Forums > Queen - General Discussion > Rolling Stone Magazine's Queen Hatred

forum rss feed
Author

jasen101 user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 746 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 03 Oct 06, 23:19 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Just wondered who else has noticed over the years what an ignorance toward Queen this bullshit magazine has had over the years...have you read their biography of Queen online? Apart from getting key dates and times just plain wrong, they pretty much dismiss Queen as a flash in the pan.

Now, they put "Bohemian Rhapsody" way up at #163...which just beat out Eminem's "Lose Yourself".

I remember the issue that came out the month after Freddie died...they couldn't even give him the cover.

I really hate this magazine and will never buy it again. Besides, it's pretty much wall-to-wall advertising.


Freddie: "Yes, we'll have a great big cock fly over the crowd!"

Roadies: "Yeah! Great Idea!"

Freddie: "And it will fly into a great big mouth with a moustache!"

I♥The80's user not visiting Queenzone.com

Royalty: 1916 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 04 Oct 06, 00:22 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

I agree. They didn't even put Freddie on the cover for his 60th b-day!!! How absurd! I was looking thru it that week and didn't even find an article or pic of him or something like that. The nerve those bastards have... :(


I is Tamara. ;)



>_> I'll stop changing my name now....



MSN address: lil_ruski_violinist@hotmail.com
AmeriQueen user not visiting Queenzone.com

Royalty: 1072 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 04 Oct 06, 12:33 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

According to Rolling Stone magazine, the Beach Boys are clearly better than Queen. They also have a tendency to dog on albums they don't like by a band, but if that band makes it big, they change their tune. An example is how they dogged on Hysteria by Def Leppard, but then it went on to sell 16 million + albums. Their next album 'Adrenalize' was a complete piece of shit compared with Hysteria, and yet the magazine gave it a higher review.

Boh Rhap #163. The authors must be either rolling, or stoned.

Micrówave user not visiting Queenzone.com
Delilah, on Medium Power
Micrówave
Deity: 7037 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 04 Oct 06, 14:17 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

jasen101 wrote:

this bullshit magazine

I remember the issue that came out the month after Freddie died...they couldn't even give him the cover.


You pretty much summed it up already.

His obituary headline was clearly across Michael Jackson's crotch. You don't think FM got a chuckle outta that?

Freddie's #1 Fan Forever user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 386 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 04 Oct 06, 18:19 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Guys, the way to have an effect upon "Rolling Stone" is to simply write them a letter of complaint. Trust me, if enough people complain, they will at least publish your comments under "Letters to Editor." The next time around, they will be more likely to remember Queen. My good friend got such a letter published a magazine that failed to include Queen among the top bands. At the same time, I am disturbed about the fact that a lot of "fans" refuse to put the effort into letters to the editor. Trust me, at the end of the day, their job is to please their readers.

Sherwood Forest user not visiting Queenzone.com

Deity: 3547 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 04 Oct 06, 18:26 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

yeah i saw on a more recent one, in the back its like from the vault and it had queen albums and then recent news about the play, a small small excerpt and it said how they were doing anything for a comeback or something with their new play WWRY


One should ANALize the Poetry on page 43, when Oedipus is rollin' in his benzo and he has to bust a cap on some flagrants in the under city



http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/image/essay/1
RETROLOVE user not visiting Queenzone.com
RETROLOVE
Deity: 2522 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 05 Oct 06, 04:12 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Yeah, they never gave Queen their props...


Now the Rolling Stones....oh man, they were on pretty much on at least one cover every year back in the day, if I'm not mistaken


Loving the pass, cherishing the present, and looking forward to the future

Fiendishly Yours user not visiting Queenzone.com

Rocker: 49 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 05 Oct 06, 05:32 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Freddie's #1 Fan Forever wrote:

Guys, the way to have an effect upon "Rolling Stone" is to simply write them a letter of complaint. Trust me, if enough people complain, they will at least publish your comments under "Letters to Editor." The next time around, they will be more likely to remember Queen. My good friend got such a letter published a magazine that failed to include Queen among the top bands. At the same time, I am disturbed about the fact that a lot of "fans" refuse to put the effort into letters to the editor. Trust me, at the end of the day, their job is to please their readers.


Just a thought-- we could all mass-send them this little piece: http://www.queenzone.com/queenzone/mp3.aspx?Q=187

XD


Taylor-tastic!
jasen101 user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 746 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 06 Oct 06, 20:40 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

I remember that Roger letter...I think relations with RS went from bad to worse from that point on. That was way back in 1981 or so.


Freddie: "Yes, we'll have a great big cock fly over the crowd!"

Roadies: "Yeah! Great Idea!"

Freddie: "And it will fly into a great big mouth with a moustache!"

bobo the chimp user not visiting Queenzone.com
bobo the chimp
Deity: 12703 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 06 Oct 06, 22:17 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Jesus.... name me a music magazine that's worth reading anyway. Once they make it to the big time it just becomes bullshit ads from front to back. Even the small time magazines are full of so-called critics (read ; can't-dos) who think they know what they're on about.

I pity da fool.


"Your not funny, your not a good musician, theres a difference between being funny and being an idiot, you obviously being the latter" - Dave R Fuller
PALACE BOY user not visiting Queenzone.com

Be Gentle, I'm a newbie: 12 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 07 Oct 06, 06:57 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

This is hardly new news. Back in the seventies every music paper hated Queen. They claimed that they were too pompous and over-produced. That they have gone over the top with (insert ANY album name).

Queen's response? Go even more over the top & sell even more records. It always made me laugh.

All these papers/magazines do is to try to be clever, when my 11 month old nephew would have them baffled.

All you can do is laugh it off and spread the gospel, because a word from a friend counts 1000's of times that of a critic.

Mr.Jingles user not visiting Queenzone.com
Mr.Jingles
Deity: 10532 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 07 Oct 06, 09:09 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Artists like Bob Dylan, U2, Bruce Springsteen, and Eric Clapton will never get a bad review in Rolling Stone.

They could walk in the studio to record themselves farting on the mic, put it on an album and Rolling Stone will give it at least 4 stars.


[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Brandon wrote: [/QUOTENAME]... and now the "best you can offer is Mr. Jingles? HA! He's... just pathetic.[/QUOTE]
thomasquinn 32989 user not visiting Queenzone.com
thomasquinn 32989
Deity: 6257 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 07 Oct 06, 09:17 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

AmeriQueen wrote:


Boh Rhap #163. The authors must be either rolling, or stoned.


Actually, the authors are very dumb, and pretend to be intellectualy. They cannot think for themselves, but when people who actually matter demonstrate that something is worthwhile, they jump on the bandwagon and claim the thing.


Not Plutus but Apollo rules Parnassus

sparrow 21754 user not visiting Queenzone.com

Royalty: 1947 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 07 Oct 06, 15:33 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

theyre biased, they spend too much time trying to prove that they hate bush and they only write about the same 14 musicians and arent about the music its random stuff now.

i personally like classic rock magazine, they give the REAL good musicians (well except the darkness) and those who follow in their footsteps...


ok i admit the ONLY reason i buy these magazines is to add pictuers to my phenominal collage.


why pay the visit when the visit is free?



"this shitty guitar wont play what i want! it only knows three chords!"
SweetestSightEverSeen user not visiting Queenzone.com

Rocker: 28 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 07 Oct 06, 21:30 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

I was reading their Rock Album Encyclopedia at Borders the other day and it was embarasssing how bad their entry on Queen was. The mention of drummer Roger DEACON was a particular lowlight.

RETROLOVE user not visiting Queenzone.com
RETROLOVE
Deity: 2522 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 09 Oct 06, 05:57 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

SweetestSightEverSeen wrote:

I was reading their Rock Album Encyclopedia at Borders the other day and it was embarasssing how bad their entry on Queen was. The mention of drummer Roger DEACON was a particular lowlight.


I've read that too, and it was pretty sad :(


Loving the pass, cherishing the present, and looking forward to the future