Wow. Is my record collection ever getting a panning from these writers...
Black Sabbath Paranoid review...wow...
Rolling Stone's album reviews(historically) are fairly poor, imo.
That's an incredibly broad, blanket statement, don't you think, Mark? They've been doing record reviews for 44 years with some of the best music critics of two generations & they are all historically bad??? That's not an informed view. Just because they maybe don't like who you like doesn't make it a bad review. Perhaps in some instances your tastes (like everybody's at times) aren't so great.
Just because you don't agree with something doesn't make it bad. It makes it a difference of opinion...
I did say it was my opinion and I'm more than willing to concede that my taste in music doesn't really line up with Rolling Stone. I remember reading through the really old album reviews, and Rolling Stone was panning some good music with extreme prejudice. Either way, to be perfectly honest, I don't put much stock in what a music critic has to say about an artist or an album. If it's good, it's good. To harken back to another thread(and end on a humorous note), Frank Zappa has the best quote about the subject:
"Rock journalism is people who can't write, interviewing people who can't talk, for people who can't read." - Frank Zappa
Last edited by MarkD; 10-25-2011 at 06:04 PM.
Different writers, different opinions, subjective subject.
If I had a criticism for Rolling Stone - It would be that at times in the past they've been a bit revisionist. But that comes down also to changing times and different writers coming on and against my own bias and musical opinions too.
I'm more reading the reviews in the context of how interesting the various writers are and how they review music.