When 'Rolling Stone' Was Right , When 'Rolling Stone' Was Wrong

Although I don't fully disagree I found it interesting that they gave Def Leppard Adrenalize such high praise upon release in 1992, and I believe 5 stars.

 

I'd say it was a bit lame that for their 500 greatest songs a publication called Rolling Stone had their #2 song by The Rolling Stones and #1 was Like A Rolling Stone.

 

They were right to hire Matt Taibbi.

 

Damn near that whole album is good.

 

Yeah, I miss this kind of writing, whether I agree with the assessment or not.

 

I think the key truth to remember is that they were neither right or wrong. Any more than any of us are "right or wrong" in determining value for those artists or albums which we like.

Just for the record, I actually enjoy reading many of the special issues, such as their "500 Greatest Albums". Merely because I enjoy lists, enjoy viewpoints, and often learn a thing or two.

But I never approach a review or opinion with the false notion that it somehow has a magical insight on "right or wrong", or "well made versus poorly made".

 

My favourite Mel Brooks line from ' History of the World Part 1'
What does this gave to do with this thread? Not a damn thing. It's just good to be da king.

 

Yeah, I see your point, but c'mon - "LARS" and "Satisfaction" do stake strong claims as the 2 greatest rock songs ever!

They're not faves - partly due to overexposure - but it's impossible to deny their importance...

 

4 stars:

Adrenalize

 

The story of the mag is an interesting read. The jagger wenner friendship is a novel in itself. There was a business relationship of a sort between the band and the magazine for years, based on janns taking the name. Janns great moment was ditching his friendship with jagger over the RS Altamont coverage.

 

Satisfaction, over exposure aside, yes. Like A Rolling Stone though is very annoying to me and goes on far too long. The Times They Are A Changin', however, is the Dylan song that I'd never argue against.

 

I vividly recall reading, upon publication, their review of Andy Pratt's Resolution, and resolving (after three or four listens) to never again take Stephen Holden seriously.

The full text appears to have been chucked down the memory hole, but RS itself quotes some representative sections:

We said that Mick Jagger "sounds mannered and jaded after Pratt" and that Pratt "has forever changed the face of rock." … "Always emotionally charged, the instrumental textures evoke volcanic eroticism on one cut, aching tenderness on another.… The songs carry rock harmony one step beyond the Beach Boys and the Stones. Because they modulate so frequently and unexpectedly, they require concentration.… Like the late-19th-century Romantic composers, especially Scriabin and Mahler, Pratt uses chromatic restlessness to evoke extreme emotional volatility." — Stephen Holden, RS 216 (July 1, 1976)​

 

This wasn't the only rave review Andy Pratt got. he was absolutely adored by numerous critics and other musicians at the time.

Critics should absolutely go out on a limb for a little known artist they think is that good. I've done it plenty of times, with people who probably sold fewer records than AP did.

 

Absolutely! I like risky, impassioned writing. And I'm willing to assume that Holden really believed what he was writing. But the whole thing is just really too bathetic. Nothing against Pratt, who's smart and talented and the author of some interesting music, but Resolution didn't come within a hundred miles of "changing the face of rock."

 

I would agree that one should never use a phrase like that. But I guess everybody wanted their Springsteen "rock future" moment.

 

https://rateyourmusic.com/list/schm...0-worst-reviews-of-all-time-work-in-progress/

 

Rolling Stone - "Never Right, Always Wrong" - the most embarrassing contribution to music ever written. How we sucked young people in to a music magazine and promoted left-wing politics

 

I think the 50th anniversary would have been a good time for Jann to knock the magazine on the head, instead of selling it and letting it limp along with no real direction. The generation who started and inspired Rolling Stone are approaching the end of the line, and most of the life and energy of rock and roll has faded, as has the physical record business, with the magazine business not far behind it. They could have patted themselves on the back and marked the end of an era while there are still enough living figures of that era, from Jann Wenner to Mick Jagger to Annie Leibovitz, to celebrate it. I doubt there’s going to be a 60th anniversary.

 

The left-wing politics were easily the best thing about Rolling Stone, but to each his own.

 

In reference to The Grateful Dead's "Without a Net," the writer had the stones to write, "if the Grateful Dead had to release a live album, it's a shame that they chose this lackluster tour to document." HUH?!?!?! The songs were recorded between fall 1989 and spring 1990, a period universally praised by deadheads! Amateur!

 

This is very entertaining.
I find his critiques tend to match my own:

https://rateyourmusic.com/list/schm...orst-reviews-of-all-time-work-in-progress/10/

 

Sometimes the avatars here and the messages are so out of sync. Gives me an idea though. A right wing RS. If it's a funny parody I'm right, if it's not, i give up.

 

top 10. all ted nugent records!

 

The political writing in Rolling Stone can be quite good. Im not sure how many people read it, the magazine's reporting on Trump and the EPA comes to mind.