always going to use Freddie as an example of an immoral lifestyle leading to it's natural conclusion.
I wish it weren't true but that's the kind of world we live in.
Yes, but did you read my other examples of the other artists the Pope denounced, yet Rolling Stone didn't jump on those artists or use ANY of them or their songs as examples.
You want to talk debauchery, I mean I like The Rolling Stones, But Why didn't Rolling Stone Magazine bring up their umpteen drug busts and Keith Richards being the Heroin King, or the bands' famous arrest with was it an orgy of the entire band eating hash brownies out of Anita Pallenberg's er...brownie? which has been scandal for decades.
How about RS's precious Eagles' Glenn Frey had to have his entire inner nose tissue and bones rebuilt just so he could breathe because his years of MAJOR Truck load cocaine abuse literally destroyed the inside of his nose. The Eagles are also very outspoken for the gargantuan orgies they had with tons of women/groupies, coke, other drugs, etc. (all outlined as well in their music) and in graphic interviews which they LOVE to detail.
What about all the drugs the Beatles did and John Lennons' Gay/Bi whatever affair with their Manager Brian Epstein..when Lennon was marred t Cynthia Twist with his child Julien?
Why doesn't Rolling Stone Magazine bring any of that up? Give me a break. Most rock bands were as "debauched" if not MORE so than anything Queen ever did. RS just gets pleasure out of slamming Queen any chance it gets.
Oh....and as for gay bashing Freddie, which......Lester....RS Magazine had no business doing as that is not journalism, it had no business in the article...it is slanted BIGOTRY.....and...
......FYI.......ALL OF QZ READ THIS.........
......Jann Wenner, Publisher, Editor In Chief, Founder of Rolling Stone Magazine, OPENLY outed himself as GAY...several years ago, this after being "supposedly" happily married for 2 decades with children.
How dare RS Magazine Gay bash Freddie when its own Publisher, Jann Wenner is openly Gay...as are many of its writers too such as Anthony DeCurtis (who never outed himself, but his flamebouyance makes Freddie look like Mr. Macho man).
RS Magazine couldn't be more hypocritical (and trashlike) in this manner.
So, what Arlene is trying to tell us is that RS (which I've never read cause they're musical incompetents) deserve to be burned in hell cause they hate Queen, but she might be some kind of hero cause she hates Eagles, satanized by her without any special reason.
So, what Arlene is trying to tell us is that RS (which I've never read cause they're musical incompetents) deserve to be burned in hell cause they hate Queen, but she might be some kind of hero cause she hates Eagles, satanized by her without any special reason.
Dont you read?!!!!
Before you open your mouth and write what you know nothing about?
...I put in all my posts about the Eagles' debauchery in their own lives, as a band, and in their music. CAREFULLY read all my posts before you show your incompetency...as I DID DETAIL The Eagles excesses as people, as a band, and in their song lyrics. But since you are too lazy to read before you write I have reposted what I said about THE EAGLES BELOW!
How about RS's precious Eagles' Glenn Frey had to have his entire inner nose tissue and bones rebuilt with reconstructive surgery just so he could breathe because his years of MAJOR Truck load cocaine abuse literally destroyed the inside of his nose. The Eagles are also very outspoken, if not gleeful for the gargantuan orgies they had with tons of women/groupies, coke, other drugs, etc. (all outlined as well in their music) and in graphic interviews which they LOVE to detail.
What about their songs?(Think of The Eagles "Witchy Woman" glorifying a female drug dealer, "Life In The Fast Lane", "Hotel California", etc,),...
Hotel California was The Eagles' version of Queen's Jazz party..if not WORSE far more decadent and The Eagles glorifiied it!
So, what Arlene is trying to tell us is that RS (which I've never read cause they're musical incompetents) deserve to be burned in hell cause they hate Queen, but she might be some kind of hero cause she hates Eagles, satanized by her without any special reason.
LOL! Sorry Arlene, he's got you there. You are displaying nepotism. Just like Rolling Stone does.
So, what Arlene is trying to tell us is that RS (which I've never read cause they're musical incompetents) deserve to be burned in hell cause they hate Queen, but she might be some kind of hero cause she hates Eagles, satanized by her without any special reason.
LOL! Sorry Arlene, he's got you there. You are displaying nepotism. Just like Rolling Stone does.
I don't get you. Didn't you read my post above yours! The Eagles could TEACH and GIVE LESSONS to Queen on how to party, do drugs, and be debauched.