Reviews For Rolling Stone Magazine

I cant help but think the top 1000 reviewer hasnt actually read the magazine in 10 years. Wildly Inaccurate, hype-based reviews. Attempts at "edgy" political commentary. Full color glossy cigarette ads. I would highly reccomend it for anyone who truly belives Linkin Park wrote their own songs, as you would be the magazine's target audience.

It's a shame that the hightlight of this magazine is its cover. Face it, this stone has gotten moldy.

I subscribed for one year and it wasn't money well spent. I wanted a magazine that would cover the cutting edge of music. Instead, I got a magazine mostly filled with one-sided political commentary and a few pages about music--in other words, crap. The writers of Rolling Stone need to return to what they did best in the first place, which is writing about the music. And either drop the political commentary, move toward the political center, or give both sides EQUAL TIME.

And while I'm on equal time, cover more electronica. It is, after all, the 21st century.

what has happend , this is the magazine that use to give you interviews with led zeppelin or the beatles now you have justin timberlake or britney spears .

its like they have sold out on what was ever good about them. its a very sad thing to see this magazine fall.

What happened to this magazine. It supposed to be on the cutting edge of music insteed of just MTV's Popular crap.

Rolling Stone is a disgrace to music! The magazine only writes about talentless bands and every issue insults the reader with its shameless political propaganda. If you even have the least bit of love for music don't read this trash and read a magazine that cares about music such as Spin or Under the Radar.

If you want MTV fluff, then this is for you, if you want detailed information about the music world, then look elsewhere.
Rolling Stone had it's heyday in the 1970's and was the leader, now it limps along like Saturday Night Live.( ...)

"Rolling Stone" used to be the best source for pertinent and interesting information about music and musicians. The downward slide began some years ago, and a once-great magazine is now nothing more than a glossy advertising brochure, sprinkled throughout with Hollywood hype, articles about inconsequential "celebrities", sophomoric political babble, and silly "reviews" written by uninformed "reviewers". It is a conglomeration of fluff, trash, and corporate hype, an abject waste of time, paper, ink, and money. The average supermarket tabloid is superior to this sad, sorry mess.

I have been a long time subscriber to Rolling Stone. For the longest time they actually talked about music (Like when MTV used to play music). Now it seems to be marketed toward the Teen Beat crowd. If you love the Jonas Brothers and Adam Lambert, this is your magazine. Occasionally they still have a good article or two. Expect lots of stories about Nick Lachey and that dork married to Britney Spears. Also be aware that Rolling Stone thinks that the Jonas Brothers are on par with the Beatles. The last 20 issues I read ALL had an article about the Jo-Bros.

This once great magazine is now horrible!

The once innovative Rolling Stone magazine is now no different, in fact, much worse than it competitors. The Rolling Stone my elders have talked about and the Rolling Stone described in "Almost Famous" is nothing like today's Rolling Stone. The magazine is irrevelent and ignores the serious music fans who made Rolling Stone the pied-piper of music mags.

It is tragic to see that Rolling Stone has sold out for the top-40 radio trash bin. All the magazine is good for is pandering to Britney, Eminem, or Jessica Simpson. Why should a magazine that specialize in rock put them on the cover anyway? You will never see Jessica Simpson on the cover of the hip-hop mag "The Source". The magazine can survive if they focus on what got them to the top in the first place--excellent music journalism. Slapping a half naked Christina Aguilera on the cover does not help distinguish Rolling Stone from any of the other mags.

Rolling Stone also covers current events poorly and the news articles are obviously slanted toward the left. Sure, it's okay for Time, Newsweek, or The Economist to do biased reporting, but they are news magazines. Rolling Stone, however, is a MUSIC magazine. When they do news, they should either write neutrally or give both sides equal time.

Rolling Stone's time is over. If you want a real music magazine, I suggest Spin, URB, or Britain's Q.