PDA

View Full Version : WOW. Rolling Stone sucks BALLS.



Smash_Returns
09-29-2008, 11:08 PM
I never quite realized what utter BS Rolling Stone reviews were until today.

I never have looked at music reviews before. I know what I like, and don't trust other peoples opinion on my taste. So I therefore have never encountered "Rolling Stone" before today. I saw they gave RAFRAG two and a half stars. I thought "Blasphemy".

So I go to the site to check out reviews, and what do I see?

Mainstream Radio fodder that will be forgotten in a month recieves 4 stars while classics recieve shit? I swear, they have a bus-load of preppy 13-year old girls reviewing.

The Offspring - Smash (3/5)
Jane's Addiction - Ritual de lo Habitual (2/5)
Iron Maiden - The Number Of The Beast (2.5/5)

All of the above 3 are CLASSICS in their genre (The Number of the Beast is frequently in the top 3 Heavy Metal albums OF ALL TIME), yet recieved those ratings, whereas shit like "The Jonas Brothers" recieve 4 stars?

I mean wow, has anyone else here noticed this? Seriously, go to rollingstone.com and find an album you consider a classic, and I bet it either isn't there or isn't reviewed, or has a shit rating.

Actually, you're better off going to google and searching "rolling stone (band OR album)" because the rolling stone search function doesn't work worth SHIT!

Please, post examples of the horridness of Rolling Stone.

WebDudette
09-29-2008, 11:31 PM
Music is the epitome of subjectivity.

Andy
09-30-2008, 02:33 AM
It's much the same with the NME over here.

randman21
09-30-2008, 02:34 AM
Music is the epitome of subjectivity.
^ What he said. It bugs me to read bad reviews of things I like (especially the SPIN review of RAFRAG, which made it obvious that the guy didn't even listen to the whole thing), but there are so many factors that go into reviews, so don't get worked up about it. It's just one person's opinion, not a representation of each Rolling Stone employee.

H1T_That
09-30-2008, 06:38 AM
Who gives a fuck what some magazine thinks...

mrconeman
09-30-2008, 06:43 AM
Music is entirely subjective, but clearly there's something wrong when a music critic can't see that, for example Number of The Beast there, regardless of the critics personal opinion - that album is a metal master piece and 2.5 is a ridiculous rating.

jacknife737
09-30-2008, 09:40 AM
I find 99% of the mainstream music press to be entirely useless. I tend to mostly rely on user-submitted websites (ie punknews.org). At least then the asshole who is trashing my favorite bands is just another dude like me, not some pretentious twat who keeps going on about how Pavement is so influential.

wheelchairman
09-30-2008, 10:38 AM
People who read reviews are retarded. Absolutely stupid.

1. Unless they like the writing style.
2. Have a vested interest in the review.
3. Have similar (very similar) tastes to the reviewer.

I don't understand how people can have their own opinions fed to them. And then even when they disagree with these opinions it leaks into their subconscious. It's amazing.

HornyPope
09-30-2008, 11:10 AM
People who read reviews are retarded. Absolutely stupid.

1. Unless they like the writing style.
2. Have a vested interest in the review.
3. Have similar (very similar) tastes to the reviewer.

I don't understand how people can have their own opinions fed to them. And then even when they disagree with these opinions it leaks into their subconscious. It's amazing.

That was a review of reviews and I'm proud to say that I haven't read it because i'm neither stupid nor retarded. But then you say: 'HP, if you haven't read it, how do you know what Per is talking about?' And I answer : 'People who write reviews are fags'.

JohnnyNemesis
09-30-2008, 11:15 AM
Smash is a classic in its genre?

I mean, it's one of my personal favorites of all time and one of the bestselling, but is it really a classic? I've never thought so, but maybe I'm wrong?

bighead384
09-30-2008, 11:22 AM
Smash is a classic in its genre?

I mean, it's one of my personal favorites of all time and one of the bestselling, but is it really a classic? I've never thought so, but maybe I'm wrong?

If Smash isn't a classic punk album...what is?

mrconeman
09-30-2008, 11:35 AM
I'd definitely say Smash is a classic in it's genre, for sure.

nieh
09-30-2008, 12:22 PM
People who read reviews are retarded. Absolutely stupid.

1. Unless they like the writing style.
2. Have a vested interest in the review.
3. Have similar (very similar) tastes to the reviewer.

I don't understand how people can have their own opinions fed to them. And then even when they disagree with these opinions it leaks into their subconscious. It's amazing.

A good reviewer should give a decent description of how the album sounds, regardless of how much they actually like/dislike it. I'll sometimes read reviews before checking out a band/album and will often end up checking them out even if the review was negative because the description sounded interesting to me.

That_Guy91
09-30-2008, 12:39 PM
I'd definitely say Smash is a classic in it's genre, for sure.

It depends on whether you're considering the genre pop-punk or punk as a whole. For pop-punk, definitely, but not for punk as a whole.

Jakebert
09-30-2008, 01:28 PM
How are you guys not used to the Offspring getting bad reviews by now?

mrconeman
09-30-2008, 01:33 PM
It depends on whether you're considering the genre pop-punk or punk as a whole. For pop-punk, definitely, but not for punk as a whole.

Pop-punk, yeah. Which as everyone by now knows, Dookie and Smash are probably its most important/classic albums.

wheelchairman
09-30-2008, 01:34 PM
That was a review of reviews and I'm proud to say that I haven't read it because i'm neither stupid nor retarded. But then you say: 'HP, if you haven't read it, how do you know what Per is talking about?' And I answer : 'People who write reviews are fags'.

What if I counter and say that mine was a sociological analysis based on my own empirical research? Then you would look quite stupid wouldn't you. Quite the chump. Hey everybody come look at the chump!

wheelchairman
09-30-2008, 01:34 PM
A good reviewer should give a decent description of how the album sounds, regardless of how much they actually like/dislike it. I'll sometimes read reviews before checking out a band/album and will often end up checking them out even if the review was negative because the description sounded interesting to me.

Agreed. Also the same reason why I find book reviews to be more interesting. At least non-fictional ones. But to get so worked up...?

bighead384
09-30-2008, 02:25 PM
Pop-punk, yeah. Which as everyone by now knows, Dookie and Smash are probably its most important/classic albums.

Definitely Dude Ranch too. And maybe And Out Come the Wolves by Rancid. Those are 90's pop punk classics.

jacknife737
09-30-2008, 02:37 PM
Definitely Dude Ranch too. And maybe And Out Come the Wolves by Rancid. Those are 90's pop punk classics.

I don't know how off topic this is but, id argue that Out Come the Wolves has been far more influential, then Dude Ranch. But overall, i agree.

Cock Joke
09-30-2008, 02:43 PM
How are you guys not used to the Offspring getting bad reviews by now?

It's not that they get bad reviews, it's that the reviews are utter bullshit. And like a couple people said, the reviewer clearly hasn't listened to the entire album.

Desperado
09-30-2008, 02:47 PM
Yes they have. Have you even read Rolling Stone? They're not going to do a track by track review because that is lame, a good review gives a general overview to what the album is about. After all, what's the point of doing a track by track if the reader hasn't even heard the album yet? A reviewer should just explain the style of the album and songs and the direction the band took. They review around 40-50 albums a month, and doing a track by track review for each album would take far too long and takes up way too much room and is just unnecessary because shorter, more to-the-point reviews are a lot more helpful than an in-depth one. Besides Rolling Stone is a great magazine, there aren't many others that offer the type of in-depth, unbiased music coverage that they do. At least they don't blindly hate something or genres.

Also the Smash review was written when it first came out, when the classic status wasn't there yet.

That_Guy91
09-30-2008, 07:42 PM
Pop-punk, yeah. Which as everyone by now knows, Dookie and Smash are probably its most important/classic albums.

Besides Milo Goes to College. I'm surprised nobody mentioned that.

But we're getting off track. Rolling Stone sucks and whatever.

Apathy
09-30-2008, 07:44 PM
If ...And Out Comes the Wolves was more influential than Dude Ranch then more bands wouldn't suck dick as much as they do.

nuff said.

Ninty Man
09-30-2008, 09:08 PM
If ...And Out Comes the Wolves was more influential than Dude Ranch then more bands wouldn't suck dick as much as they do.

nuff said.

QFT

MMM smash is influential to the punks, at least is far better that the shit of nevermind the bollocks- I still want my money back-

ninthlayer
09-30-2008, 10:22 PM
I found myself agreeing with a lot of what was said in the reviews for Ixnay on the Hombre and Smash. Ixnay is the only Offspring album I can bring myself to listen to and the comments made by the RS reviewer were pretty fucking easy to agree with//follow.

ps: Changing a review after an album has achieved status would be fucking lame. I think it's pretty rad that RS keeps their old reviews posted and doesn't post new takes on old albums.

leo3375
10-01-2008, 12:43 AM
Part of me can't help but wonder if RS has been contracting out to Pitchfork for album reviews.

mrconeman
10-01-2008, 05:32 AM
After actually reading Smash's review, yeah, I kinda don't see anything wrong with whats said... I'd give it a better rating personally, but the reviewer was pretty good.

Jakebert
10-01-2008, 08:33 AM
It's not that they get bad reviews, it's that the reviews are utter bullshit. And like a couple people said, the reviewer clearly hasn't listened to the entire album.

No, the problem you guys have is clearly that the albums got reviews that you guys disagreed with.

bighead384
10-01-2008, 08:42 AM
No, the problem you guys have is clearly that the albums got reviews that you guys disagreed with.

See, I really don't think you have any way of knowing that. It would have been nice if he gave examples, but as far as we know from his post, the reason Coke Joke doesn't like the reviews is because they're poorly done and the reviewer doesn't seem to listen to the whole album.

Jakebert
10-01-2008, 11:36 AM
But where are you getting this idea that he didn't listen to the whole album? You're just making assumptions because you don't like the conclusion he came to about the album overall, so you're rationalizing it by coming up with an excuse that's essentially ignoring his actual claims about the album.

I read the reviews in question, and I think a lot of valid points were made. You guys have every right to disagree with what they say, but making up some excuse for why it was said is just dumb.

And I agree with Ninth's opinion on RS keeping old reviews instead of re-doing them. I think that shows a lot of guts and honesty to be willing to break with a general consensus and show your original opinion instead of just white-washing it to fit whatever everyone else is saying. Although, RS has re-done reviews for a few albums. For example, they slammed "Bleach" by Nirvana when it first came out, and now praise it as a classic.

bighead384
10-01-2008, 02:17 PM
But where are you getting this idea that he didn't listen to the whole album? You're just making assumptions because you don't like the conclusion he came to about the album overall, so you're rationalizing it by coming up with an excuse that's essentially ignoring his actual claims about the album.

I read the reviews in question, and I think a lot of valid points were made. You guys have every right to disagree with what they say, but making up some excuse for why it was said is just dumb.

It's true that no one can say for sure that the reviewers weren't listening to the entire albums, but I don't think that's the only gripe people have with these reviews. For example, only about half the review of Smash was actually about Smash. It's okay to bring up other related things, but at least most of the review should discuss the music on the album in question. Also, I fully agree with mrconeman's comments about the Iron Maiden review.