Talk:Rolling Stone/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Section

Validation of article performed by WIKICHECK. August 17 2006 17:12pm. WikiCheck 17:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC) | Who owns Rolling Stone? Is it now just a corporate entity owned by Time Magazine? It would explain the disinfected content. No, Rolling Stones is still owned by "Wenner Media", the company set up by the magazine's founder. I dont know if its publicly listed, or owns shares. RS is owned entirely by Wenner Media, one of the largest independent publishers left. It is not publicly listed. Jann S. Wenner is the Publisher and his ex-wife, Jane Wenner VP. Where did Rolling Stone get its name? does it have any relation at all to the band, the rolling stones?? Yes, and no, the name comes from a Muddy Waters song so generally it's said that the band and magazine names both come directly from the song. Actualy, it's from the well-known phrasse 'A Rolling Stone gathers no moss'- basically if something keeps on going it'll not get hidden and forgotten.

Political Allegiance

I added the liberal political allegiance to the infobox. No matter your political positions, if you've ever picked up a copy of any Rolling Stone issue, you wouldn't dare challenge the fact that they lean left.24.115.230.3 (talk) 03:06, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

That is why I added the following sentence, quoting Very Different Visions by Jonah Goldberg: "A perhaps related critique is that the left-leaning magazine goes beyond its musical roots to dabble in liberal politics, with Jonah Goldberg opining that 'Rolling Stone has essentially become the house organ of the Democratic National Committee.'" 89.159.203.228 (talk) 10:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Since when did we list "political allegiance" for magazine entries on Wikipedia? I note, for instance, that National Review does not include such an entry nor does Newsmax. Oddly, The Nation does. If this is a concerted effort by some person, group, or entity to push some ideological agenda within Wikipedia, I have a hard time believing it will be appreciated. I'm removing the entry for political allegiance until someone can demonstrate to me that such a listing is standard practice for a music magazine entry. David (talk) 04:32, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

RS is surely distinct from other music magazines. The introduction itself states that its about politics as well as other things and Wenner himself has said that it's really "not just about the music but things and attitudes that music are about." The history of RS makes it distinct from say Spin or Blender. Dirtybutclean (talk)

Hopefully you're pushing this for reasons that respect the encyclopedia's goals, not because you identify John McCain as your preferred presidential candidate for 2008, who is resoundingly bashed in the newest issue of the magazine....

Further, {{Infobox magazine}} doesn't even have a political affiliation tag on it -- that's a sign of how unused Wikipedia is to identifying the politicial affiliations of magazines. Why this article is using {{Infobox newspaper}} baffles me. I'm changing this. Warren -talk- 13:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Even if we were to accept that Rolling Stone is less a music magazine in the particular and more of a general culture magazine with a music focus that happens to discuss, among many other things, politics, that doesn't address the point. Do other general interest or culture magazines include a listing for political allegiance or not, and if not, why is Rolling Stone being singled out in this way? The New Yorker doesn't, Details doesn't, Esquire doesn't. David (talk) 19:59, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Rolling Stone Sucks Dick

"Rolling Stone" is one dumb-ass magazine. fuck rolling stone its the dumbest magazine in the world. They gave bad reviews to every album that Queen every put out. Now, lo and behold, they compare bands like My Chemical Romance to Queen in flattering, four star reviews. Are these people nuts? 67.190.44.85 03:20, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Rolling Stone Magazine is perhaps the most out-of-touch, overrated, hypocritical magazine in existence. The music critics in that magazine are absolutely insane. Go to "Allmusic.com" if you want a decent review.

Well, that's your opinion, but remember that a Wikipedia talk page is not a message board. Doc Strange 14:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

ROLLING STONE FACULTY ARE BIASED AND RACIST BITCHES

wow, THAT'S not a opinionated message, is it? they don't suck dick, they're just moving and evolving, to keep their TA Intereted. they might have thought of queen as drash and feeble attempt at rock, but times change, and so do opinions. stop bitching, and write something constructive. HYPOCRITICAL, YES. BUT WHO ISN'T? -Grim- 21:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

thank you the other i was reading the reviews of every queen album and The Game a huge hit in america you could tell that they were really trying to bash it anyways. Rolling Stone is a douche bag magazine that is obsessed with the beatles and Bob Dylan it's time we boycott —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samlaskeyproductions (talk • contribs) 21:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

They do indeed suck dick. You are further correct that they are racist. After all, they fail to remember the fact that black people in the 1950s invented rock 'n' roll. They, on the other hand, would like eveyone to think that white dudes like the Rolling Stones invented everything. Wrong! Isn't is funny to think that the same magazine that denies black genius also goes around pretending to care about liberal issues? Freudian denial, perhaps? Well, for all of the above reasons I have decided to write an extensive Criticism section! Ha Ha Ha Ha! 138.67.44.175 07:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I have a question: Why is it whenever I read a wikipedia article about a particular important album, Rolling Stone's rating and critique is always mentioned? Why not somebody else? Is RS the most important music magazine? They give 4 stars to almost every great hip-hop album, that's just so stupid. I just wish people didn't put RS's opinions on every wiki album page. - bombaclat

It's because they are the most recognized name. It's why people cite the NY Times or Vanity Fair NotAllThatMuch (talk) 16:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Even before the end of Apartheid in South Africa, every week RS had a full-color ad for DeBeers diamonds. They also have shifted heavily to coverage of movie stars, which adorn half their covers. This is further evidence that RS does indeed suck dick. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.156.89.232 (talk) 04:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Opinion

Ranking EVH 70th on the guitarist list really undermines Rolling Stones credibility.

Whoever wrote the brief piece on Rolling Stone Magazine, culd you kindly refrain from editorializing and keep to just plain facts? Who are you, brainiac, to determine that the magazine is in "decline."

Just because they don't conform to your political agenda? OK, ok, they sold out to commercialism. Too bad. Just the facts.

Rick Gagliano dtmagazine.com

the fact is that many pop culture and music officianados as well as devoted readers have noticed a decline in quality ovr the past 15 or so years. i'll add a reference, and there would be no reason for deleting it. Joeyramoney 21:13, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

By that same token, describing their "500 Greatest Songs of All Time" list as "presumptiously titled" is editorializing too. (It also misspells "presumptuously.") So I took it out.

msclguru

Rolling Stone is not much of a true "rock n roll" magazine anymore. They devote more cover stories to teen idols like Lindsay Lohan or the Olsen Twins than to actual music.

Whah? When was the last time Rolling Stone mentioned either? These days they devote more time to left-wing muckraking than to music, and indeed pop culture in general. --Funkmistress 18:43, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

The discussion of George Bush seems out of place both in organization and content, making the article seem more like an ephemeral news report than an authoritative encyclopedia article. Suggested options: (1) Move to the "popular culture" section of the article and expand to include a general discussion of RS's political commentary. Could use George Bush (unfavorable) and coverage of a Democratic politican (favorable?) as examples; (2) Remove the George Bush section altogether. At the very least, if the negative Bush piece represents the magazine's overall political/social orientation, RS's editorial perspective should be made explicit (with citations). - Tm19 05:11, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

About half of the article is dedicated to "criticism." It is similar to hundreds of other Wikipedia pages that were modified by people who hate whatever is mentioned in the article, and for this one in particular does anyone think that it is too much? There are several long quotes by unknown "critiques," and several generalized statements. 204.210.111.213 (talk) 03:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Pic

I added the first cover instead of the one that was there, because I thought it was more historically important. daleki 08:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

No reason not to have both, to fully outline the evolution of the magazine. Wasted Time R 14:41, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

How is it that there is only a small reference (no link)to William Sidney Porter aka O'Henry as creator of The Rolling Stone magazine. I get that there is a difference between "The Rolling Stone" magazine and "Rolling Stone" magazine. But how can nearly everyone dismiss one of America's best and noteworthy authors in blatant disregard? Doesn't "public domain" compel at least acknowledgement in this age of copyright infringements? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.160.31.57 (talk) 05:42, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Covers

For what it's worth, # covers done by various artists (so far as I know): Springsteen, 10; Madonna, 9; Dylan, 12. REM has done more than Santanna or Janet Jackson... (There's something wrong about that...) Trekphiler 06:43, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Rolling Stone China

Was just shut down. I've changed the entry accordingly.Zachkchk 14:53, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

The section was edited to revise history by omitting the fact that the magazine published a first issue with the Rolling Stone logo and then was then forced to abandon the logo and, in fact, any vestige of Rolling Stone. Most sources indicate that the magazine was shut down by the Chinese regulators, but Audio Visual World (the actual name of the magazine) maintains that these sources are inaccurate. This blog has a brief opinion on the matter, and several links to my sources: http://www.danwei.org/media_and_advertising/raped_rolling_stone_cover.php. Zachkchk 14:31, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

two john lennon covers

it caught my eye that both featured covers are of john lennon. it may be a good idea to change one (i'd say the latter). Joeyramoney 18:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

i think they should both stay because they represent arguably the two most important covers of Rolling Stone's existence: the very first issue and the issue that was voted the greatest Rolling Stone cover of all time. --Willers 23:36, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

removed vandalism

i removed this statement from the "George Bush" section:

"When asked whether or not Bush's actions were worse than the Trail of Tears, Indian Genocide, and Japanese Internment camps the editors of RS looked confused before stating "Huh?". They still stand by their statements."

not only is it ridiculous, but as far as I know, the Trail of Tears, Indian Genocide, and Japanese Internment Camps have never been elected President of the United States. He stoled my girlfriend once.

--Willers 22:09, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

TO: International editions You missed the german editions, published by AS young media

How about inserting Rolling Stone covers that don't have John Lennon on them for a change?

Complete Issue List / Guide

As it currently exists the "People on the Cover" section is worthless. If somebody took the time to continue a list such as this including every issue, I could see it being a worthwhile inclusion. Of the 1007 issues RS has put out over the past 39 years, only those from the last eight months are listed--kind of pathetic. Also, if a complete list were to be constructed, it ought to provide at least a little bit more information than just the issue number and who was on the cover. If done right, this project could certainly warrant it's own sub-page. Whether you agree or disagree with me, please share your thoughts. Also, anyone else interested in working to compile a complete list, please share any ideas you might have. If people are in agreement with me, I'd love to get to work on it. -Raoul Duke 10:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Can I suggest that the special issues editions be scrapped? There is no point simply listing one hundred guitarists or all 500 songs and albums. What would be more feasible would be to give links to specific websites that provide this. 218.186.9.4 10:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)Someone

5 Star albums

How about a seperate article, with a list of albums recieving 5 stars in Rolling Stone. They only give an album 5 stars very rarely. I've been reading it since 2002, and the only albums I remember getting 5 stars are

• White Stripes - Elephant
• Beastie Boys - To the 5 Boroughs
• Brian Wilson - Smile

Wow! Why do you read this magazine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.218.222.166 (talk) 02:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Celebrities Who Have Appeared on the Cover

This is useless really, if it is needed then it should have it's own article and should be updated to include ever person from every cover. --Jimmyjrg 11:05, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I've edited it such as that only the first ten people to appear on the cover are there. Dirtybutclean 09:20, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Job Descriptions

I have removed them because RS has writers who don't specialize in just one area. For e.g., Fricke is both a feature writer and a music reviewer. Dirtybutclean

The Rolling Stone magazine once baldly accused Jerry Lee Lewis of murdering his wife. Is there anyone out there who remember which issue it was in. ?? Phuckit 07:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

impotent or incompetent?

In the political commentary section it says that "...said George W. Bush was possibly the 'worst president in history,' citing a 'combination of impotence, laziness and ineptitude for the job.'"

My wild guess is that he probably said incompetence instead of impotence and some prankster changed it for fun. I looked at the source mentioned but can find neither quote. So what did he say?--Soylentyellow 21:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Most likely Incompetent(meaning useless, eg 'You incompetent fool'). Impotent means... something altogether different.('You impotent fool' has a VERY odd feel to it)

Whereas Viagra is a (short time) remedy against impotence no remedy has yet been found against incompetence.

[If Clinton was president...]

I'll change it to incompetence - correct me if I am wrong. --

Soylentyellow 21:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

'Impotence' can also mean lack of potency NotAllThatMuch (talk) 15:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Spain?

Why is this article part of WikiProject Spain? That makes no sense at all. 206.135.142.245 17:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

"Bi-weekly"?

Exactly what does this mean in the lead? Twice a week or every two weeks, aka fortnightly? If someone can tell me this, I'll change it ASAP to be understood better. Mouse is back 19:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

it means biweekly. fortnight is not completely comprehended this side of the pond - and since the magazine is this side of the pond, we should use the American word. (John User:Jwy talk) 03:20, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

biweekly is every other week (like a bicentennial is a 200-year celebration), while semiweekly is twice a week. The Dane 17:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh. I didn't know fortnightly and biweekly were the same, because I use fortnight, even though I am on "this side of the pond." Thanks for the answer, though! Mouse is back 17:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

you're then an anglophile

Deleting References

Hi, Let me make it clear that I hate "Rolling Stone" with a passion. Nonetheless, all of the criticism points that I have made have been carefully cited with published material. If people do not agree with these criticisms, then the burden is up to them to find alternative sources that contradict those that I have cited. It is further not acceptable to simply erase links that I have worked hard to put up without any prior discussion.138.67.44.175 04:38, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Your articles are unencyclopedic in that they are trivia. The Guitar World reference in the article does not belong to this article simply because it is a response to Rolling Stone and not a Rolling Stone act in itself. I did not delete it out of intent to remove criticism, nor because of insufficient citations, but because as per Wikipedia guidelines, it does not belong in the article. Dirtybutclean —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dirtybutclean (talk • contribs) 12:28, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi,Although you are unaware of it, you have just deleted yet another link that has nothing whatsoever to do with the list of guitarists. Please note that constitutes a form of vandalism according to Wikipedia standards. If you do not agree with those citations that I have provided, then it is up to you to provide alternative references that contradict mine. Perhaps you should being by leaving this section alone and adding a "Legacy" section to contradict my criticism. On the other hand, simply erasing my links is not an acceptable way to proceed here. 138.67.44.156 17:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Neither is reverting my edits indiscriminately. Bold assertions such as "disproportionately skewed" and "The magazine has consequently lost touch with many of its readers" are unverifiable—even with a source, they require modification. Without a source, they require deletion. Furthermore, was the Guitar World list explicitly billed as a response to Rolling Stone? If not, that paragraph must go. Deltabeignet 20:45, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi. A lot of your references from other magazines are invalid because they have nothing to do with the magazine in itself (which is what the page is about) as compared to other publication's/people's reactions towards RS. On top of that, there is something seriously wrong (in an encyclopedic article) when the criticism section is as long as RS' actions in contemporary times. That being said however, a few of your claims do indeed have veracity. Therefore, a criticism section similar with that on the George W Bush page might be the workable solution. Since you have no account and thus cannot create a page, I will shortly be moving those criticisms (with references) over to the new page while leaving a summary on the main RS page.Dirtybutclean 22:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Not a POV fork! That kind of separation should only be done when articles become unreasonably large, which this one hasn't. I'm reverting the change—let's try to keep this article trimmed down and in one place. Deltabeignet 01:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Rolling Stone's 500 Greatest Songs of All Time and Rolling Stone's 500 Greatest Albums of All Time

As they are, the two pages are filled with POV and are vandal magnets. There are no sources that prove their notability, and I think a sentence here mentioning the lists should be enough. Thoughts? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Merging

It has been suggested 'Rolling Stone's 500 Greatest Songs of All Time' and the 'Rolling Stone's 500 Greatest Albums of All Time' be merged with the rolling stones page. I think instead of merging this with the page perhaps put Rolling Stone's 500 Greatest Songs of All Time and Rolling Stone's 500 Greatest Albums of All Time together maybe? if theres more Rolling Stone's 500 Greatest ... then them too but i'm not aware of any but whatever i'm putting it out there. Rolling Stone's 500 Greatest? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Conn1e (talk • contribs) 09:47, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

It would cut a lot a problems from those articles, esp. the Guitarists one. So long as there is an external reference to the lists, then this might be a good idea. The JPS^{talk to me} 11:21, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Political stance

Should we mention that RS political stance since Matt Taibai took over is not taken seriously because of his very very very left stance? I mean its prett much ridicualed by everyone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Parralax (talk • contribs) 19:33, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

No. I agree with you generally, in that I don't take Taibai very seriously. But RS' political stance goes beyond that, to the days of Hunter S. Thompson, who is obviously very significant to both RS and American literature post 1960. We could leave a note on how the credibility has dipped, but only (emphasis on only) if it is backed with a credible source. Dirtybutclean —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 10:35, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

the only thing original abot nirvana is kurt was less ugly than mark arm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.125.110.223 (talk) 18:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Zac Efron

.. Is not an artist. He is a performing puppet. It is an insult to place him on a list alongside the likes of Janis Joplin. It is also pointless for this to be in the article anyway, since there is already an article regarding celebrities who have appeared on the cover. 79.68.105.232 19:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Rolling Stones' 100 Best Guitarists...

I don't see the list of the 100 Best Guitarists here anymore. Other pages are linked to this list. A good example is the Stephen Stills page which uses this list and links it to this page, are bound to have others wondering if it's no longer here. I don't see it; maybe I'm blind and weary. (Good possibility.) Can anyone tell me if I just missed it in all the other stuff there, or if it was removed? Thank you. --leahtwosaints (talk) 10:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'm a nitwit for not reading this talk page first. But the comment about Stills' page still is there. --leahtwosaints (talk) 10:47, 12 January 2008 (UTC)