Why are Rolling Stone reviewers such fucking assclowns?

The BBQ Pit
1

Do these fucking jackholes even listen to albums before they review them? I swear to fucking christ that they don’t.

I was looking around the site tonight and decided to check out thier review of the new Mudvayne CD “The End of All Things to Come” and was not suprised to see the crusty ass reviewer show his work ethic by reviewing a song called 12:97:24:99 with this gem :

Now what this fuckstick didn’t realize before he randomly picked tracks to shit on was that one of these tracks is 11 seconds of COMPLETE FUCKING SILENCE. How the fuck can a track be a “seminar on rock polyrhytms” when there isn’t even a song there? He should have at least put the disc in his Sony CD walkman and listened to the first few seconds of each song before writing his review of this album so he could, ya know, MAKE SURE THAT THERE WAS A FUCKING SONG THERE TO REVIEW!

Reviews like these are totally unfair to alot of new bands. It is true that alot of Nu Metal is garbage, but these guys truly have alot of talent. Best bass player in the biz and this album is SO much better than I expected. Anyone who likes heavy sounds should at least check this thing out.

Robert Cherry and Peter Travers should hop on the next trainwreck to hell and let someone under the age of 150 review the popular media.

2

Heh. :smiley: That’s funny.

3

Rolling Stone is crap.

4

The all-time worst review I ever read in Rolling Stone came from Kurt Loder. He was reviewing an REM album (I THINK it was “Fables of the Reconstruction,” but I’m not sure). It started something like this:

J"ack Kerouac once wrote a story and asked William Burroughs to read it. Burroughs read the story and said he liked it. Kerouac asked, what specifically do you like about it? And Burroughs answered that he didn’t really know what he liked about it, he just liked it.

And that’s how I feel about this new REM album…"

**

WHAT THE HELL WAS THAT ALL ABOUT, Kurt???

That, unfortunately, is a typical Rolling Stone review: incredibly pretentious (“Look how cool I am, everybody- I’ve read William Burroughs and Jack Kerouac!”) while saying virtually NOTHING!

Look, if I grabbed a couple of Beavis & Butt-head clones at an AC/DC concert, and asked them, “What do you like about AC/DC,” even THOSE two idiots could tell me “I dunno what I like about them, I just like them.” And THAT would have been as insightful as Kurt Loder’s babblings.

Look, ALL of us like certain things without being able to offer an erudite, witty explanation of the reasons. If I asked you to explain why you like your favorite flavor of ice cream, you’d just say, “I don’t know… it just tastes good.” And I’d have NO problem with that explanation at all. But if you prefaced that simple answer with, “You know, Plato and Aristotle argued regularly over what constitutes ‘the good,’ and I’m reminded of those debates when someone wasks me what makes something good…,” I’d have to conclude that you were simply a pompous twit.

Kinda like the average Rolling Stone reviewer, whose main concern is not the music he’s writing about, but how cool he can make himself appear.

5

If it makes you feel any better, Rolling Stone has been completely worthless and unimportant for at least a few decades now, assuming it ever was worthwhile or important.

After all, this is the magazine that, in a list of the 100 most important rock albums of all times, included every single Sprinsteen album. Every one. No exceptions.

6

Wasn’t it Rolling Stone that named Prince the most important artist of the 1980s? You get the sense that many of their reviews are determined by fellatio.

7

Easy now, son. Don’t say anything you might regret later. :slight_smile:

8

I’ve yet to check out their music, but I hear some of my fellow bassists praising this guy, despite the retarded face paint and such. Doubt he’s the greatest, though, even if we don’t count my beloved Dead Jazz Muscians. On the other hand, as far as nu-metal goes, he must be better than Fieldy of Korn.

9

Fieldy of Korn. Go wash your mouth, young’un!
:wink:

10

Rolling Stone is for poseurs.

11

I will say that the bass player from Mudvayne should not be lumped in with the rest of the Nu Metal flunkies out there. He is extremely talented and is absolutely the best rock/metal bassist out there right now. There is no one on the radio today that can touch him. I don’t claim to listen to everything ever made so I can’t say that he is the BEST, but definitely one of the best in recent memory.At least give him a listen before you stereotype him. I know he does have alot of jazz background.

12

Alright, fair enough, I will.

13

I don’t read Rolling Stone for the music reviews, and I know that’s an odd statement, given that that was most probably the original “intent” of that magazine. However, I find enough interesting interviews to entice me to snag a yearly copy (another thing entirely could be read into that statement).

Now Spin and Blender…there’s a TRULY rant-worthy topic as well as the bumbling Rolling Stone.

14

I don’t know a single person on the planet that reads Rolling Stone magazine and then decides the music they like. Then again, they’re probably out there somewhere…

15

That’s hilarious considering that most of the interviews in RS are either massive ass-kissing sessions, or interviews in which less then nothing about the interviewee is actually learned.

Mind-numbingly boring and stupid.

16

That’s precisely why I said YEARLY copy. :stuck_out_tongue: I’ve found a couple good, entertaining things.

17

I had to de-lurk to mention this. In the latest issue of RS, Peter Travers wrote a very brief review of “Attack of the Clones.” In it, he writes, “Could acting be more wooden, especially by Hayden Christiansen as Luke and Natalie Portman as his lady?” Um, LUKE? How did this make it into print?

18

I may have found some good things a couple of times, but that’s just AWFUL.

19

it’s run by the cretins from Maxim, jesus, wtf do expect?

“have you ever notice the lack of challenging journalism in Us Weekly?”

you get what you pay for, RS is a rag, there are plenty of great music monthlys out there - stop buying yours at Stop and Shop

20

Rolling Stone critics have always been idiots. The very first issue contained a review of Jimi Hendrix’s Are You Experienced, which is probably the single most seminal guitar album ever recorded. The RS reviewer trashed it, and said that he would rather just hear Jimi “play the blues.”

Other bands which were initially trashed by RS included, Led Zeppelin, The Doors, Black Sabbath and Metallica.

They’re idiots man, fucking idiots.