Rolling Stone Magazine and The Rolling Stones

The Darkness · March 2007

What's the deal here? In the time I've been reading Rolling Stone, since 1988, I've never seen this magazine give lower than a 4 star review to a new Rolling Stones studio album or live album. In 2001, they even went so far as to give Mick Jaggers solo album, Goddess in the Doorway, a 5 star review. A Bigger Bang, in 2005, got 4.5 stars. Now, I'm not one of those people who thinks that The Stones suck, but the album reviews they get in this magazine seem ridiculously high compared to what other magazines give them.

Is it because Rolling Stone really, really likes the Rolling Stones?
Does Jann S Wenner have a personal friendship with one or all of the Stones, so never gives them a bad review?
Are the Rolling Stones part owners of Rolling Stone magazine?

Seriously, what's the deal here? I know I'm not the only one to notice this.

soulsinging · March 2007

i was actually wondering the other week what the relation between their names is...

Pearls&Stones · April 2007

The truth is...

* The band has no connection with the magazine. Back in 1960-something, when the guy who founded the magazine was getting started (can't remember his name), he named it Rolling Stone to honor the band he felt was the embodiment of rock n' roll.

* The magazine has given those albums good reviews because frankly, they are good. I haven't listened to Goddess in the Doorway enough to vouch for it (though I do own it). But, the Rolling Stones haven't made a bad album since 1986's "Dirty Work," which was utter garbage. "A Bigger Bang" is a fantastic record. I think I listened to it in my car for about 2 straight weeks when it came out, and it still finds its way to my cd player frequently.

It is real good from start to finish, with 6 or 7 really great songs. I personally love "Rough Justice," "It Won't Take Long," "Streets of Love," "Dangerous Beauty," "Rain Fall Down," and "Let Me Down Slow"

Edit: I feel inspired to throw it on now...

Pearls&Stones · April 2007

The Darkness wrote:

A Bigger Bang, in 2005, got 4.5 stars. Now, I'm not one of those people who thinks that The Stones suck, but the album reviews they get in this magazine seem ridiculously high compared to what other magazines give them.

All the reviews I read of "A Bigger Bang" and "Voodoo Lounge" were positive. I do remember the reviews were mixed for "Bridges to Babylon." But ( and I am not making this up) I believe it was Spin that started its review with "Now I've ever listened to a Rolling Stones album in my life..."

I, and everyone I have talked with about the subject, love that record. It had a few dance-type songs here and there, but a lot of Stones albums do. I have no problem considering "Saint of Me," and "Out of Control" among their best songs. A decade later (Lord, time flies) I still enjoy the cd.

yosi1 · April 2007

Pearls&Stones wrote:

The truth is...

* The band has no connection with the magazine. Back in 1960-something, when the guy who founded the magazine was getting started (can't remember his name), he named it Rolling Stone to honor the band he felt was the embodiment of rock n' roll.

It's actually named after the Bob Dylan song, Like a Rolling Stone, I believe.

catefrances · April 2007

yosi wrote:

It's actually named after the Bob Dylan song, Like a Rolling Stone, I believe.

i believe that also.

Pearls&Stones · April 2007

yosi wrote:

It's actually named after the Bob Dylan song, Like a Rolling Stone, I believe.

In 1994 (year may not be 100% correct) The Rolling Stones were playing at the MTV awards, and they were introduced by the founder of the magazine. I think he said something to the effect of "I love them so much I named my magazine after them."

catefrances · April 2007

Pearls&Stones wrote:

In 1994 (year may not be 100% correct) The Rolling Stones were playing at the MTV awards, and they were introduced by the founder of the magazine. I think he said something to the effect of "I love them so much I named my magazine after them."

just cause jann wenner said it doesnt make it so. it was an awards show afterall.

though it is possible. and who would know better than the founder.

mookie d · April 2007

jim derogatis (sp?) claims he was fired for giving hootie and the blowfish a shitty review not long after they appeared on the cover of Rolling Stone and in his book (i can't remember the name of it) claims that the Stones among others are essentially untouchable and commonly referred to as 'friends of Jann.'