Rolling Stone - Blaster review

[DeadAndNotForSale]

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.

Well you are on an STP fansite, we are going to comment how the reviewer basically sucks at what they do.  I, for one, am going to question this guy's "sincerity" and "expertise" because he is being paid to give reviews and probably put less than 10 minutes into this one.  I honestly don't care very much that Blaster got a mediocre review from a mediocre "rock" magazine, but it is certainly worth commenting on.  And, yes, Rolling Stone is a mediocre "rock" magazine, judging strictly on the content that they allowed Kory Grow to post on this "review".  Your whole shtick about disagreeing with nearly everything posted on this board got old a long time ago, but carry on.

[TemplePilot]

Nvm Scott Weiland is the best I hope this guy gets fired!!!

[lovemachine97]

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

Yes, yes you did.

I wrote that subscribers were flat but that over the counter+digital sales had plummeted. Your response was, "People don't subscribe to anything anymore . . . Subscribers for most any publication have plummeted."


Well, I never said Rolling Stone was hemorrhaging subscribers. Because they aren't. Again, Rolling Stone is holding steady in the subscriber business. It's over the counter+digital sales that have plummeted.

[TemplePilot]

Yeah definitely. 

[Silverman Supergun]

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.

Well you are on an STP fansite, we are going to comment how the reviewer basically sucks at what they do.  I, for one, am going to question this guy's "sincerity" and "expertise" because he is being paid to give reviews and probably put less than 10 minutes into this one.  I honestly don't care very much that Blaster got a mediocre review from a mediocre "rock" magazine, but it is certainly worth commenting on.  And, yes, Rolling Stone is a mediocre "rock" magazine, judging strictly on the content that they allowed Kory Grow to post on this "review".  Your whole shtick about disagreeing with nearly everything posted on this board got old a long time ago, but carry on.

This is no longer an STP site.  It is a Weiland site.  The administrator has made that clear, and it is his choice.  Sad that all things couldn't be enjoyed and respected.  But let's face it, this journey is done.  Nothing left but Indian casino gig money, and selling the old hits to tampon commercials.  Enjoy the catalogue and stop pretending there is a future.  It's over Johnny.

[Ajax11]

Say what you want about their national "relevancy" but to me they are completely irrelevant. Musically and Politically. Music I like gets bad reviews from them, music I hate gets good reviews. So in my eyes they are irrelevant.

[RhettButler]

Rolling Stone reviews probably don't mean as much as they once did. In the pre-internet days, there was RS, SPIN, and some other magazines--but now there are tons of sites that review albums, links to newspapers all over the world, as well as fan reviews from amazon.

[DeadAndNotForSale]

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.

Well you are on an STP fansite, we are going to comment how the reviewer basically sucks at what they do.  I, for one, am going to question this guy's "sincerity" and "expertise" because he is being paid to give reviews and probably put less than 10 minutes into this one.  I honestly don't care very much that Blaster got a mediocre review from a mediocre "rock" magazine, but it is certainly worth commenting on.  And, yes, Rolling Stone is a mediocre "rock" magazine, judging strictly on the content that they allowed Kory Grow to post on this "review".  Your whole shtick about disagreeing with nearly everything posted on this board got old a long time ago, but carry on.

This is no longer an STP site.  It is a Weiland site.  The administrator has made that clear, and it is his choice.  Sad that all things couldn't be enjoyed and respected.  But let's face it, this journey is done.  Nothing left but Indian casino gig money, and selling the old hits to tampon commercials.  Enjoy the catalogue and stop pretending there is a future.  It's over Johnny.

That wasn't the root of my argument whatsoever.  This is still a place to discuss STP w/ Chester and Weiland.  Just because the admin separated the names because he/she doesn't like this current incarnation of the band, doesn't change the fact that this is still very much a STP forum.  And when did I "pretend there is a future"?  I really doubt that the orginal STP will ever reunite once again.