More evidence of the irrelevance of Rolling Stone
#1
DVD Talk Limited Edition
Thread Starter
More evidence of the irrelevance of Rolling Stone
from Roger Friedman's "Fox 411":
Rolling Stone: Changes Record Reviews Too
Greg Kot of the Chicago Tribune complained in an interview this week that even though editors at Rolling Stone leave his copy alone, they often change the number of stars he assigns to an album.
Kot is lucky his reviews aren't changed. I reported about three years ago that one reviewer quit after editor-in-chief and owner Jann Wenner yanked her negative reviews of albums by Paul Simon and Don Henley, replacing them with positive takes. Both Simon and Henley are Wenner's close pals.
Meanwhile, Justin Timberlake is on the cover of Rolling Stone for the second time this year. I'm trying to remember how often David Cassidy, the Justin of my time, made the cover. Rolling Stone, for all intents and purposes, should just merge with Tiger Beat and get it over with.
__________________________________________________
I'm not surprised a bit. This magazine is so bad now, my butt won't even let me use it for toilet paper.
Rolling Stone: Changes Record Reviews Too
Greg Kot of the Chicago Tribune complained in an interview this week that even though editors at Rolling Stone leave his copy alone, they often change the number of stars he assigns to an album.
Kot is lucky his reviews aren't changed. I reported about three years ago that one reviewer quit after editor-in-chief and owner Jann Wenner yanked her negative reviews of albums by Paul Simon and Don Henley, replacing them with positive takes. Both Simon and Henley are Wenner's close pals.
Meanwhile, Justin Timberlake is on the cover of Rolling Stone for the second time this year. I'm trying to remember how often David Cassidy, the Justin of my time, made the cover. Rolling Stone, for all intents and purposes, should just merge with Tiger Beat and get it over with.
__________________________________________________
I'm not surprised a bit. This magazine is so bad now, my butt won't even let me use it for toilet paper.
#4
DVD Talk Limited Edition
I wish Greg Kot would just quit RS. Only thing I can think is that he gets a decent dollar from them. I have always liked and respected him. He definitely does not need the BS that RS has become the last decade (at least).
#5
DVD Talk Limited Edition
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Fascination Street
Posts: 6,521
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Regardless of what RS did, Greg Kot is a pointy-headed elitist twit.
http://www.rollingstone.com/reviews/...sp?aid=2044674
Check out those reader responses.
http://www.rollingstone.com/reviews/...sp?aid=2044674
Check out those reader responses.
#6
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 671
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Jepthah
Regardless of what RS did, Greg Kot is a pointy-headed elitist twit.
Regardless of what RS did, Greg Kot is a pointy-headed elitist twit.
I am constantly amused by readers' willingness to pillory a critic because the critic's opinion on one album dares to contradict the readers'.
Hey, I don't read RS and I have no idea if Greg Kot has any "pointy-headedness," but drawing a conclusion about a reviewer based on a one-paragraph review (which probably had a lot of the analysis and justification edited out) seems harsh.
#7
Member
Join Date: May 2003
Location: The land of Toppled Trees. Virginia
Posts: 246
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't need any evidence to convince me that Rolling Stone is irrelavant. I never thought they were relavant to begin with.
Last edited by raiders757; 12-15-03 at 04:50 PM.
#8
Needs to contact an admin about multiple accounts
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 1,411
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
that pisses me off, as I generally enjoy reading their review section. I don't think Rolling Stone is that relevent anymore, yet i still think its an enjoyable mag. Good pictures, fun/interesting/eye opening articles. and I love peter travers.
Perfect magazine to read while taking a fat shit. I'm happy with it
Perfect magazine to read while taking a fat shit. I'm happy with it
#9
DVD Talk Limited Edition
Originally posted by Jepthah
Regardless of what RS did, Greg Kot is a pointy-headed elitist twit.
http://www.rollingstone.com/reviews/...sp?aid=2044674
Check out those reader responses.
Regardless of what RS did, Greg Kot is a pointy-headed elitist twit.
http://www.rollingstone.com/reviews/...sp?aid=2044674
Check out those reader responses.
#11
DVD Talk Limited Edition
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Fascination Street
Posts: 6,521
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Flashback
If that's what you call someone who is very good at what he does and actually calls it as 'he' sees it? Then I would consider that either a compliment or just jealousy on others (especially the fan boys who freaked out that wrote in). I never found him to be elitest and actually very down to earth from the few shows I have seen him do.
If that's what you call someone who is very good at what he does and actually calls it as 'he' sees it? Then I would consider that either a compliment or just jealousy on others (especially the fan boys who freaked out that wrote in). I never found him to be elitest and actually very down to earth from the few shows I have seen him do.
He's also out of step with not only Peter Gabriel fans, which could at least be dismissed in your 'fanboy' terminology, but most other critics as well:
http://www.metacritic.com/music/arti...brielpeter/up/
Going back to the actual thread topic, Rolling Stone has been a joke for nigh on 10+ years now. Call me Captain Obvious.
#12
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: NY, NY
Posts: 3,100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Jepthah
Kot's 'review' of that album is so poorly written, so baseless in it's criticism, that I had to seek out his other reviews. They confirmed my earlier suspicion--he is one of the many music critics who is more interested in hipsterism than actual response to music. Rolling Stone's choice of him to review that album is just indicative of the poor editorial condition of the magazine overall; they see fit to award the pop garbage in the Billboard charts with higher reviews than one of an influential artist's best albums.
He's also out of step with not only Peter Gabriel fans, which could at least be dismissed in your 'fanboy' terminology, but most other critics as well:
http://www.metacritic.com/music/arti...brielpeter/up/
Going back to the actual thread topic, Rolling Stone has been a joke for nigh on 10+ years now. Call me Captain Obvious.
Kot's 'review' of that album is so poorly written, so baseless in it's criticism, that I had to seek out his other reviews. They confirmed my earlier suspicion--he is one of the many music critics who is more interested in hipsterism than actual response to music. Rolling Stone's choice of him to review that album is just indicative of the poor editorial condition of the magazine overall; they see fit to award the pop garbage in the Billboard charts with higher reviews than one of an influential artist's best albums.
He's also out of step with not only Peter Gabriel fans, which could at least be dismissed in your 'fanboy' terminology, but most other critics as well:
http://www.metacritic.com/music/arti...brielpeter/up/
Going back to the actual thread topic, Rolling Stone has been a joke for nigh on 10+ years now. Call me Captain Obvious.
And why has Rolling Stone been a joke for 10 years now?
#13
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 7,935
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I always wondered how many times a reviewer might change his mind many months down the road after reviewing a disc. I remember one time a famous critic for Entertainment Weekly re-reviewed Enya's "Shephard Moons" six months after his first marginal review and upgraded it from a B- to an A (something like that). I thought that took a bit of guts to share that he thought he screwed up.
Even if Rolling Stone has gone down hill a little bit it's still worth receiving for $4.00 a year (which can be found easily online).
Even if Rolling Stone has gone down hill a little bit it's still worth receiving for $4.00 a year (which can be found easily online).
#16
DVD Talk Special Edition
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: The Sky Above PA
Posts: 1,205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Rivero
For a music magazine I find it interesting that the only reason I would ever read it is for Peter Travers' often funny movief articles.
For a music magazine I find it interesting that the only reason I would ever read it is for Peter Travers' often funny movief articles.
#17
I bought my first issue in 5 years yesterday for the free SACD. Actually the top 500 issues has some pretty good stuff on how those classic albums were made and a decent article by Robert Kennedy Jr. The rest is Entertainment Weekly rock journalism.
#18
DVD Talk Special Edition
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Chattanooga, TN
Posts: 1,555
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"The rest is Entertainment Weekly rock journalism."
That about sums it up. I agree with Captain Obvious, RS has been insignificant for 10+ years. Nice eye candy though.
That about sums it up. I agree with Captain Obvious, RS has been insignificant for 10+ years. Nice eye candy though.
#20
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
Overall thoughts:
- RS is probably highly relevant to certain groups.
- I personally have never picked up a copy of RS unless it's at a friends house. Not because I think it's a rag but out of habit of not doing it.
- I like the Peter Traver's movie reviews
- EW is one magazine that I enjoy reading for music reviews