Rolling Stone - Blaster review

[DankoJones]

Well there reporting on news stories have been a 2/5 for sure

[TinyPenisMusic]

Rolling Stone have always hated my two favourite bands, Queen & STP.

Those are my two favorite bands as well! Great taste you have. I remember Rolling Stone gave The White Stripes 'Elephant' album 5/5 stars.  While 'Elephant' was a pretty good album, it definitely didn't deserve that perfect score.  A perfect score like that should mean that the entire album is impeccable from start to finish. More like 3/5 in my opinion. If 'Blaster' came out 10-15 years ago it would have probably received something like 3/5 stars.

[Ajax11]

Rolling Stone is so irrelevant that if they give an album a bad review, it means I will probably like it. And if they give an album a good review that I should probably avoid it.

[TemplePilot]

So we're doing that thing where any negative Weiland review, and we call that outlet "irrelevant," cool.

I don't like Rolling Stone, but they're far from "irrelevant."  They have millions of readers to this day, like it or not.

And as far as whoever gave this album a contradictory review from the 90's....the staff is different.  This isn't the same reviewer who slammed Core 20 years ago.  You should appreciate an independent thought instead of applauding them parroting what they wrote when STP hit the scene.

As far as their review of the latest Vampire Weekend album (though I fail to see how THAT'S relevant to this), you can call it dull all you want, but it's far from "generic."  And the person who wrote the review for that, and the person who reviewed Blaster, are not the same person.

You guys have to stop thinking of the entity as one hive mind.  Different people write different reviews for the same magazine.  They aren't contradicting themselves so this weird "gotcha" mentality doesn't fly at all.  The person who wrote the Blaster review likely wasn't even born in 1992.

[RhettButler]

So we're doing that thing where any negative Weiland review, and we call that outlet "irrelevant," cool.

I don't like Rolling Stone, but they're far from "irrelevant."  They have millions of readers to this day, like it or not.

And as far as whoever gave this album a contradictory review from the 90's....the staff is different.  This isn't the same reviewer who slammed Core 20 years ago.  You should appreciate an independent thought instead of applauding them parroting what they wrote when STP hit the scene.

As far as their review of the latest Vampire Weekend album (though I fail to see how THAT'S relevant to this), you can call it dull all you want, but it's far from "generic."  And the person who wrote the review for that, and the person who reviewed Blaster, are not the same person.

You guys have to stop thinking of the entity as one hive mind.  Different people write different reviews for the same magazine.  They aren't contradicting themselves so this weird "gotcha" mentality doesn't fly at all.  The person who wrote the Blaster review likely wasn't even born in 1992.

You raise some good points. You're right--the magazine doesn't have the same staff that it once had. That said, the magazine has never been too kind to Scott, so it seems funny that they would say what a fall from grace Blaster is, when they have always (for the most part) given him negative reviews.


I brought up Vampire Weekend merely to point out how subjective music is. Their music is as bland as it gets, IMHO, no different than just about every middle-of-the-road indie rock band with a myspace page, circa 2006, yet critics love them, and go on to slam Scott.


And yes, they're were different reviewers, but they both speak for the high and mighty Rolling Stone.

[EyesOfDisarray]

The writers can't write whatever they want; each piece still has to get approved by editors and becomes the official stance of the magazine once they print it. This is why they got in so much trouble over the rape story.

As far as relevance, Rolling Stone used to be the gold standard for music and pop culture info. They told people what was cool, and people believed them. But they just don't hold the same weight as they used to. Nowadays, I doubt most consumers check to see what Rolling Stone thinks about an album before buying it, because there are much better ways to gather information to make that decision in today's Internet Age. A bad review by Rolling Stone is nowhere near as damning for an artist as it once was.

When Rolling Stone first slammed STP in the early 90s, my reaction was like, "Man, that's harsh. I can't believe Rolling Stone is being so hard on this great band."

When Rolling Stone gives Blaster a lackluster review today, my reaction is, "Who gives a shit."

[EyesOfDisarray]

So we're doing that thing where any negative Weiland review, and we call that outlet "irrelevant," cool.

For the record, I'm far from a Scott apologist. If you've seen my posts, I've been very critical of his fuckups and have been mostly pro-CheSTP.

But I tell it like it is: Scott put out a damn good rock album, and Rolling Stone's review of it means close to nothing.

[foou33]

I agree with EyesOfDisarray. I jump all over Scott when he messes up. But in this case there are two things that are true, rolling stone just isn't relevant anymore, and Scott did a great job on this record.

[Blue]

We all know I've been one of Scott's harshest critics here, and even I can't imagine someone in their right mind giving Blaster less than a 3/5 at the very least. I'd personally give it a 4/5.


But I'm reminded of an interview with Rob, where he said an album can't fairly be judged by a critic who only listens to the album once in the car on the way to work before writing their review. Judging by the brevity and lack of direction in this review, I'd say that's exactly what happened. He gave it one listen, decided he didn't like it, and went about his day.


 

[Pingfah]

Those are my two favorite bands as well! Great taste you have.

I think they have a whole lot in common. Both have iconic but private frontmen, both extremely musically diverse, with 4 songwriters. Both willing to do pop AND hard rock. Both hated by the press for being wildly popular despite poor critics reviews. That's the real reason Rolling Stone dislikes Queen & STP/Scott.

[lovemachine97]

Rolling Stone is losing relevancy in that while their subscribership has held relatively stable, their over-the-counter sales have plummeted.


In 2006, Rolling Stone sold 134,445 issues on the news stand. Today, news stand and digital sales add up to half of that number.

[TemplePilot]

Rolling Stone is losing relevancy in that while their subscribership has held relatively stable, their over-the-counter sales have plummeted.


In 2006, Rolling Stone sold 134,445 issues on the news stand. Today, news stand and digital sales add up to half of that number.

That has way more to do with us living in an immediate, digital age now than it does anything else.  People don't subscribe to anything anymore, and with good reason.  There's just no point.  Subscribers for most any publication have plummeted over the last decade.

[lovemachine97]

Rolling Stone is losing relevancy in that while their subscribership has held relatively stable, their over-the-counter sales have plummeted.


In 2006, Rolling Stone sold 134,445 issues on the news stand. Today, news stand and digital sales add up to half of that number.

That has way more to do with us living in an immediate, digital age now than it does anything else.  People don't subscribe to anything anymore, and with good reason.  There's just no point.  Subscribers for most any publication have plummeted over the last decade.

No offense, but you missed everything I said. Subscribers have held steady, while over-the-counter and digital sales have plummeted.


Yes, this has a lot to do with the fact that someone is more likely to read a RS article online than buy the magazine, but even the proliferation of information can be a reason for RS to lose relevance.

[TemplePilot]

I didn't miss anything you said.  I'm simply commenting on how the sale count dropping so significantly isn't surprising at all.

[TemplePilot]

Also what qualifies as relevant anymore?  My entire life I've only heard people describe them as irrelevant or horrible, and it's always spurred from a conversation just like this one (they printed someone's favorite band sucks).  Had this board existed over 20 years ago when they declared STP to be one of the worst bands going, this exact same thread would be there word for word.  I just find it a little hard to buy that a publication can survive for decades, one of the longest running in history, and constantly be called irrelevant.  And in another 20 years when they're (most likely) still here, people are going to be saying the same thing.

Someone didn't like Blaster.  Big deal.  I'm sure plenty of people don't.  But I'm not going to question this guy's sincerity or expertise simply because I disagree with what he wrote (and I do like Blaster pretty well - for the record).  Some of you are talking like it's just IMPOSSIBLE that someone could not like the new Scott Weiland album.