Rolling Stone Magazine's Queen Hatred

Just wondered who else has noticed over the years what an ignorance toward Queen this bullshit magazine has had over the years...have you read their biography of Queen online? Apart from getting key dates and times just plain wrong, they pretty much dismiss Queen as a flash in the pan.

Now, they put "Bohemian Rhapsody" way up at #163...which just beat out Eminem's "Lose Yourself".

I remember the issue that came out the month after Freddie died...they couldn't even give him the cover.

I really hate this magazine and will never buy it again. Besides, it's pretty much wall-to-wall advertising.

I agree. They didn't even put Freddie on the cover for his 60th b-day!!! How absurd! I was looking thru it that week and didn't even find an article or pic of him or something like that. The nerve those bastards have... :(

According to Rolling Stone magazine, the Beach Boys are clearly better than Queen. They also have a tendency to dog on albums they don't like by a band, but if that band makes it big, they change their tune. An example is how they dogged on Hysteria by Def Leppard, but then it went on to sell 16 million + albums. Their next album 'Adrenalize' was a complete piece of shit compared with Hysteria, and yet the magazine gave it a higher review.

Boh Rhap #163. The authors must be either rolling, or stoned.

[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]jasen101 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]this bullshit magazine

I remember the issue that came out the month after Freddie died...they couldn't even give him the cover.
[/QUOTE]

You pretty much summed it up already.

His obituary headline was clearly across Michael Jackson's crotch. You don't think FM got a chuckle outta that?

Guys, the way to have an effect upon "Rolling Stone" is to simply write them a letter of complaint. Trust me, if enough people complain, they will at least publish your comments under "Letters to Editor." The next time around, they will be more likely to remember Queen. My good friend got such a letter published a magazine that failed to include Queen among the top bands. At the same time, I am disturbed about the fact that a lot of "fans" refuse to put the effort into letters to the editor. Trust me, at the end of the day, their job is to please their readers.

yeah i saw on a more recent one, in the back its like from the vault and it had queen albums and then recent news about the play, a small small excerpt and it said how they were doing anything for a comeback or something with their new play WWRY

Yeah, they never gave Queen their props...


Now the Rolling Stones....oh man, they were on pretty much on at least one cover every year back in the day, if I'm not mistaken

[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Freddie's #1 Fan Forever wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Guys, the way to have an effect upon "Rolling Stone" is to simply write them a letter of complaint. Trust me, if enough people complain, they will at least publish your comments under "Letters to Editor." The next time around, they will be more likely to remember Queen. My good friend got such a letter published a magazine that failed to include Queen among the top bands. At the same time, I am disturbed about the fact that a lot of "fans" refuse to put the effort into letters to the editor. Trust me, at the end of the day, their job is to please their readers. [/QUOTE]

Just a thought-- we could all mass-send them this little piece: http://www.queenzone.com/queenzone/mp3.aspx?Q=187

XD

I remember that Roger letter...I think relations with RS went from bad to worse from that point on. That was way back in 1981 or so.

Jesus.... name me a music magazine that's worth reading anyway. Once they make it to the big time it just becomes bullshit ads from front to back. Even the small time magazines are full of so-called critics (read ; can't-dos) who think they know what they're on about.

I pity da fool.

This is hardly new news. Back in the seventies every music paper hated Queen. They claimed that they were too pompous and over-produced. That they have gone over the top with (insert ANY album name).

Queen's response? Go even more over the top & sell even more records. It always made me laugh.

All these papers/magazines do is to try to be clever, when my 11 month old nephew would have them baffled.

All you can do is laugh it off and spread the gospel, because a word from a friend counts 1000's of times that of a critic.

Artists like Bob Dylan, U2, Bruce Springsteen, and Eric Clapton will never get a bad review in Rolling Stone.

They could walk in the studio to record themselves farting on the mic, put it on an album and Rolling Stone will give it at least 4 stars.

[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]AmeriQueen wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
Boh Rhap #163. The authors must be either rolling, or stoned. [/QUOTE]

Actually, the authors are very dumb, and pretend to be intellectualy. They cannot think for themselves, but when people who actually matter demonstrate that something is worthwhile, they jump on the bandwagon and claim the thing.

theyre biased, they spend too much time trying to prove that they hate bush and they only write about the same 14 musicians and arent about the music its random stuff now.

i personally like classic rock magazine, they give the REAL good musicians (well except the darkness) and those who follow in their footsteps...


ok i admit the ONLY reason i buy these magazines is to add pictuers to my phenominal collage.

I was reading their Rock Album Encyclopedia at Borders the other day and it was embarasssing how bad their entry on Queen was. The mention of drummer Roger DEACON was a particular lowlight.