Whether it's your first Bonnaroo or you’re a music festival veteran, we welcome you to Inforoo.
Here you'll find info about artists, rumors, camping tips, and the infamous Roo Clues. Have a look around then create an account and join in the fun. See you at Bonnaroo!!
Post by itrainmonkeys on Jan 23, 2009 14:13:24 GMT -5
Check and read who does each review. I don't care much what the reviews say if they don't agree with me.......because in the end it's not the WHOLE magazine that feels that way......it's just the one person who wrote that one review.
don't get too bent out of shape about it. there are a few reviewers who know their shiit. anything david fricke says is pretty much quality critique.
I have to say, I agree with RS reviews, time to time. However, they do tend to rate things relatively to their respective genres ; a Britney Spears record is going to be reviewed with the same criteria as an Nsync album or some Madonna records, not that of a band like Radiohead or anything.
Check and read who does each review. I don't care much what the reviews say if they don't agree with me.......because in the end it's not the WHOLE magazine that feels that way......it's just the one person who wrote that one review.
don't get too bent out of shape about it. there are a few reviewers who know their shiit. anything david fricke says is pretty much quality critique.
I do like Fricke... and I guess no one really cares... its all opinion based when buying an album, not review...
Rolling Stone's music ratings have always been out of whack. I still subscribe, but I almost never find a music article that interests me anymore. It's mostly stuff like Fall Out Boy and 30 Seconds to Mars these days. Sometimes they put up a decent act on the cover, but they definitely seem to be covering more and more bubblegum, emo-esque pop punk stuff as time goes on. I still get it for the political pieces and the movie reviews, but it's rare for me to see a "must-read" cover story.
I have to say, I agree with RS reviews, time to time. However, they do tend to rate things relatively to their respective genres ; a Britney Spears record is going to be reviewed with the same criteria as an Nsync album or some Madonna records, not that of a band like Radiohead or anything.
Agreed. That is how you are taught to review media, in relation to their competition. Fall Out Boys is not going to be compared to Umphrey's, and I don't know if I mind Mantis getting a 3, that's about how I feel with it right now.
Post by KathrynMary on Feb 2, 2009 11:31:33 GMT -5
Alot of what is in Rolling Stone is completely ridiculous. I'm a Journalism major and we've discussed the magazine in class about how the majority of articles written are done in the most kiss ass way humanly possible. A band could be completely full of shit and the artists just jerks and it'll still be written like they're saints.
That being said it doesn't surprise me that RS's reviews are like that now.
"The Rolling Stone interview was the centerpiece of the most important American magazine of its generation. It was - and continues to be today - the imprimatur of true cultural importance, the place where our heroes, idols and stars unveil their great selves as nowhere else. Indeed, Lennon, Dylan, Clapton, Springsteen, Bono, Eminem, Eastwood, Nicholson and countless others revealed the secrets behind their art and their lives in Rolling Stone's pages. Now, for the first time ever, the very best interviews from the magazine's remarkable 40-year history have been collected in a single volume. All of the biggest and most important musicians, writers, political figures and directors are here - completely unafraid to bare their souls and comment candidly on the issues of their day. THE ROLLING STONE INTERVIEWS is more than a collection; it's a marvellous cultural history. "
