Reviews For Rolling Stone Magazine

Long gone are the days when this magazine could be taken seriously. Now it has teeny boppers on the cover and isn't even good enough to qualify as a serious music magazine. The best music magazine I've found quite frankly is Mojo magazine, which is a little pricey unfortunately.

To me Rolling Stone magazine has always been nothing but a bunch of bad reviews , criticism , and a lot of contradictions. For those of you that are old enough to remember, there was a time when Rolling Stone was THE music magazine and few dared to go against the word of Rolling Stone . Back then Rolling Stone had the say-so in who and what was cool, and many listened . Now the magazine seems to be more willing to plug whatever band is big right now and is more interested in chart numbers and radio play more than good music and overall just seems to want to please the mtv/vh1 crowd type of reader . Also if you pay attention they'll contradict themselves a few times in the same review and like most of the "mtv culture" only really scratch the surface and at best do that half-hearted ....But if you dont believe me then go ahead and buy it . You might like the magazine if you're the type of person who sees a movie , buys an album ,or likes a band because "everyone likes it/them" ...

and yes like most have said the content has really gone to **** . This magazine used to be about music , rock music that is . Now they cover too much rap (don't rappers have their own magazines?). Not to mention all the reviews on books ,movies , and politics , which is why this is now more of an "entertainment " magazine and less of a music mag. On top of all this they have a lot of filler type articles that are just there to fill up paper ... Recently they did an article titled "college porn nightmare" , which was about how college students had their lives ruined by appearing in porn movies (who cares ! mommy and daddy probably helped them buy their way out of it anyway ) . So bottom line this magazine is nothing but mtv in print , and someone else said it best when they said that "The stone is still rolling but on a different side of the hill "

Why in God's name would anybody read this tripe? As another reviewer has said, it's corporate mass media pretending it's part of the counter culture, aimed at morons too stupid to think for themselves. Before MTV and Crap Channel killed rock n' roll, Stationary Pebble put it on life support. Don't believe what your parents tell you kids, it was poorly written drivel in the 60's, and it's even worse now. Except in the 60's and 70's it was the only way you could really keep up on what was happening in pop culture. Now, thanks to the Internet, it's days are numbered.Us little people, who AREN'T paid by major corporations, get to have our say. And thank God for it.

I strongly dislike this magazine.It's meant to be a music magazine, and yet most of the pages are covered with barely dressed celebrities, and men's fashion.I don't see how it's any different from Maxim, or FHM, it's just that it's marketed as a music magazine.And there are more features on Brtiney and N'sync than any teen magazine.

The big difference is on the magazine timing. I use to read Rolling Stones to discover about bands I didn't know. Now is all about what you've seen or smell everywhere else. Nothing new, usually, is happening here. If you need to know about entertainment, that's what Rolling Stones covers now, get an Entertainemnt Weekly subscription, it's less bulky. Britney Spears on the cover...for christ sakes!

i, like many other people here, have let my rolling stone subscription run out. it's not very often a magazine can have a 0.50 per/issue subscription price and still be a rip-off. this magazine is pretty much us meets teen vogue on bigger paper now.

You want the scoop on music than look somewhere else. Rolling Stone has been going downhill ever since they gave Nirvana's Nevermind a 7 out of 10 rating. They gave Weezer's Pinkerton, which today is rated among the best of the best of the best cds ever, the worst CD of the year award in 96. Yeah, you heard me, the best cd of 96 (according to me and many other people) got worst cd of the year in 1996 by Rolling Stone. And today its only getting worse. So listen to the other reviews and get another magazine unless you are a teen bopper - heck - still dont get it.

All media hype and commercials with hardly any music.

Corporate Culture at its finest.

For years Rolling Stone was a truly great rock 'n' roll magazine. Then a truly great counterculture magazine. Then a truly great general interest magazine. Now it's nothing but flapdoodle. Senseless drivel presented as witty meanderings for [mindless people] who need to be told what music to buy.

but that was years ago. I got a subscription not too long ago at a great price. Not worth it. It is full of ad's and a lot of the information on artists has hit the web several weeks before the magazine even gets to print & is very 'gossipy' - you can get 'gossipy' online free at various sites, if that is what you are into. I think that you are better off picking up a copy at a store and looking it over first. I really cannot recommend that enough. The album review section is still OK as the Billboard charts, but again, you can get all that info online WAY before Rolling Stone even gets it to print. I am not renewing my subscription either. Waste of time & money.