Reviews For Rolling Stone Magazine


Ads ads ads ads ads ads "Fred Durst" ads ads ads ads ads ads "Britney Spear" ads ads ads ads "Billboard Charts" ads ads ads ads.

Sure, the magazine has great, slick, glossy covers with sexy shots of whatever flavor of the month is highlighted. That doesn't help it seem like anything other than a portable billboard. MTV in print. It makes me want to croak and croon about better times "... back in the day" when I used to read this to discover new music, not re-hash and re-visit the junk that populates mainstream radio.

The Worst Magazine In Publication History.

Rolling Stone Magazine has got to be the worst magazine ever in the history of publication, the reviews are terrible, the top 100 is far more pointless (Come on Kurt Nobrain a better guitarist than randy rhodes, Eddie Van Halen), and worst of all they didn't even put tupac shakur's albums on their 500 list, instead they put feminem, no wonder ya'll worse than the source, xxl and other magazines put together, this is the worst magazine of all time and I Will never read it again

Rolling Stone Magazine: NO STARS.

No quality at all.

I don't feel good writting this review but anyway, they earned it.
There are basically two things wrong with the allmighty Rolling Stones magazine. First, what's related to music. I personally dislike modern mainstream music a lot. Only a little portion of mainstream music is good nowadays. That's actually what made me get this silly screename ("against_the_radio_and_MTV").
Is obvious the fact that this magazine goes with the popularity and the most popular acts are in most cases, the most incompetent ones. Pop self proclaimed "punk" boy bands, pathetic talentless nu metal bands, pop "artists" plus pop rappers is what you get in this magazine. It is a shame. Millions of young Americans read this magazine and is a shame that all they get is information about...well, the crappy music. This is when the other bad thing about magazine comes out.
This is clearly a magazine with "liberal" tendencies. I consider my political views being moderate. However, I'm sorry to say this but if you have a knowledge about political and economic doctrines and theories that go beyond what MTV teaches the young people (I'm 19), is easy to notice that the political articles are written by a bunch of wannabe socialists and that in almost all the cases, their lack of real arguments make them laughable. This is what makes this magazine a very hypocrital magazine. By one side, they give publicity to a mountain of corporate garbage and that only helps the labels. Plus, the way they praise the almost priceless mansions of music, hollywood and sport celebrities makes you wonder if they really remember that there's a real world out there. At the time they show all this love for the mighty dollar, they come out with all this let's say, "left wing" articules. This is as weird as if I create a magazine to promote capitalism and I give communist panflets for free with it at the same time.
This magazine is a waste. It is a shame that such an important magazine is being used to give publicity to bad music and at the same time they try to appear as some kind of "alternative" and "deep" source of information. If you are the kind of person that considers Usher "Da beztezt and hottezt performa in da world eva!!!", buy this magazine. If you "discover" music watching TRL, buy this magazine. If your musical taste is poor, buy this magazine. If you are as cultured as a rapper, buy this magazine. And if you think that the articles in this magazine are "deep", then go ahead and buy this magazine. But for those of us that have a musical taste that goes beyond the radio and that are not impressed by all this sort of "neo alternative" political views that teenagers have nowadays, forget about it.

Not what it used to be...

Great cover (to boost sales); Weak content (No longer the cutting edge).

It used to be a real magazine

Every person that you encounter in this magazine, you will probably know everything they say about them.

Rolling Stone used to be a magazine about Rock, and sort of stayed in that realm, but with articles on bands in other genres. Now, it totally relies on pop stars, and other multi-million dollar artists for its filler. It has become the poster child of selling out.

An Obsolete Dinosaur

The fact that Rolling Stone named Eminem "Artist of the Year" in 2002, speaks volumes about this rock rag's lack of credibility. Yes, the same magazine which ripped the Beatles' Anthology "comeback" in 1995, now panders to irrelevant personas such as Eminem and Limp Bizkit. Sadly, this once revolutionary magazine now resembles a print version of TRL. Long gone are interviews of substance, objective album reviews and hard-hitting investigative pieces. All have been replaced by glossy underwear ads and "reviews" which read like record company press releases. How ironic that the ultimate icon of Baby Boomer journalism now shuns the very audience it once built its loyal readership upon. Do RS's editors really think that anyone over 35 cares about rap, nu-metal or boy bands? Apparently so, and if justice is served, such obvious pandering will ultimately doom this aging dinosaur. All one has to do is pick up an issue of Mojo or Q to see how hopelessly obsolete RS is. While those magazines focus on great bands and quality music --not trends, fashion and gossip--Rolling Stone continues to dig its grave by promoting the latest MTV fare. The true tragedy is that many Boomers have no idea that a whole slew of new artists influenced by the Beatles, Pink Floyd and Brian Wilson are making great records today, yet are ignored by the US mainstream press and radio. By symbolically slapping the face of its core audience, Rolling Stone has committed the ultimate sin in mass marketing. It's days are numbered.

An Aging,Out-Of-Touch Dinosaur Rock Rag

Back in its 1970s heyday,Rolling Stone was a major,highly influential source in rock journalism,featuring hard-hitting,insightful reviews and interviews with some of the greatest artists of its time(John Lennon,Joni Mitchell,Bob Dylan etc.)It was required reading among music fans,even if they disagreed with critics opinions of Led Zepplien,The Eagles,Queen,and Black Sabbath,among others.Even in the more corporate 1980's,they were helpful to me in finding great music that had been previously oblivious to,like their list of the 100 Greatest Albums Of The Last 20 Years(published in 1987)and then-fresh new acts like R.E.M and U2.But those days are gone.In its place is a print version of TRL,featuring puff pieces on musically irrelevant non-entities like Eminem,Avil Laugue,Britney Spears,and Justin Timberlake,and record reviews that read like press releases from record companies,reviewed by a bunch of wisecracking halfwits who have not listened to anything pre-1990.Lets not even mention the abunduace of soft-porn photos and ads.Its a real disgrace to the mag's name and history!

don't like it....

at all. .I just don't like it.There aren't even any good music issues.This magazine is totally boring and commercial.It has more features on britney and n'sync than any teen magazine.I'm also not a fan of the photos.It's your typical "sex sells" magazine

Rolling Stone no longer rolling

Rolling Stone Magazine is a seething mass of contradictions.

The thing I dislike about Rolling Stone is that fact that its having an "identity crisis" of sorts. Its not the trendy magazine it once was, and so it expanded its reviews and coverage to include movies and political commentary. But this political commentary is extremely right-wing (take, for example, the article on former president Bill Clinton). Its music reviews have been pushed to the background, while there are more and more reviews of DVDs. And when there are music reviews, only the re-releases of old favorite artists are ever spoke of with praise. It never makes me think, "hmm, maybe I should check that out."

At the same time, though, they focus their audience on young males. Most of the time there is a half naked, or nearly naked celebrity on the cover (and most of the time, its a woman). While trying to be sexy, RS is instead. It focuses far too much on major celebrities and ignores the people (I say "people" here because its no longer musicians). Rolling Stone tells me everything I already know, but doesn't tell me anything new.

Another thing I dislike about this magazine is the fact that its layout is confusing, disjointed, and out of place. While you can (usually) find what you're looking for, most of its "main features" are hidden among a bunch of other babble (advertisements, reviews of non-related things, etc.)

where is zero stars when you need it

Listen, if you want to read a magazine based on music,don't get this. All it talks about is celebrities and movie stars most recent moments that have nothing to do with music