Rolling Stone Magazine

joerg

in the current issue of the deep-magazine there's a pic of jeff ament with (what i guess in my opinion) is an issue of the Rolling Stone magazine.

so, as i am always interested in english magazines (i am from austria, europe) can you recommend that magazine? here in austria, only the german version of Rolling Stone is available, but i've heard, that it's a bit different to the english original. so what is your opinion on the RS?

thanks for your replies!

cheers
joerg

iluvcats

joerg wrote:

in the current issue of the deep-magazine there's a pic of jeff ament with (what i guess in my opinion) is an issue of the Rolling Stone magazine.

so, as i am always interested in english magazines (i am from austria, europe) can you recommend that magazine? here in austria, only the german version of Rolling Stone is available, but i've heard, that it's a bit different to the english original. so what is your opinion on the RS?

thanks for your replies!

cheers
joerg

a few years ago, whenever we bought tix through Ticketmaster, we automatically received RS. I canceled my subscription.

Have you looked at any old issues online?

joerg

so you wouldn't recommend it?

i remember, one time i was on vacation in the usa and bought an issue of spin magazine. well, i really didn't like it, it was this kind of "hip-styled-mtv-thing".

so i thought maybe RS is "more serious", i even read on wikipedia that they also cover other issues than music, like politics?

but thanks for your reply!

cheers

anotherclone

I've had a RS subscription for years. At this point, I just keep renewing because it's so inexpensive. Half of the time, I don't even read it.

I think it's gotten less relevant musicly recently as it has some articles that just don't appeal to me personally, but they might appeal to someone else. I'm talking about articles about the Jonas Brothers, Lady Ga Ga or American Idol. But someone else might like that stuff.

For instance, this newest issue has a Michael Jackson article (good), a Kid Rock interview (fun), an article about the Obama administration re-vamping the school loan program (interesting) and an article about an extreme bike rider guy turned drug runner (REALLY INTERESTING).

I still like their reporting and their articles and recently they did some good stuff on drug wars that I thought was interesting. and Matt Taibbi recently received lots of praise for an article he did in RS that talked about Goldman Sachs that was really fantastic.

libragirl

I've been getting it for about 10 years now and some of the issue don't interest me sometimes. Sometime though they have a really interesting article. I like a lot of the political pieces around that were in there around the election. I guess I still find the reviews interesting.

iluvcats

joerg wrote:

so you wouldn't recommend it?

i remember, one time i was on vacation in the usa and bought an issue of spin magazine. well, i really didn't like it, it was this kind of "hip-styled-mtv-thing".

so i thought maybe RS is "more serious", i even read on wikipedia that they also cover other issues than music, like politics?

but thanks for your reply!

cheers

I don't know, it depends on the cost, I guess. I bet it was more interesting to read RS in the old days, when they wrote about rock music like fleetwood mac or peter frampton for example....before britney spears dominated the media. from some of the covers, it seems like a fashion magazine

tybird

Like others have mentioned, it is hit or miss.....but way better than "Spin". The music focus does need to get off the pop music and one-hit wonders....Rob Sheffield writes some funny stuff....the Obama love did get a little tiresome....and I voted for him.

rhcpjam1029

it's one of those things that you love to hate.

for example, one month they may have your favorite band on the cover (i.e., pearl jam) and talk about how they've never sold out and how much rolling stone hates sell outs.

and the next month they may have the jonas brothers gracing their fine print.

also, their politics gets a bit out of control sometimes. obama's great and i would have voted for him, but rolling stone made him seem like the messiah with him being on the cover three times in less than one year. like many american media sources, they hated bush (extremely!) and filled their magazine with too much hatred.

that's another point; there's too much hatred in the magazine usually coming from matt taibbi who thinks he knows everything about the world. just look at his last article on goldman sachs. hate to break it to you taibbi but goldman is the only american company who has paid off their bailout money and are actually not in a shithole like some other companies.

and my final point...their reviews. ahhh...their reviews. almost as trustworthy as their politics! first off, i have no idea why peter travers still has a job. that little prick will suck the dick of any movie just to make himself and the movie sound good. transformers 2...0 stars! honestly??? 0 stars for that movie? not even megan fox's hotness can make you give it a one? public enemies...3.5 stars!?! that movie had nothing to offer.

even their music reviews are bs sometimes.

but for some reason i still subscribe to this bourgeois rag.

musicismylife78

Rolling Stones investigation pieces-articles about social issues like drugs, or school shootings and Matt Taibbis political columns are some of the best in the business. Matt Taibbi's column's alone I think are worth a subscription.

But as far as music reviews and music news, and finding out about new bands Rolling Stone is past its prime.

At one time, Rolling Stone was THE place to find out about such things. And as such if it gave a record a good review or bad review, that would majorly effect sales of said albums.

Now, with the internet, I dont think people wait with baited breath for each new issue to arrive in their mailbox anymore. If you want to find music news or find out about new bands, why wait for every other week to occur (RS is published biweekly), when you can just boot up the computer and search online.

Additionally, I think its influence is greatly reduced. Pitchfork, Stereogum, and Brooklyn Vegan and other such sites are much more powerful and influential and helpful when looking for music reviews and music news. And a bad or good Pitchfork review has the power and weight a Rolling Stone review used to have years ago.

Lastly, I think in the late 90's, Rolling Stone switched up. It went from being about music, to being about fashion, and pop music and pop idols and all that nonsense. So I think it lost major credibility when that happened.

WaveCameCrashin

rhcpjam6306 wrote:

also, their politics gets a bit out of control sometimes. obama's great and i would have voted for him, but rolling stone made him seem like the messiah with him being on the cover three times in less than one year. like many american media sources, they hated bush (extremely!) and filled their magazine with too much hatred.

that's another point; there's too much hatred in the magazine usually coming from matt taibbi who thinks he knows everything about the world. just look at his last article on goldman sachs. hate to break it to you taibbi but goldman is the only american company who has paid off their bailout money and are actually not in a shithole like some other companies.

and my final point...their reviews. ahhh...their reviews. almost as trustworthy as their politics! first off, i have no idea why peter travers still has a job. that little prick will suck the dick of any movie just to make himself and the movie sound good. transformers 2...0 stars! honestly??? 0 stars for that movie? not even megan fox's hotness can make you give it a one? public enemies...3.5 stars!?! that movie had nothing to offer.

+ 1 except the part about Obama being great.

mookeywrench

musicismylife78 wrote:

Rolling Stones investigation pieces-articles about social issues like drugs, or school shootings and Matt Taibbis political columns are some of the best in the business. Matt Taibbi's column's alone I think are worth a subscription.

ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!

I'll watch the daily show for a less liberal bias.

musicismylife78

years ago, I guess along with the usual, cards that come in any magazine, or Rolling Stone, the whole "print name on postcard to sign up for a year of this magazine" stuff, my cousin noticed one of those cards in Rolling Stone. Only the card was I think for a one years price of subscription, but it was a "lifetime" subscription. Pretty cool when you think about it. I have never heard of any magazine doing this before, or since.

musicismylife78

rhcpjam6306 wrote:

it's one of those things that you love to hate.

for example, one month they may have your favorite band on the cover (i.e., pearl jam) and talk about how they've never sold out and how much rolling stone hates sell outs.

and the next month they may have the jonas brothers gracing their fine print.

also, their politics gets a bit out of control sometimes. obama's great and i would have voted for him, but rolling stone made him seem like the messiah with him being on the cover three times in less than one year. like many american media sources, they hated bush (extremely!) and filled their magazine with too much hatred.

that's another point; there's too much hatred in the magazine usually coming from matt taibbi who thinks he knows everything about the world. just look at his last article on goldman sachs. hate to break it to you taibbi but goldman is the only american company who has paid off their bailout money and are actually not in a shithole like some other companies.

and my final point...their reviews. ahhh...their reviews. almost as trustworthy as their politics! first off, i have no idea why peter travers still has a job. that little prick will suck the dick of any movie just to make himself and the movie sound good. transformers 2...0 stars! honestly??? 0 stars for that movie? not even megan fox's hotness can make you give it a one? public enemies...3.5 stars!?! that movie had nothing to offer.

even their music reviews are bs sometimes.

but for some reason i still subscribe to this bourgeois rag.

I think they have a love hate relationship with Obama. Yes he appeared the cover numerous times, and it was obvious the magazine sure wasnt supporting mccain in 08, Matt Taibbi in those same issues wrote some of the most scathing anti obama attacks I have ever seen put to print. At one point he said "either obama really is a new politician, a leader who actually responds to the public, or he is another disturbing and frightening way in which the system continues to manufacture the status quo and the same old, in new and different ways". paraphrasing the quote there, but the intent is the same. That to me is not some pro obama rara stuff.

rhcpjam1029

musicismylife78 wrote:

rhcpjam6306 wrote:

it's one of those things that you love to hate.

for example, one month they may have your favorite band on the cover (i.e., pearl jam) and talk about how they've never sold out and how much rolling stone hates sell outs.

and the next month they may have the jonas brothers gracing their fine print.

also, their politics gets a bit out of control sometimes. obama's great and i would have voted for him, but rolling stone made him seem like the messiah with him being on the cover three times in less than one year. like many american media sources, they hated bush (extremely!) and filled their magazine with too much hatred.

that's another point; there's too much hatred in the magazine usually coming from matt taibbi who thinks he knows everything about the world. just look at his last article on goldman sachs. hate to break it to you taibbi but goldman is the only american company who has paid off their bailout money and are actually not in a shithole like some other companies.

and my final point...their reviews. ahhh...their reviews. almost as trustworthy as their politics! first off, i have no idea why peter travers still has a job. that little prick will suck the dick of any movie just to make himself and the movie sound good. transformers 2...0 stars! honestly??? 0 stars for that movie? not even megan fox's hotness can make you give it a one? public enemies...3.5 stars!?! that movie had nothing to offer.

even their music reviews are bs sometimes.

but for some reason i still subscribe to this bourgeois rag.

I think they have a love hate relationship with Obama. Yes he appeared the cover numerous times, and it was obvious the magazine sure wasnt supporting mccain in 08, Matt Taibbi in those same issues wrote some of the most scathing anti obama attacks I have ever seen put to print. At one point he said "either obama really is a new politician, a leader who actually responds to the public, or he is another disturbing and frightening way in which the system continues to manufacture the status quo and the same old, in new and different ways". paraphrasing the quote there, but the intent is the same. That to me is not some pro obama rara stuff.

true true and that's a perfect example of the stupidity of this magazine. and just another reason why taibbi is a pompous nutcase who thinks he knows everything.

joerg

okay guys, thanks very much for your opinions and help!

cheers
joerg

mca47

I don't have a subscription to RS, but I'll pick it up if I know there is a quality article in it.
Matt Taibbi does some great work, and when I know he's coming out with a new one I'll usually fork over the $4 or whatever it costs these days.

I just watched Real Time with Bill Maher and Matt was on talking about the Goldman-Sachs article (still haven't read it yet). Like most of his work, he was saying he received a ton of hate mail.

Can't wait to read it!


By the way, I just got done with "The Great Derangement" (I know, a little old...) and found it to be a great read!!
I loved his stories about going to and "infiltrating" the church in Texas! Hilarious!!