Reviews For Rolling Stone Magazine

I'll put it simply...

Rolling Stone Magazine lost any credibility it once had due to the 2003 "Greatest Guitar Players of All Time". Also, don't even get me started on its ill attempts at being politically savy. 1-star is being quite generous.


It's not what is use to be ...good, insightful articles. Give me a break with the sleazy juvenile covers.

piece of junk

rolling stone has stooped to an all-time low. its getting boring and bland, like reading some cheap tabloid or something.
come on already!

Worst magazine ever.

Being a fan of rock music it is depressing to see what was once a good magazine fall so hard. I gave it 1 star because I cant give it 0. It's nothing but liberal propaganda mixed with uninteresting filler. I'd rather read Cat Fancy and I don't even care for cats.

pop culture "lick my nuts"

first of all justin whats his face isn't black you cracker. and You think that band like Led Zeppelin, Rolling Stones, and Bob Dylan are lame. have you ever heard of the pop culture bandwagon because you have jumped on it. the only thing that britney spears is good for is looking at, if you want to hear good music find a ac/dc or van halen cd. as for rolling stones mag its jumped on the band wagon with you.

"Rolling Stone" is a lame magazine

"Rolling Stone" is embarrassing. Rather than focusing upon sophisticated music for adult audiences, they instead pollute their covers with one lame teeny bop star after the next. I mean, who is this guy on the cover? The "Teen Wolf"? I am guessing that they are aiming at 12-year-old kids.

Whatever happened to rock music? I notice that rock magazines from the UK actually have real rock bands on their covers. Why can't "Rolling Stone" do the same? They are making the US look really dumb.

One of the things that REALLY bothers me is how "Rolling Stone" tries to portray itself as an edgy, left-wing periodical with all of its articles about the evils of capitalism. Meanwhile, their glowing reviews of overhyped teeny bop garbage look like something that a record company would write!

Yet another thing that really bothers me about "Rolling Stone" is their sycophantic attitude toward artists like Bob Dylan and Mick Jagger. Regardless of what they put our nowadays, notice how it always ends up with 5-star reviews. They are obviously rying to "redeem" their credibility with bloated cover stories about how great Bob Dylan is. Not that Bob Dylan is going to say "no" to a bloated cover story. Boring!


I guess all things change over time, but Rolling Stone lost its focus and direction at some point. The last time I had subscribed was the early 90's. The mag still focused mainly on music back then, had a dash of politics, and seemed more edgy. Now we see the focus on bubble gum pop with articles seemingly written by "journalists" whose idea of interviews and reporting is no more than cutting and pasting a Google search. And while my politics have never fallen in line with RS's, the political commentary has shifted so far left, they are nothing more than shills for the uber-left socialist/communist regime. They may as well go ahead and hire Maddow, Olberman, and Matthews for the editorial board.
If they bring back the substance, music coverage, and tone down the nasty political tone, I may come back.


Why send me an offer that doesn't apply out side of the U.S.A ?
You know I live in Australia fder fek sake.


When, oh WHEN will Britney twig to the fact that "That Kiss" was a cynical attempt to ruin her career?

(mind you, for once I may actually be in support of the ever nasty Madonna on that one)

Britney dear, at least find a publicist with some brains.

Rolling Stone, if only you had retired while still at the top.

horse sh*t

Why did they put Kurt Kobain and Kirk Hammet ahead of Eddie Van Halen and Carlos Santana in the top 100 guitarist article? this proves that these retards don't know music.