DRUMMERWORLD OFFICIAL DISCUSSION FORUM

DRUMMERWORLD OFFICIAL DISCUSSION FORUM (http://www.drummerworld.com/forums/index.php)
-   Off Topic Lounge (http://www.drummerworld.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=25)
-   -   The Rolling Stone. Franchise or 'True music magazine'? (http://www.drummerworld.com/forums/showthread.php?t=76026)

Stalwart_Pandora-Chris 05-11-2011 10:50 PM

The Rolling Stone. Franchise or 'True music magazine'?
 
In America you guys have that magazine "The Rolling Stone". The other day, I seen it in my local HMV store and decided to look at it and it wasn't special (as is any music magazine around these days).

So I searched alot of reviews of albums and stuff and the rating seemed pretty fixed. 5 Stars for stuff which is popular or they want to. Then all the artists I'd rather listen to at like 1 or 2 stars. To be honest, it's rather a franchise to me.

What do you guys think?

DrumEatDrum 05-11-2011 11:27 PM

Re: The Rolling Stone. Franchise or 'True music magazine'?
 
RollingStone Magazine = waste of paper and ink.

I don't think the music writers there would know good music if it bit them on their rear ends.

Stalwart_Pandora-Chris 05-15-2011 01:05 AM

Re: The Rolling Stone. Franchise or 'True music magazine'?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by DrumEatDrum (Post 841047)
RollingStone Magazine = waste of paper and ink.

I don't think the music writers there would know good music if it bit them on their rear ends.

I read a review for Taylor Hawkin's first album and they gave it 2/5. I was pretty disappointed as I think the album was amazing and one of the albums I can NEVER get bored of.

Bo Eder 05-15-2011 01:59 AM

Re: The Rolling Stone. Franchise or 'True music magazine'?
 
Any entertainment magazine is after one thing: sales. Especially in this day and age where many periodicals are facing the block since you can read them electronically or online. As you read these mags, you notice that they start to reflect their readership because those are the people who continue to buy the issues. So it doesn't surprise me that as a new reader your thoughts are way off-base to what the rest of their readers think. If you give it time, you will soon be speaking their language!

unfunkyfooted 05-15-2011 02:32 AM

Re: The Rolling Stone. Franchise or 'True music magazine'?
 
Rolling Stone was one of the first rock rags (late 60īs). therefore it is the standard by which all others are judged. even in the 70īs there were grumblings that it was an establishment paper and not really reflective of what was really going on in the streets.

as a teen in the 70īs i felt Rolling Stone was more for adults. as i became an adult in the 80īs, it became my Go-To magazine, because my magazines Circus and Hit Parader became metal mags and my personal favorite Creem lost itīs way. plus iīll never forgive Rick Johnson for killing any momentum the Runaways were gathering with his review of their second album. but i digress.

in 2011 there are a million rock rags that are sure to be more cutting edge than RS.

Pollyanna 05-15-2011 02:39 AM

Re: The Rolling Stone. Franchise or 'True music magazine'?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by DrumEatDrum (Post 841047)
RollingStone Magazine = waste of paper and ink.

I don't think the music writers there would know good music if it bit them on their rear ends.

It's ideology. They believe that rock should stay true to its roots and remain simple and they have a special dislike of prog.

So a gumbo with a guitar and relevant / hip lyrics will get five stars while a virtuoso band with dumb lyrics will score poorly. Needless to say, RS's opinions don't line up with those of most musos. That always annoyed me because, to me, music is more about the actual music than words.

Still, these people are journalists so they naturally put the greatest weight on words - there's an inherent artistic conflict of interest straight away.

So I can't use RS recommendations because half the time I don't know what the words are anyway. Clear diction is a rarity in rock (especially in Americanese) and I usually don't think fast enough to put it together AND get into the actual music.

If I can't make out the words then the music needs to be more interesting than standard background wallpaper behind the "genius" singer/songwriter.

shadowlorde 05-15-2011 03:32 AM

Re: The Rolling Stone. Franchise or 'True music magazine'?
 
i think it's more about pushing the record company agenda than about honestly thinking about the music just like the radio, news, billboard charts, award shows ... bands don't become popular because they are truly a great band ... they become popular because the record company slips the radio station a few $$$ to play a specific artist x amount of times per day

unfunkyfooted 05-15-2011 04:31 AM

Re: The Rolling Stone. Franchise or 'True music magazine'?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Pollyanna (Post 842373)
Clear diction is a rarity in rock (especially in Americanese) and I usually don't think fast enough to put it together AND get into the actual music.

If I can't make out the words then the music needs to be more interesting than standard background wallpaper behind the "genius" singer/songwriter.

Hey !!!

i resemble that remark.

: P

Stalwart_Pandora-Chris 05-15-2011 01:15 PM

Re: The Rolling Stone. Franchise or 'True music magazine'?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Pollyanna (Post 842373)
It's ideology. They believe that rock should stay true to its roots and remain simple and they have a special dislike of prog.

So a gumbo with a guitar and relevant / hip lyrics will get five stars while a virtuoso band with dumb lyrics will score poorly. Needless to say, RS's opinions don't line up with those of most musos. That always annoyed me because, to me, music is more about the actual music than words.

I LOVE Prog music. Rolling Stones throw 5 star ratings at really boring and depressing bands like Kings of Leon etc. etc. And a prog band gets below 3 usually. It's really unfair to be honest because most prog bands have some of the best musicians on the planet. Not to mention most amazing session musicians have prog roots.

Quote:

Originally Posted by shadowlorde (Post 842396)
i think it's more about pushing the record company agenda than about honestly thinking about the music just like the radio, news, billboard charts, award shows ... bands don't become popular because they are truly a great band ... they become popular because the record company slips the radio station a few $$$ to play a specific artist x amount of times per day

I also agree. I've heard loads of bands I think are amazing. Probably like 50,000 times better than anything I hear on the billboard and they have a very small percentage of popularity. It's all about the dresses, robots and machines doing work these days.

Also, sorry about my bad Grammar. I'm very tired.


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 01:13 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Bernhard Castiglioni's DRUMMERWORLD.com