Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Rolling Stone Magazine discussion thread
Topic Started: Jan 29 2007, 06:41 PM (772 Views)
Aqueronte
Member Avatar
Helen Wheels
working_class_hero
Jan 29 2007, 07:09 PM
RS Magazine
 
Unfortunately, there's also some real crapola here, such as "Little Child" and "Devil in Her Heart." The old show tune "Till There Was You" would rank as the Beatles' all-time ghastliest moment -- if not for the horrifying "Hold Me Tight" ( "It's you!/You, you, you!") which happens to be an original.

The strain of Beatlemania shows in Beatles for Sale, as the lads unload some of the ickiest covers from their bar-band days.

...It makes Mr. Moonlight easy to forgive

Help! was utterly ruined in its U.S. version, which cut half the songs and added worthless orchestral soundtrack filler, so it's always been underrated

"In My Life" was one of the last Lennon-McCartney songs that the pair actually wrote together, and it could well be a loving farewell to each other before the friendship turned sour.

(On Revolver) John's songs are the best, but Paul gets in the funniest line: "If I am true I'll never leave,/and if I do I know the way there."

By now, the Beatles didn't need to push -- they could have hit #1 with a tape of themselves blowing their noses, which would have been catchier than "Hello Goodbye" or "Lady Madonna."

The double-disc White Album, officially entitled The Beatles, has loads of self-indulgent filler -- even the justly maligned "Revolution #9" is more fun than "Honey Pie" or "Yer Blues." Before CDs, most people just made a 45-minute tape of highlights for actual listening; now you can program "Sexy Sadie" and "Long, Long, Long" without having to lift the needle to skip over "Helter Skelter."

...nobody will ever understand how they talked George Martin into permitting that godawful bass feedback at the end of the otherwise perfect "Julia."

As a strange footnote, the White Album acquired permanent notoriety during Charles Manson's 1969 trial, when an L.A. district attorney floated the theory that the album had inspired an alleged hippie murder cult. Silly stuff, but the accusation stuck, even though there's never been any evidence behind it; as Charlie himself admitted, he was more of a Bing Crosby man. Oh, well -- "Helter Skelter" still sucks anyway.

The Paul-supervised Let It Be . . . Naked remix isn't worth the trouble.


Though some of these I agree with completely, I think they let their bias show too much..and that's just the Beatles' review, Floyd's isn't much better

Exactly the magazine is extremely biased. Just read the biographies of some bands there.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kira
Member Avatar
Hate me, do it and do it again.
working_class_hero
Jan 29 2007, 10:15 PM
White Collar Boy
Jan 29 2007, 07:13 PM
working_class_hero
Jan 29 2007, 10:09 PM
RS Magazine
 
Unfortunately, there's also some real crapola here, such as "Little Child" and "Devil in Her Heart." The old show tune "Till There Was You" would rank as the Beatles' all-time ghastliest moment -- if not for the horrifying "Hold Me Tight" ( "It's you!/You, you, you!") which happens to be an original.

The strain of Beatlemania shows in Beatles for Sale, as the lads unload some of the ickiest covers from their bar-band days.

...It makes Mr. Moonlight easy to forgive

Help! was utterly ruined in its U.S. version, which cut half the songs and added worthless orchestral soundtrack filler, so it's always been underrated

"In My Life" was one of the last Lennon-McCartney songs that the pair actually wrote together, and it could well be a loving farewell to each other before the friendship turned sour.

(On Revolver) John's songs are the best, but Paul gets in the funniest line: "If I am true I'll never leave,/and if I do I know the way there."

By now, the Beatles didn't need to push -- they could have hit #1 with a tape of themselves blowing their noses, which would have been catchier than "Hello Goodbye" or "Lady Madonna."

The double-disc White Album, officially entitled The Beatles, has loads of self-indulgent filler -- even the justly maligned "Revolution #9" is more fun than "Honey Pie" or "Yer Blues." Before CDs, most people just made a 45-minute tape of highlights for actual listening; now you can program "Sexy Sadie" and "Long, Long, Long" without having to lift the needle to skip over "Helter Skelter."

...nobody will ever understand how they talked George Martin into permitting that godawful bass feedback at the end of the otherwise perfect "Julia."

As a strange footnote, the White Album acquired permanent notoriety during Charles Manson's 1969 trial, when an L.A. district attorney floated the theory that the album had inspired an alleged hippie murder cult. Silly stuff, but the accusation stuck, even though there's never been any evidence behind it; as Charlie himself admitted, he was more of a Bing Crosby man. Oh, well -- "Helter Skelter" still sucks anyway.

The Paul-supervised Let It Be . . . Naked remix isn't worth the trouble.


Though some of these I agree with completely, I think they let their bias show too much..and that's just the Beatles' review, Floyd's isn't much better

I won't say anything...

:dodido:

Is that supposed to be a dig at me or something? I may let my biases show, but I don't write for a magazine FFS..you'd think a professional magazine's review might be a little more..objective?

It doesn't have to be.
Posted Image
The human whose name is written in this notebook shall die.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Carpenter
Member Avatar
Avatar
Uh, yeah it does.
Posted Image

Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ihateguitarists
Member Avatar
v_v
White Collar Boy
Jan 29 2007, 07:19 PM
working_class_hero
Jan 29 2007, 10:15 PM
White Collar Boy
Jan 29 2007, 07:13 PM
working_class_hero
Jan 29 2007, 10:09 PM
RS Magazine
 
Unfortunately, there's also some real crapola here, such as "Little Child" and "Devil in Her Heart." The old show tune "Till There Was You" would rank as the Beatles' all-time ghastliest moment -- if not for the horrifying "Hold Me Tight" ( "It's you!/You, you, you!") which happens to be an original.

The strain of Beatlemania shows in Beatles for Sale, as the lads unload some of the ickiest covers from their bar-band days.

...It makes Mr. Moonlight easy to forgive

Help! was utterly ruined in its U.S. version, which cut half the songs and added worthless orchestral soundtrack filler, so it's always been underrated

"In My Life" was one of the last Lennon-McCartney songs that the pair actually wrote together, and it could well be a loving farewell to each other before the friendship turned sour.

(On Revolver) John's songs are the best, but Paul gets in the funniest line: "If I am true I'll never leave,/and if I do I know the way there."

By now, the Beatles didn't need to push -- they could have hit #1 with a tape of themselves blowing their noses, which would have been catchier than "Hello Goodbye" or "Lady Madonna."

The double-disc White Album, officially entitled The Beatles, has loads of self-indulgent filler -- even the justly maligned "Revolution #9" is more fun than "Honey Pie" or "Yer Blues." Before CDs, most people just made a 45-minute tape of highlights for actual listening; now you can program "Sexy Sadie" and "Long, Long, Long" without having to lift the needle to skip over "Helter Skelter."

...nobody will ever understand how they talked George Martin into permitting that godawful bass feedback at the end of the otherwise perfect "Julia."

As a strange footnote, the White Album acquired permanent notoriety during Charles Manson's 1969 trial, when an L.A. district attorney floated the theory that the album had inspired an alleged hippie murder cult. Silly stuff, but the accusation stuck, even though there's never been any evidence behind it; as Charlie himself admitted, he was more of a Bing Crosby man. Oh, well -- "Helter Skelter" still sucks anyway.

The Paul-supervised Let It Be . . . Naked remix isn't worth the trouble.


Though some of these I agree with completely, I think they let their bias show too much..and that's just the Beatles' review, Floyd's isn't much better

I won't say anything...

:dodido:

Is that supposed to be a dig at me or something? I may let my biases show, but I don't write for a magazine FFS..you'd think a professional magazine's review might be a little more..objective?

It doesn't have to be.

Yeah that little quote about The Beatles can suck it. I love a lot of the songs they bashed.

But seriously, I thought "Helter Skelter" was a well-known and beloved Beatles song!? :worriedlookleft:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
etphonehomeyo
Member Avatar
baba booey!
haha when we talked about rolling stone at pinkfloydonline, we all ripped it apart.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
St. Thomas
Member Avatar
i love katie
Rolling Stone magazine.

Used to be a very valuable, innovative, musical, and political resource in the late 60's and 70's. Great articles, reviews, Lester Bangs, Cameron Crowe, the covers, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas...But now I consider it boring and tepid usually. It went downhill along with the music it pretended to cover. The best articles they have these days are about the legends. The James Brown and Ahmet Ertegun articles last month were really great, I wholeheartedly enjoyed them. I don't subscribe to the magazine, but randomly they get sent to my house every month, and I don't know why. Haha.

The lists. I love the lists. I think they're dead-on, when they're not created haphazardly by the current writers. They are an amazing resource to find new music and to read about the legends. And they just click with my personal tastes so well. "Like a Rolling Stone" is my favorite song, Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band is my favorite album, and on down the line. Usually they get people who were around at the time of the music to compile the best lists. For example, the Immortals list (100 greatest artists of the century), has articles written about each legendary musician by another famous musician. It's great to read what those musicians think of them and how they really impacted them and the world at the time. The albums list has been my main music resource for a few years now. Still discovering great stuff from there every day. So I think that reason alone is worth the magazine still being produced, and while I wish it wasn't so commercialized (so many ads) and a product of the industry now, I like to pick it up when I'm bored sometimes.
-thomas

last.fm
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
working_class_hero
Member Avatar
Captain ASR
etphonehomeyo
Jan 29 2007, 07:29 PM
haha when we talked about rolling stone at pinkfloydonline, we all ripped it apart.

That's actually partly what drove me to make this topic :cigar:
someday monkey won't play piano song, play piano song

---
Facebook
Last.fm

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Aqueronte
Member Avatar
Helen Wheels
NorwegianWood65
Jan 29 2007, 07:31 PM
For example, the Immortals list (100 greatest artists of the century), has articles written about each legendary musician by another famous musician. It's great to read what those musicians think of them and how they really impacted them and the world at the time.

Heh you're right that was really interesting. I didn't agree with the order in some cases but well.... yeah it was a good list overall.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ihateguitarists
Member Avatar
v_v
The Immortals list sucks. I don't see how Buddy Holly tops The Who, Led Zeppelin, John Lennon, The Doors, Eric Clapton, and a ton of others who have had decades upon decades of writing and performing great songs and albums. What did he have like three albums out during his lifetime? I know we're supposed to take into consideration the time period and their influence but come on, Tommy, Imagine, Led Zeppelin IV compared to The "Chirping" Crickets? What the fuck?

EDIT:
Posted Image
I sense I'm about to be severely bashed. :cigar:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Aqueronte
Member Avatar
Helen Wheels
ihateguitarists
Jan 29 2007, 07:40 PM
The Immortals list sucks. I don't see how Buddy Holly tops The Who, Led Zeppelin, John Lennon, The Doors, Eric Clapton, and a ton of others who have had decades upon decades of writing and performing great songs and albums. What did he have like three albums out during his lifetime? I know we're supposed to take into consideration the time period and their influence but come one, Tommy, Imagine, Led Zeppelin IV compared to The "Chirping" Crickets? What the fuck?

I know man that's why I said I didn't liked the order much. I mean the band at number 50? and that same band or the Byrds (my fourth favourite band of all time) ahead of the Kinks, I might be biased about them sometimes, I just had to say that.
But at least you have to be happy some bands you like are there, I mean out of millions of artists they're among the list of the best, and that's pretty fucking good if you ask me.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
St. Thomas
Member Avatar
i love katie
ihateguitarists
Jan 29 2007, 10:40 PM
The Immortals list sucks. I don't see how Buddy Holly tops The Who, Led Zeppelin, John Lennon, The Doors, Eric Clapton, and a ton of others who have had decades upon decades of writing and performing great songs and albums. What did he have like three albums out during his lifetime? I know we're supposed to take into consideration the time period and their influence but come on, Tommy, Imagine, Led Zeppelin IV compared to The "Chirping" Crickets? What the fuck?

I sense I'm about to be severely bashed. :cigar:

Buddy started the whole songwriting in rock and roll thing. Without his influence, you can throw John Lennon and the Who out the window. And from there, all the rest disappear. And it's not like he crushed them, either. They're all high in the top 50, no? Except Clapton, whose main importance was the blues guitar playing, not his songs. It's all about impact on the music world.

And for John Lennon, they're talking solo career after the Beatles.
-thomas

last.fm
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ihateguitarists
Member Avatar
v_v
NorwegianWood65
Jan 29 2007, 07:47 PM
ihateguitarists
Jan 29 2007, 10:40 PM
The Immortals list sucks. I don't see how Buddy Holly tops The Who, Led Zeppelin, John Lennon, The Doors, Eric Clapton, and a ton of others who have had decades upon decades of writing and performing great songs and albums. What did he have like three albums out during his lifetime? I know we're supposed to take into consideration the time period and their influence but come on, Tommy, Imagine, Led Zeppelin IV compared to The "Chirping" Crickets? What the fuck?

I sense I'm about to be severely bashed. :cigar:

Buddy started the whole songwriting in rock and roll thing. Without his influence, you can throw John Lennon and the Who out the window. And from there, all the rest disappear. And it's not like he crushed them, either. They're all high in the top 50, no? Except Clapton, whose main importance was the blues guitar playing, not his songs. It's all about impact on the music world.

And for John Lennon, they're talking solo career after the Beatles.

You see, but does influence have so much...influence, that it outweighs the actual music?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
St. Thomas
Member Avatar
i love katie
ihateguitarists
Jan 29 2007, 10:49 PM
You see, but does influence have so much...influence, that it outweighs the actual music?

More or less. It's hard to compare Buddy Holly's music to Led Zeppelin's, since they're so different, so it's hard to say which is better music. Therefore, the main objective way to view it is through importance and influence.

That's what the lists are, the importance of the musicians, or albums, or whatever. If they tried to make it simply the *greatest*, no one would be satisfied, because somewhere right now, there's a Buddy Holly fan saying it sucks because he's not higher than Aretha Franklin or whomever. So there's a little curve you have to allow them there.
-thomas

last.fm
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ihateguitarists
Member Avatar
v_v
NorwegianWood65
Jan 29 2007, 07:53 PM
ihateguitarists
Jan 29 2007, 10:49 PM
You see, but does influence have so much...influence, that it outweighs the actual music?

More or less. It's hard to compare Buddy Holly's music to Led Zeppelin's, since they're so different, so it's hard to say which is better music. Therefore, the main objective way to view it is through importance and influence.

That's what the lists are, the importance of the musicians, or albums, or whatever. If they tried to make it simply the *greatest*, no one would be satisfied, because somewhere right now, there's a Buddy Holly fan saying it sucks because he's not higher than Aretha Franklin or whomever. So there's a little curve you have to allow them there.

I feel that the judgment by influence is hugely unfair and biased against modern bands as it is so much harder, with the way society views music now, and how many different types have sprawled out, to influence music as much as, say, Buddy Holly.

So I definitely see how some can say that Rolling Stone is biased.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
LedZeppelin222
Member Avatar
I'm the taxmaaaaaan
what do you expect from a bunch of hardcore music fans/writers? there is obviously going to be biased opinions. everyone is biased toward their favorite bands and artists. a magazine like this is sure to get just as much criticitism as praise. when one of our favorite songs or albums or whatever gets rated low, we get pissed off. we complain about how they are underrated, and then get even more pissed when someone we don't like is way up on the list. but to the writers, these are correct ratings.

i would rate wolfmother over elvis, buddy holly, little richard, any of those guys without hesitation. and i would be satisfied with it. its the exact same thing with rolling stone. the writers are human too, they have their likes and dislikes just like anyone on this site. you are going to get this same result with anything like rolling stone. it would be the same thing if they fired all their writers and hired new ones, except now maybe the people who once loved the magazine might hate it now, and vice a versa
anyone for tennis?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Fear of Music · Next Topic »
Add Reply