So I did a search on Google today to find reviews for the new Antony and the Johnsons. The second to come up with Rolling Stone so I decided to give it a read. I usually avoid Rolling Stone, and I can safely say I will never, ever read another review from them again. It is by far the worst review I've ever read by a major outlet.

quote:

Antony Hegarty's tremulous warble is a strange and marvelous instrument — and for many, an acquired taste. The Crying Light, this diva-dude's third album, spotlights his haunting vocals with few distractions, using piano and low-key orchestral arrangements as foils for him to swoop and shiver over. Kate Bush and Bryan Ferry are touchstones on songs about a dead woman (the mother-obsessed "Her Eyes Are Underneath the Ground") and a beloved boy (the startlingly soul-tinged "Aeon"). But ultimately Antony is an original, with a dark vision that never skimps on beauty.

I've bolded the parts that really irritate me. Diva-dude? What the fuck is that supposed to mean. When I read that, it just makes me think the only reason they said anything like that is because he is queer. (I use the word because Antony doesn't like labels, so...) If it was someone other singer song writer like Bob Dylan, they'd never refer to him as a diva. So that right away pissed me off.

Next, describing his voice as a warble? That's not even a word I'd begin to use to describe Antony... a warble?


So I decided to take another example... their review of Britney Spears. Instead of posting the entire review, i'll highlight some of the two most troubling parts...

quote:

Britney may have left the psych ward, but on Circus, she proves she's still a freak.

Mommy shows she has psychodrama to spare on "Mmm Papi,"

Firstly, I know that it's difficult to split the private life of Britney Spears from the professional life. But starting off the review making low blows about her trip to a psych ward and than labelling her a freak just proves how ridiclous they are. I know Britney Spears is a pop star who is in the spotlight, but a major publication writing so flippantly about a woman's mental health is a bit troubling.

Than, the reviewer decides to inject some sexism in the piece to refer to her status as a mother. I'm not sure why the reviewer felt it was important to note, but it just reeks of sexism and laziness. If it were a male pop singer in the same position, they wouldn't refer to him as a father. And relying upon media portrayl of pop stars as opposed you know actually reviewing the piece of music in front of them just reeks of lazy journalism.

The worst part is, this is typical of Rolling Stone reviews. I remember reading a review for a female rock band and the reviewer constantly noted about their gender. It just reeks of sexism and of further stereotypes (it's abnormal to see women playing a guitar, so we must note it in our review).

I know Pitchfork receives a lot of heat on this message board for poor writing and pandering to the indie crowd, but Rolling Stone is a far worse publication and it goes far above and beyond simply playing into what's cool and what's not. Rather, Rolling Stone walks the fine line of controversy in how it treats it's subjects.

Sorry for the rant, I was just pissed off about the shitty reviews and how it merely fed into stereotypical perceptions of minorities and heavily relying on popular media perceptions rather than you know... reviewing the music.

EDIT:
And I know the typical response is "blah blah blah Rolling Stone magazine sucks, what did you expect blah blah blah" but I was hoping that this could be a more substantive discussion about Rolling Stone and other similar publications. It's just disturbing that they can be an integral part of pop music critcism and rely on old-age thought processes to inform them.

I picked up a neighbor's RS mag today in fact and flipped through it. (Robert Downey Jr. was on the cover) Like you're saying, its garbage. There was a big story on John Melloncamp who released an album last year that nobody but Rolling Stone cared about. There was a big story on Obama (this was a pre-election day issue) and then I got to the music reviews section where the main/first albums they reviews were the Jonas Brother and Miley Cyrus who they gave 3 or 4 stars to each, I can't remember. The whole time I'm thinking, who the fuck is their audience? The 50+ boomers who would still like John Cougar Melloncamp are probably all McCain voters. The older liberals who they target with the Obama/Democratic slant certainly don't give a shit about the Disney stars. Yet they clearly go after that demographic. Its a mystery who they're trying to sell magazines to, thats for sure.

They would make themselves much more respectable if they marketed themselves as a Vanity Fair type magazine with more of music slant. They could keep their liberal ideals intact and still keep on the somewhat leading edge of music by focusing on what the cooler, younger people are listening to. Yes, sometimes that means Norah Jones, but also it could be TV on the Radio or Sufjan Stevens as well. Putting Hillary Duff or Taylor Swift on the cover is a joke, just the same as their annual worship of the washed up artists who somehow make their year end lists every year.

Rolling Stone is way too political. Way too much Obama worshiping and way too much Bush bashing. Their latest issue has "Bush Apologizes" on the cover. It's about a made-up interview with Bush. Unspeakably lame.
It also often reads like High Times. They seem to feel the need to make their stance on marijuana painfully well understood. Almost every interview has a question about marijuana. "Miley Cyrus, when did you first try pot?"

Colliefletch, it's clear that you have gone in reading RS reviews with a biased approach.
The Antony review is praising him through the skies. Warble is a neutral word, not a putdown, as made explicit by the rest of the review.
The word diva is usually applied to operatic types, and yes therefore the writer is hinting at Antony's queer orientation, but your rage is selective I think.
Pitchfork and others indulge in this kind of juvenile wordplay all the time; it's not just RS.

The Britney review. mate, it's not sexist to mention a singer is a mother. Sexism is saying that that a woman is not as good as a man. There is nothing of this in the review. It's attacking Spears as a persona, not because she's a woman. Spears mental health issues are a pr stunt for the most part; at least that's what I suspect. She also plays on her public character as a mother; she is run by a huge p.r. firm; RS are simply playing the corporate pop star game.
She's a fuckhead for doing it, and RS are fuckheads for playing along with it...but she puts out the raw data and RS and others crunch it, as per the rules of the game, not from some sexist agenda.
Rolling Stone were celebrating women in rock when most of us here were just a thought.

This is not to defend RS per se; they hold little of the quality they once did, but I think you are seeing the issue through a coloured judgement.

Going to have to agree whole-heartedly with Ninny Gooptz on this one.

Sometimes I feel people take music criticism too seriously. I make sure to always have a huge grain of salt that I enjoy with any review I read. I mean, from P4k to RS to Paste to your best friends blog, somebody is going to love that new album you hate or hate that new album you love. Or they'll agree with you; and if they do, you wouldn't post a new thread singing to the heavens about what a great job they did during their reviews.

Which is why I enjoy having a nice site like metacritic compile numerous reviews in one place. Read a couple of trusted sources, try and read at least one positive and one negative review, just keep in mind that everybody has different opinions and its ok to voice them. You don't have to agree with everybody and you don't have to disagree with them all either.

And in response to the questions as to what RS's demographic audience is, lets just try and remember that to them, its a business, and they want to sell their product to whoever will buy it. Hence, you'll see everything from politicians to musicians to actors to comedians on the cover. If you subscribe to enough magazines like I do, you'll catch on to a lot of these trends for each and every source. I mean, Spin likes to put the new buzz story on their cover (R.E.M., Vampire Weekend, Beck were all featured last year), Blender puts some scantily clad girl on the cover, hip hop magazines put the buzz story in hip hop on the cover, and indie magazines put the new indie buzz story on the cover. Just deal with the fact that it isn't a perfect system (and never will be) and move on.

Oh, and enjoy your salt.

Just to add something else to laugh at them for:

They once again gave Springsteen's new record a whopping 5 star review. I could understand giving it 4, but 5? thats silly.