|
|
|
Comment |
Sorted by
Date Written |
Re: Damn. (Reply to this comment)
by buffoonery
Finally, someone gets the point. You and MiDoyle need to party together.
|
Dec 11 '07
5:00 pm PST
|
|
Damn. (Reply to this comment)
by holy_diver
I know this is a totally dead comment thread, but to whom it may concern (buff), this is the most rightfully furious, accurate rant I've heard in a long time. I think I'm more disgusted with the Epi-community's reaction to this review rather than the obvious short-comings of this supposed "music" magazine itself. You, on numerous occasions, explain in great detail the many, MANY flaws of this rag, and yet it was slammed with "Somewhat Helpful"?
I guess there are certain pop-culture staples that simply cannot be confronted and exposed for the fraudulent bullsh*t they are without the masses getting all p*ssy about it.
- Holy_Diver
|
Dec 10 '07
9:37 am PST
|
|
Re: Rant On (Reply to this comment)
by buffoonery
Finally, someone with some common sense.
Thanks.
buff
|
Apr 24 '04
8:41 am PDT
|
|
Rant On (Reply to this comment)
by MiDoyle
There's over 130 reviews of RS already posted so I assume the ins and outs from the preferred "buying-decision perspective" has already been covered ad nauseam by the usual suspects. I think there is plenty room in a "review" category to write an analysis of something rather than an "ingredients list" review.
This "review" pointed out the reasons why RS is no longer the music mag it once was: it has become a mish mash of ideas, many of which are only tangentially related to music. It has become a pop culture magazine with some music reviews thrown in.
I stopped reading when I reached a certain age and discovered that the artists they champion are ones I wouldn't be caught dead listening to. I prefer to read ICE or Tracks currently. Cheers for a well done rant.
|
Apr 21 '04
8:40 am PDT
|
|
Well.... (Reply to this comment)
by Prepoia,  in Magazine Subscriptions
You are certainly running the gamet when it comes to ratings and comments :) So, here's mine to add to the mix. While I found the review to be mostly your analysis and likes and dislikes (ie opinion of the magazine overall) I also felt that someone reading it with not much background on the magazine and content (like me) would still find enough information about the content to somewhat judge if I'd find it interesting or not worth my dollar. So I'd find it VH if you actually spelled out some of the monthly content but find it Helpful as a general knowledge base because you do mention some of the kinds of articles I can expect if I buy one.
Sandy
|
Apr 08 '04
1:15 pm PDT
|
|
***** (Reply to this comment)
by George_Chabot
Shit by any other name is still shit. Great call, buff. Thanks for telling it like it is. RS and their political stance is pure horsetshi. Your bud
|
Apr 07 '04
10:55 am PDT
|
|
Re: Well, I'm stymied.... (Reply to this comment)
by buffoonery
Thanks for your remarks. I'm trying to make a couple of straight-forward points: 1) RS's knowledge of music is questionable at best (at least they know who Nick Drake is, though), and 2) I'm ranting and trying to see how many people ding me on the whatever epinionator eval criterion is in force on this particular day.
That's all.
Thanks.
buff
|
Apr 06 '04
5:30 pm PDT
|
|
Amen (Reply to this comment)
by daumco
Rolling Stone is a rag and MTV copped out. As for politics, does it belong in a music oriented magazine? But you're right, they have preconceived ideas of what's in and what's good both of which seem to be a negative indicator in reality.
End of story
Did what I say make sense?
Ciao, OMM
|
Apr 05 '04
6:20 pm PDT
|
|
Well, I'm stymied.... (Reply to this comment)
by 4paws
I found the review quite comprehensive, but if I were looking to review the magazine, I would want to know what else is in it. I could accept your input as valid from your point of view, but your point of view may not agree with the consumers. If they are wrong and you are right, then the consumer loses. But, I cannot read a review and decide not to buy something simply because someone else doesn't like it, no matter how passionate or "informed" the writer may be. I've seen many movies I enjoyed although they were rated low by critiques. If I didn't know better, I'd think I was from Missouri... "show me". I love music, but have certainly not studied it as you have, but that still does not make us agree and that's ok with me. It's nice to see someone with that much passion as you seem to feel on this topic.
Ginger.
|
Apr 05 '04
4:44 pm PDT
|
|
Thanks for your kind remarks (Reply to this comment)
by buffoonery
I appreciate your thoughtfulness, although I'm not going to change the review.
I do want to make something clear. I also have a social conscience. It's a problem with conservatism that it has allowed the liberals to coopt the phrase. It's just that Rolling Stone--like the Democratic Party in general and the hard left in particular--is opposed to many of the ideals that are part of my own social conscience, such as having respect for life from the moment of conception.
buff
|
Apr 05 '04
6:47 am PDT
|
|
Rolling Stone (Reply to this comment)
by AliventiAsylum
for me growing up as a teenager in the late 70's and early 80's was where I got my feel for a social conscience, so I do appreciate those articles. They influenced me quite a bit. Maybe you don't like that particular influence, and that's fine to say so.
However, this is a part of the magazine, and in my opinion, you do not review the magazine itself. I can understand your frustration from a musical standpoint that you don't believe it's up to certain standards. When I look at the magazine now (before I give it to my daughter) I am often dumbfounded by the articles that do focus on music as well. However, this is because I wonder how much we'll be talking about some of these acts in 20 years.
This would be a great piece in the writer's corner on just how a music magazine has strayed so far from it's history, but as a magazine review for someone who might be looking for current information on the magazine's contents, it misses the mark.
Patti
|
Apr 05 '04
3:37 am PDT
|
|
Re: Gah! This is exactly what I am screaming about (Reply to this comment)
by drdevience
Buff.. man...
I gave ya a VH because I get it, and I agree on your points that this is what is important for a review or this particular magazine. BUT...
I gotta tell ya.. I came close to downrating because of the nastiness towards Jeff. Uncool. Jeff's a sweetheart. He didn't deserve that at all.
:/
Doc
|
Apr 04 '04
9:55 pm PDT
|
|
Sorry about the SH~ (Reply to this comment)
by maggsmomm
Maybe if you changed your title to reflect the body of your review would make your ratings higher.
Overall it doesnt give a consumer a glimpse as to what the mag is about.....however it does give a glimpse into what their TOP of is like-so those searching on engines would easily pull up your review and that would be helpful.
Im at a loss. Its a good review as to why their list is way off, but, well you know the spill.
I would def change my rating if you just changed your title, but thats just me, I cant speak for anyone else wanting scads of useful consumer info on Rollnig Stone -
Luvs Jana
MaggsMomm
MaggsEpinions@aol.com
|
Apr 04 '04
7:12 pm PDT
|
|
Re: Re: Gah! This is exactly what I am screaming about (Reply to this comment)
by MumMumMum
jps covered everything I had to say. There's nothing wrong with your sharing your distaste for the magazine, but you say you've only read one issue since '77, and that was in, what? '86? Almost twenty years ago? Rolling Stone may or may not be exactly the same as you remember it, but it's just not the way a magazine should be reviewed. Definitely not on the basis of a few very, very old issues.
Bev
|
Apr 04 '04
6:09 pm PDT
|
|
Re: Gah! This is exactly what I am screaming about (Reply to this comment)
by jps246
This is a rant written by an extremely informed and equally p*ssed off guitarist, OK? About a mag that doesn't understand music. Get it yet?
Simply put, from the perspective of someone looking for reviews of magazines, I don't think this review would help someone make a decision on purchasing Rolling Stone. They will understand that you don't like the magazine and will understand your points for not liking it - but to me this review is only somewhat helpful when it comes down to the magazine itself.
|
Apr 04 '04
2:20 pm PDT
|
|
Gah! This is exactly what I am screaming about (Reply to this comment)
by buffoonery
Hey, Mr. SH-man-woman-person: This is a rant written by an extremely informed and equally p*ssed off guitarist, OK? About a mag that doesn't understand music. Get it yet? Do you even know what an SG is, and why it's important to someone who reviews music? If not, then change the rating.
|
Apr 04 '04
1:36 pm PDT
|
|
|
|
© 1999-2009 Shopping.com, Inc.