hrmm, i defintely have to disagree with rhcp being irrelevant. I think By the Way is their most consistent album since blood sugar sex magik... I am a huge rhcp fan, and I think it's really important that the band has evolved. Listen to "Tear" or "Venice Queen" and you'll see how Anthony Kiedis has become a much better lyrcist.

Yeah...I'll have to strongly disagree about Wilco. I think they made their best album just three years ago, and their last album was just...a relatively weak followup that was still one of the better albums released in the year.

I also don't know about Red Hot Chili Peppers. I think Californication was a pretty good album, and...well, you can't go asking a band to retire just because they made one or two bad albums.

But Metallica, definetely. After Black sold 14 million albums and counting (Yeah..it's STILL selling pretty well) they got the message and went away from energetic, riff driven garage music, and toward bland chorus-driven pop-rock. My brother bought St Anger because he's a guitar player and liked their solos...only to find out that the entire album had *no solos*!

Let's see....Chris Cornell should probably retire from music. Soundgarden had a couple of great albums, but his solo stuff and Audioslave are very, very bland.

Pearl Jam too. Ever since the grunge-rocket ran out of fuel all these canonical grunge bands haven't been able to put together anything remotely interesting. Vitalogy is *okay*, there are some interesting songs on it. But Yield...is really, really bad.

Also Dave Grohl. He actually managed to survive the end of the grudge fad, for a while, and his first two Foo Fighters albums had *something*. But he's also made that sales-friendly turn toward bland pop-rock since 1998 or so when anything with anything remotely resembling an 'edge' that wasn't hip-hop was exiled from the pop charts.

WRT Dylan retiring from touring...I hope he tours until he dies, even if he is not as good as he used to be. In 60 or 70 years those who see him now will be able to say they saw a legend, same with the Rolling Stones. So what if they are a sell out? They're still a very famous/great band, and I think simply watching them perform will be something to brag about in decades to come after Jagger and Richards are long gone.

How about the entire music writing staff of Rolling Stone? Do they have anything relevant or interesting or provocative to say about music in 2005? Isn't it time they got over their obsession with R.E.M. and Springsteen? I'd take, any day, NME's youthful enthusiasm, as trendy and transient as it is from one issue to the next, over the stodgy old-fashioned deadly grave-robbing that Roling Stone engages in.

Second the 'Rolling Stones writers' thing. They seem to be under the impression that the only people in the world capable of writing good music are Eminem, and people who wrote their best stuff in the 70s.

Hah, did anyone read the new Rolling Stone article about Weezer? There is an aside blurb about how the writer (Vanessa Grigoriadis) was totally freaked out by Rivers Cuomo and that this was the weirdest subject she's ever had to write about/meet.

quote:

Originally posted by paxsoprano:
Hah, did anyone read the new Rolling Stone article about Weezer? There is an aside blurb about how the writer (Vanessa Grigoriadis) was totally freaked out by Rivers Cuomo and that this was the weirdest subject she's ever had to write about/meet.

In that same blurb, it is pointed out that the same writer did a piece on Paris Hilton and seemed to think she was OK. I'm no Weezer fan, but shouldn't a MUSIC journalist handle the Weezer piece and a writer from People handle the Paris Hilton piece?

But, after reading the Weezer piece, he does sound like a weirdo. I think he's trying to be Brian Wilson or something like him...

Yeah, I don't know what Rolling Stone was doing covering Paris Hilton. In fact, I don't know what Rolling Stone is doing covering politics either. Their "National Affairs" coverage is no more than leftist, anti-Bush propaganda. I do like their feature pieces on music stars though.

Eh, I think people should be able to agree with the left side or the right side without being labelled a propagandist. There are reactionaries on both sides who just immediately assume everything their side does is right and everything the other side does is wrong. But people who thoughtfully consider both sides and come to the conclusion that one side is right shouldn't be automatically labelled one of those.

I don't see why *anyone* cares about Paris Hilton though. She's famous for being rich and having sex on tape. She's never done anything, at all, of note, and I especially wish magazines wouldn't validate all the young girls who idolize her.

I have no doubt Rolling Stone believes all the stuff they keep spewing about Bush, but that doesn't make it true. My only point is that no one would read Rolling Stone political coverage for any reason other than to feel good about their pre-conceived beliefs (not to get genuine information). In my book that makes it propaganda.

Edit: As for Paris Hilton, I think she has become so famous because there are many people out there enamored with the fact that people exist whose only function seems to be looking good, going to parties, spending money, and having sex with other rich/attractive/famous people.

Honestly, I do get tired of Moore-esque styled propaganda. The only reason I would never consider voting for the right wing is various issues rooted in moral arrogance (Gay issue, etc). And it is true that a lot of people read that stuff just to be validated, but I don't see it as propagandizing so much as pandering.

Where do most people who read this kind of magazine live? Big cities or urban areas. Which side do most big urban areas lean toward? Left.

You're right that Rolling Stone is just pandering to what its readers want to hear, but think about wartime propaganda efforts. Government propaganda can be thought of as pandering to what its constituents want to hear (that the war is going well, that the other side is awful). Anyway, I don't really have a point, except to say that it is Orwellian to call what amounts to nothing but consistent slander "National Affairs."

For the record, I find the constant reference to anything opposed to the current administration as "slander" to be both a misuse of the legal terminology (try to file a lawsuit against Rolling Stone based on the legal definition and you'd get laughed out of court) and, moreover, to be an attack on freedom of opinion and freedom of expression. God forbid people dare to criticize a sitting administration. If you don't agree with what Bush does, you're a slanderer and a traitor. That seems to be an absolute misuse of what are supposed to be some grave legal remedies. Why isn't the "information" fed to us by the Bush Administration just as Orwellian as what Rolling Stone panders to us?

You point out that people only read Rolling Stone's political coverage to "feel good about their pre-conceived beliefs" and that, by definition, is propaganda. Can you honestly tell me that the people who listen to Rush Limbaugh ("Ditto-Heads"!) or who watch O'Reilly and Hannity and Colmes aren't doing the EXACT same thing? Why isn't that propaganda?

As far as music and politics goes, I prefer them to stay apart. I really don't care what my favorite musicians have to say about politics most of the time. But I'm not offended by Rolling Stone's political coverage because they were founded as a counter-cultural mag, and they've ALWAYS covered politics along with music, from a strongly liberal perspective. Being shocked at Rolling Stone's liberal bias is like being shocked that O'Reilly or Sean Hannity are right-leaning. When you turn them on, you know what to expect. I don't read Rolling Stone for the politics (although I do read the political coverage and I take it all, as I do with all journalism, with a grain of salt)...I read it for music coverage. I'm far more offended by the Paris Hilton coverage than I am by the liberal politics...those have been there for decades.

'For the record' I didn't mean "slander" in the strict legal sense, and I don't care if Rolling Stone has always had leftist political coverage: just because something has been going on for thirty years doesn't make it good.

I would call far-right shows like Limbaugh and Coulter "propaganda." Those types of shows (on both the right and the left) are just piles of disinformation and one-sided views piled on top of each other.

As for the use of "Orwellian" in regard to the Bush administration, there is a difference between simply defending one's beliefs with facts that favor your position (which the Bush administration is very good at doing) and giving something a name ("National Affairs") whose purpose is obviously entirely different than simply giving an objective report on the "affairs" of a nation. I'm not saying the Bush administration never practices this tactic, simply that Rolling Stone does as well.

To conclude: the thing that really bothers me about Rolling Stone is NOT the fact that they lean to the left, but that they portray their leftness as objective journalism (calling their section "National Affairs" instead of anti-Republican talking points or something). PE, you mentioned Bill O'Reilly, and the same thing annoys me with him. If you ever watch his show he is constantly reminding everyone that he is not a liberal or a conservative, when in fact he clearly sides with Republicans on most issues. I have no problem with this, but he should at least declare his intentions instead of masking his opinions in a cloak of neutrality.

I think Rolling Stone's political coverage can be interesting. That's why, when I identified Rolling Stone on this page, I specifically said their MUSIC writing staff. Their coverage of environmental issues is excellent.

Who amongst us goes out and buys and reads publications that have an editorial policy that utterly conflicts with our own politics? Most of us read newspapers and magazines and books that generally reflect our own politics. It's just human nature.

So of course, Rolling Stone generally has a progressive political bias, and most of its readers probably generally have the same politics. There's nothing new about that. I doubt that there are many readers or Rolling Stone who read The National Review just to get the other perspective, or vice versa.

while i appreciate rolling stones political coverage cause its a lot easier to get a handle on the issues at least for me
i do find theyre writing so completly biased that its hard to take everything they say at face value.
they seem far more more biased than anyone this side of rush limbaugh.
i think i would find theyre stuff easier to swallow if there wasnt such a close mindededness in there reporting.

U2 needs to stop playing music NOW.

quote:

Originally posted by Bobthespirit:
Second the 'Rolling Stones writers' thing. They seem to be under the impression that the only people in the world capable of writing good music are Eminem, and people who wrote their best stuff in the 70s.

Until Jann Wenner retires or dies, Rolling Stone will remain irrelevant. From everything I've read, he forces his writers to conform to his taste. And this is coming from a man who brags that he hasn't liked anything after the 70s.

I think U2 are just getting good, actually. I will defend U2 and Bono until the day I die.

If anyone should retire, its Sonic Youth. And Morrissey. Oh God... if anyone's musical career should drop dead it should be the Pope of Mope's.

I think Rolling Stone magazine should retire.