No Album Reviews in New Issue of Rolling Stone?

Discussion in 'Music Corner' started by madame george's boyfriend, Apr 21, 2017.

  1. bluej

    bluej Forum Resident

    Location:
    Dayton, Ohio
    I always thought after '87 or so it was starfish and coffee...
     
    WhoseLineFan and BluesOvertookMe like this.
  2. BluesOvertookMe

    BluesOvertookMe Forum Resident

    Location:
    Seabrook, TX, USA

    When looking at these lists at Rolling Stone , there was to me a clear bias vs metal and the 1980s, so Eddie was on the wrong end of both of those biases.
     
    WhoseLineFan, Duke Fame and zen like this.
  3. BluesOvertookMe

    BluesOvertookMe Forum Resident

    Location:
    Seabrook, TX, USA
    But people (me included) talk about those lists, so I guess they work.
     
  4. Squealy

    Squealy Forum Hall Of Fame

    Location:
    Vancouver
    I don't know what the UK magazine scene is like, but from what I can see, American magazines have all gotten a lot thinner. They sit on shelves un-bought, and make a lot of their content available online, so advertisers don't want to buy as much space, so they get thinner.
     
    WhoseLineFan and danner like this.
  5. DTK

    DTK Forum Resident

    Location:
    Europe
    I meant Jagger (the 5 stars awarded the awful Goddess In The Doorway) but Springsteen too of course :).
     
    WhoseLineFan and Chemguy like this.
  6. supermd

    supermd Forum Resident

    Location:
    Campbell, CA
    No more album reviews in Rolling Stone? How am I supposed to know if music is good or not unless someone else tells me?
     
  7. Sax-son

    Sax-son Forum Resident

    I asked myself the same question and came to realize that if I didn't like a record, I would just put it back in the jacket and that would be it. I wouldn't bother saying how bad I thought it was. Since they only have so many records they can review, why not review those you really like?
     
  8. Neil Anderson

    Neil Anderson Well-Known Member

    Location:
    Portland, Oregon
    Remember when they used to have a feature on the last page "20 years ago," listing the top hits back then? At some point they changed it just listing the year in question instead of reminding their readers how many years had passed. Hilarious.
     
    WhoseLineFan and Chemguy like this.
  9. zphage

    zphage Forum Resident

    Location:
    Bucks County, PA
    No need for new music, they're shaping its story wiTh what they've got in the Hall of Fame.
     
  10. Chemguy

    Chemguy Forum Resident

    I get that. But criticism isn't just about reviewing the good. It's also important to understand what makes something not as good.

    But I know what you mean. Stereophile magazine, for the most part, just reviews stuff that they like. And it does work, for the most part.
     
  11. Chemguy

    Chemguy Forum Resident

    They had that section forever. And I would pour over it to see what was hot and what was not.

    They've taken many steps back to get ahead, haven't they?
     
  12. O Don Piano

    O Don Piano Forum Resident

    They should stop calling it "Rolling Stone", as that name is closely tied with Dylan, a music-cultural giant. That's what Wenner was trying to reflect 50 years ago. Times have changed, the importance of music upon culture has disappeared, and artistic core values as relayed to its audience has changed. So exactly what does the term "Rolling Stone" MEAN to anyone the magazine is trying to reach? Besides MOJO and maybe sundry guitar mags, are magazines relevant?
     
  13. Purple Jim

    Purple Jim Forum Resident

    Location:
    Little Britain
    Well Mojo and Uncut are very heavy on nostalgia, which gives them a lot of weight but they still give new music some space.
     
    WhoseLineFan and Bowieboy like this.
  14. They also - perhaps particularly Uncut - seem to adhere to the Rolling Stone maxim that "three stars means never having to say you're sorry."
     
  15. Bowieboy

    Bowieboy Forum Resident

    Location:
    Louisville
    yep, Uncut and Mojo are great with one foot in the past and one in the present. RS seems to mostly talk politics unless there's a new Springsteen, Stones, McCartney, Paul Simon, Dylan or U2 (to them, U2 is the proof they're still "down with the kids" as those guys have only been around nearly 40 years instead of 50+ lol) to ejaculate over for a few issues.
     
  16. rjp

    rjp Forum Resident

    Location:
    ohio
    maybe none of jann wenner's favorites released anything.
     
  17. zebop

    zebop Well Known Member

    There's only one PJ O'Rourke, most of the rest of them from that viewpoint are largely uninteresting and not good writers.
     
  18. gregorya

    gregorya Forum Resident

    Maybe the next issue of RS will feature "The Top 100 Rolling Stone Reviews" list.
     
    WhoseLineFan and Duke Fame like this.
  19. Runicen

    Runicen Forum Resident

    Location:
    Harrisburg, PA
    That's a tricky proposition. I wrote for an indie comics review site a few years back and I found that the most laborious thing about the gig was in finding things to say about comics that were good enough to be inoffensive, but not much more than that. Yeah, it was competent. Yeah, it met all of the physical characteristics of a book. Yeah, there was art and writing. Yeah, someone may like this. Yeah, I almost fell asleep reading it.

    There's this weird drive - and maybe some of it was down to my "Catholic guilt" at remembering so many musicians complaining about the music press - to avoid harshly critiquing something made by someone who does something you either can't or don't do. For my part, the only times I really savaged something, it either felt like zero effort was put in which made the whole thing feel kind of dishonest (or, worse, since I was dealing with indies, opportunistic in that people will accept a litany of sins from "independent artists") or when someone got hold of an obscure license to mask the lack of effort - hence dishonesty.

    Thing is, the really amazing stuff that set the world on fire was thin on the ground. And, as a reviewer, I'm not having the experience of someone taking the thing home and spending weeks with it and letting it wash over them. I'm there to get in and, as quickly as I can without skimping, get an impression, catalog, form opinions, and pass judgment.

    So, all this is to say that while I don't get uniformly positive reviews from any outlet, the reviewer gig is a little weirder than one may think from the outside looking in.
     
  20. Scott S.

    Scott S. Indie Music Curator

    Location:
    Walmartville PA
    He's the guy that did Baby Blue, right?
     
  21. majorlance

    majorlance Forum Resident

    Location:
    Collingswood, NJ
    If you mean CREEM, count me in!
     
  22. seed_drill

    seed_drill Forum Resident

    Location:
    Tryon, NC, USA
    Losing advertising is the demise of pretty much any magazine this side of Consumer Reports.
     
  23. Thievius

    Thievius Forum Resident

    Location:
    CA
    Why anyone would bother with that rag anymore is beyond me.
     
    WhoseLineFan and Allchurch like this.
  24. Rob C

    Rob C Well-Known Member

    Location:
    Chicago, IL, USA
    Cap'n Crunch, with soy milk.
     
    WhoseLineFan and smokeverbs like this.
  25. I remember in high school (eary 90's), although I would read the occasional RS, Spin was more up my alley. They seemed to be more in tune with the "underground/indie/college" scene than RS-that is, until Nevermind broke. I always seemed to agree with their album reviews more than the ones in RS. Of course, Spin now is online only (and I had been getting their stuff on Facebook until it became intolerable), and RS is like the local newspaper-expensive and thin. Now, I mostly stick to Mojo, although I agree that it can be a bit British-band heavy (which is fine for this Yankee).
     

Share This Page