Discussion in 'Music Corner' started by madame george's boyfriend, Apr 21, 2017.
I always thought after '87 or so it was starfish and coffee...
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.
But people (me included) talk about those lists, so I guess they work.
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.
I meant Jagger (the 5 stars awarded the awful Goddess In The Doorway) but Springsteen too of course .
No more album reviews in Rolling Stone? How am I supposed to know if music is good or not unless someone else tells me?
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?
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.
No need for new music, they're shaping its story wiTh what they've got in the Hall of Fame.
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.
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?
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?
Well Mojo and Uncut are very heavy on nostalgia, which gives them a lot of weight but they still give new music some space.
They also - perhaps particularly Uncut - seem to adhere to the Rolling Stone maxim that "three stars means never having to say you're sorry."
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.
maybe none of jann wenner's favorites released anything.
There's only one PJ O'Rourke, most of the rest of them from that viewpoint are largely uninteresting and not good writers.
Maybe the next issue of RS will feature "The Top 100 Rolling Stone Reviews" list.
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.
He's the guy that did Baby Blue, right?
If you mean CREEM, count me in!
Losing advertising is the demise of pretty much any magazine this side of Consumer Reports.
Why anyone would bother with that rag anymore is beyond me.
Cap'n Crunch, with soy milk.
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).
Separate names with a comma.