SmoothedShredder Posted May 22, 2007 Report Share Posted May 22, 2007 Link to Blog! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaimoe Posted May 22, 2007 Report Share Posted May 22, 2007 This is a lazy feature from this once revered magazine. The editors clearly relied on their website database only. Many reviews have not been catalogued. I used to pour over old Rolling Stone magazines on microfiche in Douglas Library at Queen's University back in the late 80's. Two reviews come immediately to mind that still stick in my craw was their 2 star rating of the original Quadrophenia and a middling review of After The Gold Rush. You won't find any evidence online. You'll just have to take my word for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
afro poppa Posted May 23, 2007 Report Share Posted May 23, 2007 a middling review of After The Gold Rush. those bastards!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kanada Kev Posted May 23, 2007 Report Share Posted May 23, 2007 f Rolling Stone. I've never been a fan of their opinions on what constitutes a 5-star album. I remember reading RS in the early/mid 80s. It was crap then, and the last i looked, is still crap (in comparison to the great content you can get about music online). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaimoe Posted May 23, 2007 Report Share Posted May 23, 2007 RS had some of the greatest music critics throughout the 60's reaching even into the 80's. What's left now is only David Fricke. He's no Greil Marcus or even Dave Marsh, but he's the only one left worth reading. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phishtaper Posted May 23, 2007 Report Share Posted May 23, 2007 a music magazine that everyone agreed with would be incredibly boring ... RS has some good stuff (especially its photos) and I've always liked the British mags like Q and NME, as well as Interview. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ollie Posted May 23, 2007 Report Share Posted May 23, 2007 This is a lazy feature from this once revered magazine. The editors clearly relied on their website database only.Is this a Rolling Stone feature or just some guys blog? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaimoe Posted May 23, 2007 Report Share Posted May 23, 2007 This is a lazy feature from this once revered magazine. The editors clearly relied on their website database only.Is this a Rolling Stone feature or just some guys blog?I don't know that it matters. Laziness abounds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Northern Wish Posted May 23, 2007 Report Share Posted May 23, 2007 I think over the past few years Rolling Stone has really stepped it up as far as their non music journalism. Some very hard hitting pieces (all liberal mind you), unique topics and fresh points of view.I received a RS subscription from my grandma every year since I was in Grade 9, and I enjoy it now more than ever. For the articles! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PassedOutGuy Posted May 24, 2007 Report Share Posted May 24, 2007 You mean you dont read it for the sexy pictures? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Not Bob Posted May 24, 2007 Report Share Posted May 24, 2007 You mean you dont read it for the sexy pictures?That's Q. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now