PJ #23 on Rolling Stone 50 Greatest Live Acts Right Now

curmudgeoness

It looks as if they compiled the list by drawing names from a hat. :?

DewieCox

Merkin Baller wrote:

I Respectfully disagree, being on the cover of Rolling Stone equates to reaching a certain level of pop culture fame. It's not Newsweek or Time, it's a cover that artists aspire to make as it's akin to having become a pop culture icon in the eyes of many people. Do a google search of David Drayman's (sp?) letter to RS on the subject, he sums it up way better than I ever could. A lot of people feel this way


You're entitled to your opinion and I'm entitled to mine. I would implore you to do a google image search of 8 year old Martin Richard, the youngest of that scumbag's 'alleged' victims, then tell me it's been overblown. I would think his family, as well as the families of the other 3 victims, as well as the hundreds of others who are still dealing with amputations and other injuries probably also disagree with you.

F*ck Rolling Stone. I hope they go out of business.

I think being on the cover of any major magazine equates that. I think it's absurd that just b/c it's Rolling Stone, that people are going to look him like he's some rock star or he's an example of what's cool.

I'm sure the families of every other horrible thing that's been glorified by a big magazine cover feel the same.

I'm not saying don't be pissed at Rolling Stone, I'm saying be pissed at every rag that puts that crap on the cover.

chorduroy

Merkin Baller wrote:

DewieCox wrote:

Merkin Baller wrote:

Like Louis CK said, RS put the Boston Marathon Bomber on the cover, so I don't give a f*ck what they say.

What an overblown bunch of crap that is. Countless other magazines have put terrorists, murderers, dictators,etc etc on their cover and this is the first time I've ever heard it blow up like it has.

There's plenty of reasons to not give a shit about RS, but putting someone shocking on the cover really isn't one of them, unless you've been offended by every other magazine that's done it.

I Respectfully disagree, being on the cover of Rolling Stone equates to reaching a certain level of pop culture fame. It's not Newsweek or Time, it's a cover that artists aspire to make as it's akin to having become a pop culture icon in the eyes of many people. Do a google search of David Drayman's (sp?) letter to RS on the subject, he sums it up way better than I ever could. A lot of people feel this way



You're entitled to your opinion and I'm entitled to mine. I would implore you to do a google image search of 8 year old Martin Richard, the youngest of that scumbag's 'alleged' victims, then tell me it's been overblown. I would think his family, as well as the families of the other 3 victims, as well as the hundreds of others who are still dealing with amputations and other injuries probably also disagree with you.

F*ck Rolling Stone. I hope they go out of business.

EDIT: Sorry if I hijacked this thread, it was not my intention.

I couldnt agree with you more Merkin Baller. F--k Rolling Stone and their heartless BS rag. They got plenty of attention and publicity from their recent cover. Sickening as it is they knew what they were doing. Here's to hoping for cancelled subscriptions and musicians declining interviews, photos etc...

Merkin Baller

DewieCox wrote:

Merkin Baller wrote:

I Respectfully disagree, being on the cover of Rolling Stone equates to reaching a certain level of pop culture fame. It's not Newsweek or Time, it's a cover that artists aspire to make as it's akin to having become a pop culture icon in the eyes of many people. Do a google search of David Drayman's (sp?) letter to RS on the subject, he sums it up way better than I ever could. A lot of people feel this way


You're entitled to your opinion and I'm entitled to mine. I would implore you to do a google image search of 8 year old Martin Richard, the youngest of that scumbag's 'alleged' victims, then tell me it's been overblown. I would think his family, as well as the families of the other 3 victims, as well as the hundreds of others who are still dealing with amputations and other injuries probably also disagree with you.

F*ck Rolling Stone. I hope they go out of business.

I think being on the cover of any major magazine equates that. I think it's absurd that just b/c it's Rolling Stone, that people are going to look him like he's some rock star or he's an example of what's cool.

I'm sure the families of every other horrible thing that's been glorified by a big magazine cover feel the same.

I'm not saying don't be pissed at Rolling Stone, I'm saying be pissed at every rag that puts that crap on the cover.

I can't think of any songs written about how great it would be to be on the cover of US News & World Report.

SVRDhand13

frisbiec wrote:

Rolling Stone magazine's most recent ridiculous list, discuss:

1. Bruce
4. Arcade Fire
5. Neil Young
6. Jay Z
7. Radiohead
8. Jack White
9. Rage
10. MMJ
12. Wilco
14. Black Keys
17. NIN
18. Metallica
19. The Roots
20. Kanye West
21. RHCP
23. Pearl Jam
32. Sleigh Bells
34. Foo Fighters
37. The National
38. QOTSA
41. Tame Impala
46. Tool
48. Green Day

I've seen the above acts- no one comes close to Pearl Jam.I think several of them don't belong on the list at all. Tame Impala is definitely high on my list.

NWOntario

Alabama Shakes? I saw them last week at the Calgary Folk Fest; they weren't among the top fifty live acts at the festival, let alone in the world at this point in time.

btw...

1. Bruce x10
3. Rollings Stones x3
4. Arcade Fire x3
5. Neil Young x3 (+ 1 PJ cameo)
8. Jack White (do the White Stripes count?)
10. MMJ x4
11. U2 x4
12. Wilco
13. Tom Petty x2
14. Black Keys x2
15. Paul McCartney
16. Alabama Shakes
17. NIN
18. Metallica
23. Pearl Jam x34
26. Leonard Cohen
28. Patti Smith x2
29. Muse x2
34. Foo Fighters x3
38. QOTSA x4
46. Tool x4
48. Green Day

Well-done, me.

Gludfssr

Can not complain with the top 2 choices, right on the money. There is no one better than Bruce right now. Check out his set lists for his European tour this year. He is pulling out songs that have not been played in years and even some that have never been played before live. Prince although he does not tour as much, you will not see a better performer who can play just about any kind of music and one of the best guitarist around when he does play. For me these would be my choices as well with Pearl Jam being 3rd.

JimmyV

Fuck Rolling Stone. Honestly surprised Nirvana didn't make the list. :roll:

NWOntario

Gludfssr wrote:

Can not complain with the top 2 choices, right on the money. There is no one better than Bruce right now. Check out his set lists for his European tour this year. He is pulling out songs that have not been played in years and even some that have never been played before live. Prince although he does not tour as much, you will not see a better performer who can play just about any kind of music and one of the best guitarist around when he does play. For me these would be my choices as well with Pearl Jam being 3rd.

Springsteen killed his last tour. I wish I could've seen this last European swing; I got to one or two shows on each of the North American legs and it was astounding even then...and those didn't hold a candle to what he was pulling out this past month.

BF25394

Have any of the people criticizing Rolling Stone for putting a picture of Dzkokhar Tsarnaev on the cover actually read the text that accompanies the picture, let alone the article? Rolling Stone branded Mr. Tsarnaev "THE BOMBER" on the cover-- not the bombing suspect, or the alleged bomber, which is what he is since, like every criminal suspect, he is entitled to a presumption of innocence until proven guilty.* We have a criminal justice system that works very well in cases like this, so let's let it run its course and give Mr. Tsarnaev the fair trial he is constitutionally entitled to.

In addition, the premise of the article, as spelled out on the cover, is that it is an examination of how a seemingly socially adept, well-adjusted teenager turned into "a monster." How anyone could determine that branding Mr. Tsarnaev as "a monster" and "THE BOMBER" is glamorization is beyond me.

The controversy over this cover is one of the dumber ones in recent memory, and that's saying something. Charles Manson has been on the cover of Rolling Stone. Rolling Stone regularly offers lengthy works of investigative journalism on topics ranging from politics to the drug war to campaign finance to climate change, etc. None of this is new, and it shouldn't be controversial.

* Please don't bother responding to this by arguing about his guilt. I have very little doubt that he's guilty. That's not the point. And anyone who thinks they know for certain should remember that all of the evidence they think they know is either what has been selectively communicated to them by law enforcement sources through the press, or what was contained in the indictment, which is, by definition, unproven.

Merkin Baller

BF25394 wrote:

Have any of the people criticizing Rolling Stone for putting a picture of Dzkokhar Tsarnaev on the cover actually read the text that accompanies the picture, let alone the article? Rolling Stone branded Mr. Tsarnaev "THE BOMBER" on the cover-- not the bombing suspect, or the alleged bomber, which is what he is since, like every criminal suspect, he is entitled to a presumption of innocence until proven guilty.* We have a criminal justice system that works very well in cases like this, so let's let it run its course and give Mr. Tsarnaev the fair trial he is constitutionally entitled to.

In addition, the premise of the article, as spelled out on the cover, is that it is an examination of how a seemingly socially adept, well-adjusted teenager turned into "a monster." How anyone could determine that branding Mr. Tsarnaev as "a monster" and "THE BOMBER" is glamorization is beyond me.

The controversy over this cover is one of the dumber ones in recent memory, and that's saying something. Charles Manson has been on the cover of Rolling Stone. Rolling Stone regularly offers lengthy works of investigative journalism on topics ranging from politics to the drug war to campaign finance to climate change, etc. None of this is new, and it shouldn't be controversial.

* Please don't bother responding to this by arguing about his guilt. I have very little doubt that he's guilty. That's not the point. And anyone who thinks they know for certain should remember that all of the evidence they think they know is either what has been selectively communicated to them by law enforcement sources through the press, or what was contained in the indictment, which is, by definition, unproven.

I'm aware of the text written on the cover. I'm aware of what the story is about. I'm also aware that a lot of these animals aspire to be martyrs, and there's no better way to help them achieve martyrdom by featuring them on the covers of pop culture magazines.

EDIT: the text underneath the picture is completely irrelevant, the fact that he 'made' the cover is the biggest insult in and of itself (they couldn't run the story without running a different cover?)

I stand by my original sentiment; F*ck Rolling Stone. I hope they go out of business.

ComeToTX

McCartney at 15. Stupid.

As far as the RS cover goes, they were making the point that he looked and acted like every other kid his age and turned out to be a monster. Time had Hitler on the cover and people weren't so upset.

vant0037

Merkin Baller wrote:

BF25394 wrote:

Have any of the people criticizing Rolling Stone for putting a picture of Dzkokhar Tsarnaev on the cover actually read the text that accompanies the picture, let alone the article? Rolling Stone branded Mr. Tsarnaev "THE BOMBER" on the cover-- not the bombing suspect, or the alleged bomber, which is what he is since, like every criminal suspect, he is entitled to a presumption of innocence until proven guilty.* We have a criminal justice system that works very well in cases like this, so let's let it run its course and give Mr. Tsarnaev the fair trial he is constitutionally entitled to.

In addition, the premise of the article, as spelled out on the cover, is that it is an examination of how a seemingly socially adept, well-adjusted teenager turned into "a monster." How anyone could determine that branding Mr. Tsarnaev as "a monster" and "THE BOMBER" is glamorization is beyond me.

The controversy over this cover is one of the dumber ones in recent memory, and that's saying something. Charles Manson has been on the cover of Rolling Stone. Rolling Stone regularly offers lengthy works of investigative journalism on topics ranging from politics to the drug war to campaign finance to climate change, etc. None of this is new, and it shouldn't be controversial.

* Please don't bother responding to this by arguing about his guilt. I have very little doubt that he's guilty. That's not the point. And anyone who thinks they know for certain should remember that all of the evidence they think they know is either what has been selectively communicated to them by law enforcement sources through the press, or what was contained in the indictment, which is, by definition, unproven.

I'm aware of the text written on the cover. I'm aware of what the story is about. I'm also aware that a lot of these animals aspire to be martyrs, and there's no better way to help them achieve martyrdom by featuring them on the covers of pop culture magazines.

For what it's worth, I don't think most terrorists aspire to have their faces on Rolling Stone, especially given what we in the West claim to know about radical and fanatical terrorism.

His picture is on the cover of the magazine. So have the photos of many other people. If publicity of this guy equals fame in your eyes, then perhaps the issue lies more with you than anything. I didn't bat an eye when I saw the cover. If you thought it was glamorous or "rock-star-ish," that's on you more than anything. Knowing that the article does anything but celebrate what he did, the photo itself should mean little. If, despite knowing what the article is about, the photo still appears to you as glorifying, then again, perhaps it has more to do with you the viewer than it does with Rolling Stone.

At the end of the day, whatever this photo/story can be described as, I thought we liked freedom of the press (which, incidentally, will include, from time to time, sensitive, controversial, unpopular or outrageous reporting).

I'm not claiming that's what RS is or is not doing with this piece, but let's face it: arguing this article is inappropriate or not to be published is a short step away from censoring anything that's controversial.

ComeToTX

People love to bash RS these days and I agree their musical coverage is lacking. However, their political coverage and writings on social issues is top notch.

Keep on Jammin

Rolling Stone is a joke. In their list of the top live acts, they commented on the set list at Wrigley and included the songs that weren't played. Must have read it off a t-shirt.

ComeToTX

Keep on Jammin wrote:

Rolling Stone is a joke. In their list of the top live acts, they commented on the set list at Wrigley and included the songs that weren't played. Must have read it off a t-shirt.

Strange. They had a good write up the day after the show

BF25394

vant0037 wrote:

For what it's worth, I don't think most terrorists aspire to have their faces on Rolling Stone, especially given what we in the West claim to know about radical and fanatical terrorism.

His picture is on the cover of the magazine. So have the photos of many other people. If publicity of this guy equals fame in your eyes, then perhaps the issue lies more with you than anything. I didn't bat an eye when I saw the cover. If you thought it was glamorous or "rock-star-ish," that's on you more than anything. Knowing that the article does anything but celebrate what he did, the photo itself should mean little. If, despite knowing what the article is about, the photo still appears to you as glorifying, then again, perhaps it has more to do with you the viewer than it does with Rolling Stone.

At the end of the day, whatever this photo/story can be described as, I thought we liked freedom of the press (which, incidentally, will include, from time to time, sensitive, controversial, unpopular or outrageous reporting).

I'm not claiming that's what RS is or is not doing with this piece, but let's face it: arguing this article is inappropriate or not to be published is a short step away from censoring anything that's controversial.

Though we agree on the larger point (I am the one who posted the defense of Rolling Stone at the top of this page), I want to point out that this isn't really a "freedom of the press" or "freedom of speech" issue, at least not in the constitutional sense. Speech and the press are protected against infringement by the government, not by private citizens. If people want to express their displeasure with Rolling Stone in an attempt to get the magazine taken off newsstands, the articles removed from the Internet-- whatever-- that does not implicate the constitutional right to free speech. Having said that, I think those campaigns are counterproductive, because this kind of journalism is valuable (albeit slightly irresponsible since the language on the cover contributes to the suspect's conviction in the press and undermines his ability to receive a fair trial), and, at least in some instances, hypocritical.

badbrains

Shows you how much RS really knows about music...... :nono: :thumbdown: :fp:

Edit: I just reread the list and tool at 46???? Really??? I've seen tool 27X live and they are def NOT 46! My live tool experience would be even higher if they toured more then once every 6 years.....that list really sux

ComeToTX

I thought the RS interview with Brendan that they posted today was pretty good. Gave some insight on the PJ recording process.

morgie2

Rolling Stones #3
This kills all credibility to this article.