View Single Post
Old 05-15-2011, 01:15 PM
Stalwart_Pandora-Chris's Avatar
Stalwart_Pandora-Chris Stalwart_Pandora-Chris is offline
Silver Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 727
Default Re: The Rolling Stone. Franchise or 'True music magazine'?

Originally Posted by Pollyanna View Post
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.

Originally Posted by shadowlorde View Post
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.
Mapex, Sabian, Vic Firth.
Reply With Quote