Rolling Stone's SH**TY NEW Remarks About Queen

OgreBattleField1980 wrote:

God save the Queen .....and Rolling Stone magazine sucks .... nuff said ... im not anti eagles , though i am anti crap .. erm rap .. retards attempting poetry (lol)... I like good rock music , and i think there is a little of it in every good band ... depending on what your tastes are.

OgreBattleField1980 wrote:

Not bad for my first post in quite some time I might add , and Freddie , bisexual or not, critisized or not, will always be a musical genious in my eyes. Especially after watching the second disc of GVH1 with the bohemian rhapsody stuff... that alone ought to shut Rolling stone right up ..

You my dear..are a GENIUS! Great 2 posts. Thanks Mucho buncho! :)

thank you Arlene *bows* i tend to go off when i see certain topics that pluck a nerve or two.

Ya know , I never really thought about it... but i dont think i have good enough knowlege to really get into the serious discussion of Queen .. ive followed em since 91 adoringly but there are some people here as i read who know a hell of alot more than I do and not all of them are Americans .. most of which are british and such ... I wish i had some access to some of that knowlege but without looking like a complete idiot i sit here and i read and read and read and i know anything i want to know ... but sometimes i feel like replying to some of the topics and just saying what a load of crap some of the replys can be its like dude do ya have to be so serious about Queen or music in general , sure we are fans .. but some topics get really down and dirty to the point that ya just cant bother to read it all... ya know what im sayin? anybody?

Want me to make a dig, I'm fuming.

Well at least RS knew that GDML was a radio hit, unlike whoever put together the Queen compilations. Everyone I know in the US in the late '70s/early '80s knew that song, it got lots of airplay, and even NIN remade it. It was one of coolest parts of the concerts too because that's when they showed off all their new lights :)

I think some of their comments are tongue-in-cheek honestly, but hey it wouldn't hurt to send it to Brian :) He should write them another letter on an airplane vomit bag just for old times' sake.

For a Queen fan reading 'Rolling Stone' is just like it is for a liberal to watch FOX News.

Why even bother reading and watching that shit when you know you're going to get all pissed off.

So here's the thing...
I'm a huge Queen fan, and I also have a subscription to Rolling Stone. I know the magazine rarely has anything nice to say about the band, but I've been arguing with people about how good Queen were since the 70's and if I didn't read any magazine that said something critical about Queen or Freddie, I'd be limited to "Train Drivers Monthly" and even they probably said something sarcastic about the Breakthru video.

But my point is... Lighten Up... When I read it in the mag I grinned and moved on, I actually thought it was funny. Not gut busting laugh out loud funny, but at least mildly amusing.

The sentence after the one about Get Down Make Love says "If the pope grew up on Mozart and then joined the Hitler youth at 14, shouldnt he be more worried about the corrupt moral influence of classical jams"

The whole piece is about the moral credibility of the papacy, the point being that the pope shouldnt be concerning himself with Rock music, and particularly NOT bands such as Queen. I actually thought the writer had an admiration for Queen. (But not for a papacy that knowingly protects child molesters)

Sometimes people take this stuff way too personally and writing strong letters to magazines about trivia pieces such as this doesnt do the band any good at all.

Thats my thoughts on it.
For what its worth.

Isn't there any relation between the rock'n'roll damnation by the new pope and the fact that Queen had that concert in Italy during the national mourning for the late John Paul II?
I don't know, just hit me as a bit weird. The probability of such a relation....

Ravenetta wrote:

thanks arlene :) but what did RS say that made roger so mad?

I have never actually seen or read the review, but from what I understand, Roger wrote that letter to RS Magazine in response to RS writing a negative politically slanted show review of Queen in South America...but get this, to add stupidity to injury, the RS critic based his/her observations of Queen's performance...on a SOUND CHECK! How stupid is that? Any band is going to have flaws in a sound check. That's why it's CALLED a sound check. It's a test..for the sound, the instruments, sound board, monitors, the instrument techs, the band to warm up, loosen up, and test out song material on the planned setlist for the show, even the lights, etc. to CORRECT and FINETOOL any squeaky wheels so to speak.

Any writer/journalist with a BRAIN knows you do NOT review a soundcheck.

That's like going to a play and reviwing the Dress REHEARSAL, or reviewing a film Before the final approved, mastrered, edited cut, or reviewing a record/CD before the final mastered album...and this from supposedly, and especially at that time, I think the ear;y 1980's when RS Magazine had a reputation as the most esteemed, credentialed music press publication in the USA and pretty much globally.

An Ordinary Guy wrote:

Isn't there any relation between the rock'n'roll damnation by the new pope and the fact that Queen had that concert in Italy during the national mourning for the late John Paul II?
I don't know, just hit me as a bit weird. The probability of such a relation....

Excellent point and something I did NOT think of...could this slam be a result of and have some religous right wing bias from pressure from The Vatican or the Catholic Church here in the USA? HMMMM....

Elvis is the best example of a FABRICATED superstar.

Think about it, the guy had as much talent as a member of a boy band.

Mr.Jingles79 wrote:

Elvis is the best example of a FABRICATED superstar.

Think about it, the guy had as much talent as a member of a boy band.

While I appreciate and respect that Elvis "crossed over" rock & roll from African Americans to the USA and then worldwide caucasian audience and made it "acceptable" to quote music scholars, etc. I am not impressed with Elvis's music at all and never have been. I agree that Elvis was more of a heartthrob teen idol, who then became a hearttrob middleaged idol to screaming women.

He didn't write most of his own hits (everybody from Little Richard to Eddie Rabbitt and Mac Davis did), he could barely play guitar (Scotty Moore was his gtr slinger), he couldn't dance (woopy, he shook his hips), he wasn't particularly attractive...and...

..if you listen to Little Richard, Chuck Berry, Bo Diddley, whose songs Elvis made hits without giving them a penny in royalties...per them, (and I wholeheartedly agree), Elvis ripped off their music and money, he got rich and famous and the credit for "inventing" rock & roll for being a "pioneer" and "architect" of R&R, but they did, NOT him.

And every interview I have ever read or seen with these black American artists, they are still resentful and fuming at Elvis and bible belt America over this.

I also agree that whatever contributions Elvis did, or did not do for music, well so did Queen.

Yet as I said, Elvis was also debauched and a hypocrite at that (portraying himself as a clean cut gospel singing church going all American boy).

You also never heard of Freddie toting guns and psychotically going off the deep end randomly shooting at TVs, threatening people, AND (having what Elvis's close circle knew as his music "mafia" a bunch of lowlife hustlers and petty criminals, including his manager the FAKE Colonel Tom Parker, who all used threats, violence, and scare tactics to get what they wanted).

So why does Queen get singled out for their excesses and not their music contributions and Elvis's "contributions" overshadow all wrongdoing and cleanse him of any wrongdoing and make him a saint? Give me a break.

THE BEATLES WERE BETTER THAN ELVIS. The Beatles wrote their own songs, played their own insturments. John Lennon pissed the bible belt of the US off with his "bigger than Christ" statement which was mis-worded by the rednecks and caused the KKK to appear at Beatle gigs. The Beatles stopped touring because of it. Then, tensions and ego slowly killed the band, especially after Epstein's death but The Fab Four went out on top of their game whilst Elvis went out at the bottom of his.

Arlene R. Weiss wrote:

Mr.Jingles79 wrote:

Elvis is the best example of a FABRICATED superstar.

Think about it, the guy had as much talent as a member of a boy band.

While I appreciate and respect that Elvis "crossed over" rock & roll from African Americans to the USA and then worldwide caucasian audience and made it "acceptable" to quote music scholars, etc. I am not impressed with Elvis's music at all and never have been. I agree that Elvis was more of a heartthrob teen idol, who then became a hearttrob middleaged idol to screaming women.

He didn't write most of his own hits (everybody from Little Richard to Eddie Rabbitt and Mac Davis did), he could barely play guitar (Scotty Moore was his gtr slinger), he couldn't dance (woopy, he shook his hips), he wasn't particularly attractive...and...

..if you listen to Little Richard, Chuck Berry, Bo Diddley, whose songs Elvis made hits without giving them a penny in royalties...per them, (and I wholeheartedly agree), Elvis ripped off their music and money, he got rich and famous and the credit for "inventing" rock & roll for being a "pioneer" and "architect" of R&R, but they did, NOT him.

And every interview I have ever read or seen with these black American artists, they are still resentful and fuming at Elvis and bible belt America over this.

I also agree that whatever contributions Elvis did, or did not do for music, well so did Queen.

Yet as I said, Elvis was also debauched and a hypocrite at that (portraying himself as a clean cut gospel singing church going all American boy).

You also never heard of Freddie toting guns and psychotically going off the deep end randomly shooting at TVs, threatening people, AND (having what Elvis's close circle knew as his music "mafia" a bunch of lowlife hustlers and petty criminals, including his manager the FAKE Colonel Tom Parker, who all used threats, violence, and scare tactics to get what they wanted).

So why does Queen get singled out for their excesses and not their music contributions and Elvis's "contributions" overshadow all wrongdoing and cleanse him of any wrongdoing and make him a saint? Give me a break.

Sorry but I think you missed the mark on this one.
Elvis never claimed Rock and Roll as being his "invention" He was a fan of the originators of the music. It was white America that proclaimed him The King. Nobody thinks Elvis was a saint anymore than Freddie. (Excepting overexcited fanatics)
You get worked up far too easily.
Who cares what Rolling Stone, the Pope or anyone else has to say? You have the gift of freedom of thought and to express yourself.
Pretty much everyone posting here is a fan of Queen so share that and enjoy.

Lester Burnham wrote:

Extra extra, Rolling Stone hates Queen. Also, Thomas Edison invents the light bulb! Read all about it - you heard it here first, folks!

This is hands down the best, most intelligent and interesting post I've ever read on QZ. Thanks, Lester!

(No, I'm not sarcastic)