[IanATC]

“The thrill it will git ya when you git your picture on the cover of the Rolling Stone…” Dr Hook.

Bah.

I don’t usually print rants but I am thoroughly disgusted here. I hope this is worthy of Nathan M. (I read your site BTW, and I agree with the LOOKS thing 100%)

I have a free sub to RS that was given to me last year as a gift.  The thought was good.  I had not been an avid reader at all.  For me personally, this was the wrong magazine.  I understand this magazine started out with some of the then hottest reporters who were determined to blaze a rebellious path into the fledgling world of rock journalism.  

   Just glance at a few of the issues from the 70’s and you can see why they were a premiere magazine of weight and authority that could help make a band.  Unfortunately, they still carry that weight, and they shouldn’t.  They have become an irrelevant dinosaur consumed by pop commercialism.  They have totally lost focus on what is important and rebellious, and what is merely a sellout rag full of vapid journalism about vacuous teen idols.  The old “rage against the machine” attitude is simply left wing lib-dem agenda narrowly wrapped in a fish-binder. They even run a monthly anti-republican comic strip so left wing it makes you feel Doonsbury is just a tad too conservative. They have been reduced from relevent insight, to pissing into a tornado.

        “Mr. Sherman, set the way back machine to 1984.”  Look at RS in 1984.  Within the same year:  Van Halen’s 1984 album was introduced, and called “beating a dead horse…” in an apathetic, and damning review. At the end of the year after multi-platinum success and being catapulted to instant classic it became a “one-two body punch of classic rock.”  That bit of galactic stupidity and myopia gets worse.  

Fast forward to 2003.  

   They created a “100 greatest guitarists of all time” list with the same Eddie Van Halen down in the 70’s.  This is concrete proof the staff of RS did way too many powerful drugs in the past and have totally lost grip on reality.  500 best albums of all time?  I could swipe out probably 40%  of those that simply do not deserve the title at all. They have a love affair with Bob Dylan’s clogged nasal passage and unintelligible vocals. He and Neil Young could tour with Tom Petty and have a “WHINE –A- Palooza.”

   Pick up the latest issue.  Seven out of ten covers are flash-in-the-pan teen schlock meisters that were manufactured um…talents.  Using them and the word talent in the same sentence is like going into a whore house, paying for sex and saying "I don't feel loved"  The irony is quite thick. They seem to have banned prog rock from RS, you don’t see super groups of consummate talent like RUSH (the number one requested band for interview) or Dream Theater.  Instead, we get Britney, Justin or some other soon-to-be a bad memory or rehab case in the making. Has HANSON checked into methadone treatment yet? All those dim wits will be lucky to be around another 5 years save 35 like Rush.  I am sure deep cerebral effort went into forging the creativity of “who let the dogs out” but 2112 it ain’t.  What about coverage of the latest rapper that shouts his way to a hit album. Then he vaporizes into a cloud of obscurity.  They go from cartoon character to dead broke, or hit maker to jail on some kiddie-porn or B&E charge.  Or maybe they just contract lead poisoning directly from an ever-so-sensitive east coast rival. They can’t sing, they can’t play an instrument.  So they shout angry anti police and female degrading adult nursery rhymes that become ‘so 5 minutes ago’ very quickly. Can you imagine a couple in their 60’s listening to gangsta?  “Oh John, they are playing our song…“Cop killah!!!! “

        RS is not worthy of residence in my um…reading room/toilet.  It is a vile form of printed pollution that is designed to lower IQ as you skim the pages. It is a showcase for kiddie porn ads hawking Calvin klien crap and Nike.  I am likely to mistake it for toilet paper, but to me, it is less valuable than that.

That’s my opinion, and I could be wrong.  But I bloody well doubt it.

[Rocket]

Hi Ian,

I've really only ever read the Rolling Stone Magazine once or twice.

When i was a young teenager we couldn't wait to get our hands on an English Magazine called New Musical Express (at least i think it was called that).

We would even import lp's and singles from the Uk as the releases took too long to get to oz.  

Unfortunately I find that many good quality acts/bands do not get past first base in the US market (sorry to offend anyone but it is the Truth).

Regards

Rocket

[IanATC]

Hi Ian,

Unfortunately I find that many good quality acts/bands do not get past first base in the US market (sorry to offend anyone but it is the Truth).

Regards

Rocket

You are 100% correct.  Two good examples past and present:

Cheap Trick and Dream Theater.  Both had made it everywhere first, except the USA.  DT became great here in the UK, Cheap Trick in Japan.  I am no journalist, but the talent in the new prog rock bands is staggering.  Not to mention there are great electronic groups that get little mention. If I can recognize talent, why can't they

[Rocket]

Hi Ian,

Cheap Trick made it really big here in oz when i was a teenager.

I recently purchased a new turntable and have been listening to my old albums.  I'll give you a list of a couple of bands in oz that were quite good:

1927 (1st album)
Australian Crawl (1st/2nd albums were the best)
Men at Work
Cold Chisel (I can't believe this band didn't make it in the US)
Hunters & Collectors (I must have bought this album in the early 90's and didn't listen to it, my young son had a fascination with my stylus   )
The Flowers/Icehouse (almost all their albums were classics)
The Divinyls
Midnight Oil (most of their albums were excellent)
Inxs (prior to 1990, i remember seeing them in 1981 in a local pub)
Ac/Dc (they were better with bon scott but i do like Back in Black)
A couple of English bands i like:

Dr Feelgood (i have to try and get some on vinyl)
The Clash
The Who
Dire Straits
The Jam
Led Zeppelin

I can't think of any more bands at the moment.

Regards

Rocket

[nathanm]

The only advantage I see that huge magazines have over more independent publications is that they consistently have better photography and page layout.  That goes for anything, not just music rags.  If there were a way to combine the content of the little guys with the design skills of the big guys then we'd really be getting somewhere.   But they are ultimately unreadable due to the sheer amount of advertising.  It sometimes is difficult to tell which is which.  I have never read RS myself though.  Magazines on that level are forced to be mediocre in their interviews and reviews lest they offend their sugar daddies.  The other thing I notice about the writing is that it is sensationalistic and they always skew it and try to put some spin on the things people say.  The truth is only spoken when the tape recorder is off. The rest is PR garbage.

If you want real music coverage in print form without the bullshit you have to seek out fanzines.  It will be a hunt, but worthwhile.  There's ads in some of those too, but not nearly as bad.  You probably will only see music ads too, not ads for Absolut vodka and Camel cigarettes.

[AJS]

Ian -

I'd be the first to agree that RS has long since made the slide down the dung heap into the mire - probably never to recover. But this:

 

They have a love affair with Bob Dylan’s clogged nasal passage and unintelligible vocals.

IMO, Zimmy's clogged nasal passage has done more for rock, nay, nearly ALL forms of music this side of classical and Amazonian tribal thrashings, that if you really don't appreciate him at least in some aspect, I think you need to go back to the drawing board.

[IanATC]

I believe I merely implied I hated his voice.  I am sure he made great contributions.  I can do without him in my musical listening altogeather.

[Rob Babcock]

I agree wholeheartedly about RS mag, but I cannot condone your attitude towards Neil Young!   The man is indeed a god.  I saw him with Soundgarden opening for him, and he literally kicked their asses and rocked them right off the stage!  That was an ear opener for me, as I was pretty much into almost nothing but grunge & metal back then.

Of course, we all have our Sacred Cows, and I can see how his voice could get on someones nerves.  I'm not much of a fan of Dylan, myself.  I'll concede he's a great songwriter, maybe one of THE greats, but his voice doesn't always work.

And I can't stand "Garbage Fingers" Hendrix- just simply noise to me.  I guess no one is beyond criticism just because they're legendary.

I also agree with NathanM that being big does give you access to better graphics and stuff.  However, Nate himself proves that a guy with some creativity and a computer can do some amazing stuff.  With desktop publishing being as good as it is, there might be the chance that a small, dedicated bunch of guys could nearly equal the look of that parakeet toilet of a rag.

[nathanm]

There's not always a nice middle ground.  On one hand you have very skilled designers who understand typography and such and they might make a real fluff article about Britney Spears look like high art and then you have the zine editors in their basements who think fancy pictures and legible text is unnecessary 'sellout bullshit'.  I think a compromise can be reached, but it doesn't always happen.  Stuff like Ill Literature and Terrorizer are probably good combos, but it's been years since I've read those.  

I was always put off by Bob Dylan's voice myself, but this guy seems to have written every pop\folk tune around.  My friend is a big fan and says that yeah, his voice isn't great but he's a great storyteller.  I recall one of the few funny SNL sketches which featured Tom Petty and Bob Dylan 'conversing' with one another.  Quite hilarious.

[IanATC]

awww c'mon!  You guys missed something.  Which band did I mention that gets the #1 complaint that people can't stand the vocals?  
A:  Geddy lee of RUSH.  But I love Rush, and he has notched it down a half octave.  One guest (black comedian)  VJ on MTV once quipped "Why do all the progressive rock bands have white guys with high pitched voices?"

I was *SURE*  someone would key on that, especially AJS.  I guess this just isn't the audio asylum is it  

I like CSNY and some of Neils materials.  He has a rock and roll attitude.  But like Dylan, I often appreciate his genius more if someone else does the singing.

[Mathew_M]

Another pet peeve are modern day rock critics.  Notice how they somehow agree on what the current greatest is?  RS comes out with a top 100 list (or 200, depends on what the trendy number is that year) You rarely hear them wax about an up and coming artist nobody's heard of.  Maybe the fanzines do but I don't really listen to rock anymore.

I also hate band documentaries.  I used to appreciate Wilco until I had to suffer through their ego stoking monstrosity.  I got sick of that schmuck editor at RS popping up saying how great of a band Wilco was and how much they've struggled.  Bullshit.  Their last album sold so well because of the hype of them being dropped by their label.  Don't even get me started on their gutless political stances mixed in with blatant corporate advertising.  Fucking hypocrites. That's it, I'll admit it, I fucking hate Rolling Stone.

[Rob Babcock]

The main diff, Ian, is that very few mainstream critics/fans mention Rush in the same breath with the Dino Rockers you mentioned in your *rant*.  More's the pity, really, but that's why some of us responded to those comments.  I just hate to see the 'baby thrown out with the bathwater.'  Sure, RS used to flog it for those guys, but they've probably moved on to the Genius of the Hour by now.

Actually, the sickest, tired, most used up bunch of fucks out there is the band of the same name, The Rolling Stones.  Christ, they haven't been relevant since before I was born, or near that time.

[IanATC]

The main diff, Ian, is that very few mainstream critics/fans mention Rush in the same breath with the Dino Rockers you mentioned in your *rant*.  .

Yes, I know.  Old head purists have thier generation of music Gods.  In my lifetime, bands like Rush, Yes, Van Halen , Led zepplin and others have shaped my early years.  They have all been damned by someone.  Someone will always gasp and foam at the mouth if compared to one of thier personal Gods. But again, I am open to all music genres.  

My contempt is toward RS, not artists. I understand "Classic rock"  magazine is pretty good.  

FWIW, were I to be sick of any artist, it would be manufactured boy bands and bubblegum pop.

[Rob Babcock]

Yeah, I know what you mean.  Certain self-appointed critics I know pretty much just roll their eyes when you mention bands like Rush.  As a younger guy I'd usually defend the whole genre, but mostly now I figure there's no point to trying to overcome a closed mindset.  Bands like that were a huge influence on me and the developement of my taste for and love of music.

Some of my very favorites, like Judas Priest and Iron Maiden, seem to be getting some respect nowadays.  They really were groundbreaking within their genre and greatly influenced a lot of bands.  Same for Rush.

Incidentally, I didn't know "the power of the dark side", Rush wise, until about 6-7 years ago, when I started working with a true Rush fanatic.  I'd heard the hits, but he had everything.  I really gained a deeper appreciation for their music after that.

[mca]

I also agree that RS sucks, the last time I read one, I could hardly tell if they liked or disliked the bands that were being reviewed. So my question is, are there any mags or websites out there that have decent reviews of bands that I even care to listen to?