WTFs in Rolling Stone's updated biographies

[zeppphead]

No. 1- A fan of bluesmen like B.B. King and Buddy Guy, Page played well enough to be hired as a session musician in the mid-Sixties, appearing on tracks by the Who, the Kinks and many others. When Eric Clapton quit the Yardbirds in 1965, Page replaced him. Source (now they fully blank out the rock's most underrated guitarist)

No. 2- In the 1980s and 1990s, he (Robert Plant) has been more interested in hip-hop, punk and world music than the heavy metal or classic rock of Zeppelin imitators. He just didn't want to look back. Source (Plantey has shown an interest in Reggae, Ska and old-school R&B as far as I remember- but hip-hop......)

[Wolfman]

RS is the worst. Their updated top 500 song list has "Smells Like Teen Spirit" way above "STH". Stairway is much more of a iconic song. Never liked RS; never will.

[Deborah J]

RS is the worst. Their updated top 500 song list has "Smells Like Teen Spirit" way above "STH". Stairway is much more of a iconic song. Never liked RS; never will.

With you on this one, never liked them, never will. What a waste of paper!!

[zeppphead]

Hi Deborah. Hope you're doing great. Glad to see you again.....

[Tripmender]

Bought a few issues of RS on my mid-70s visits to the US. Was astonished at how boring and un-incisive (if such a word exists..?) the journalism was, compared to the UK music press.

Always thought of it as a bit like Playboy - 10% mildly interesting, 90% pointless

[Bong-Man]

I've read some issues that have been passed on to me recently, and I enjoyed them. For example, the Merle Haggard article a few months ago was surprisingly excellent. Also enjoyed the recent Hendrix issue.

[bigstickbonzo]

They've always been rather hit and miss. Their music sections can be good for discovering new music, but even they don't really go into the detail a well-intentioned music magazine should dish to its readers. I'm also not a fan of their bleeding-heart-liberal political philosophy. HST was really the only one worthy of commenting on National Affairs.

[justawoman]

RS is a liberal elitist rag. I don't put much stock into anything they do or say. Proof being their lame 500 greatest rock songs list. How can (like wolfman said earlier) they rank Smells Like Teen Spirit higher than Stairway? I don't get it.

[estofest]

RS is a liberal elitist rag. I don't put much stock into anything they do or say. Proof being their lame 500 greatest rock songs list. How can (like wolfman said earlier) they rank Smells Like Teen Spirit higher than Stairway? I don't get it.

I'm not saying that 'Smells Like Teen Spirit' is a better song than Stairway, it doesn't come close. But when SLTS came out, it was a pretty huge song and changed the music scene.

[kaiser]

Yet another Rolling Stone bashing thread. I'm not a fan of Rolling Stone, particularly it's head Jann Wenner, but I would think Zeppelin fans in 2010 would finally give up the ghost. I'd love for anyone who has a problem with Rolling Stone to point out anything they've printed about Led Zeppelin in the last 20 years that's been negative let alone harsh. Good luck, you won't find it. If anything Rolling Stone kisses Zeppelin's ass but that is never mentioned by anyone who complains about Rolling Stone, just the negative reviews published before most of the people who complain about them were born & only know about the reviews through Hammer Of The Gods. If you were born after Zep ceased to exist, don't complain about RS & Zep's relationship, that battle has already been fought. Also, Rolling Stone is not a music magazine, it's a pop culture magazine based around the music scene much like People is a pop culture magazine based around TV & movies, thus their best of lists are always pop culture based.

And I realize this thread was not about RS trashing Zep, but the mere mention of RS descends into foaming of the mouth for a lot of people on the forum. Complaining about the Treaty Of Versailles is more relevant in 2010 than this lol.

[estofest]

Yet another Rolling Stone bashing thread. I'm not a fan of Rolling Stone, particularly it's head Jann Wenner, but I would think Zeppelin fans in 2010 would finally give up the ghost. I'd love for anyone who has a problem with Rolling Stone to point out anything they've printed about Led Zeppelin in the last 20 years that's been negative let alone harsh. Good luck, you won't find it. If anything Rolling Stone kisses Zeppelin's ass but that is never mentioned by anyone who complains about Rolling Stone, just the negative reviews published before most of the people who complain about them were born & only know about the reviews through Hammer Of The Gods. If you were born after Zep ceased to exist, don't complain about RS & Zep's relationship, that battle has already been fought. Also, Rolling Stone is not a music magazine, it's a pop culture magazine based around the music scene much like People is a pop culture magazine based around TV & movies, thus their best of lists are always pop culture based.

And I realize this thread was not about RS trashing Zep, but the mere mention of RS descends into foaming of the mouth for a lot of people on the forum. Complaining about the Treaty Of Versailles is more relevant in 2010 than this lol.

Ha Ha Ha!!! Incredibly well said!! Kudos to you for saying the obvious.

[Matjaz1]

Great post kaiser!!

The reviews were harsh in th early days of zep, when they didn't get it!! Then it all went alright and i think it is generally a good magazine!!

[Deborah J]

Yet another Rolling Stone bashing thread. I'm not a fan of Rolling Stone, particularly it's head Jann Wenner, but I would think Zeppelin fans in 2010 would finally give up the ghost. I'd love for anyone who has a problem with Rolling Stone to point out anything they've printed about Led Zeppelin in the last 20 years that's been negative let alone harsh. Good luck, you won't find it. If anything Rolling Stone kisses Zeppelin's ass but that is never mentioned by anyone who complains about Rolling Stone, just the negative reviews published before most of the people who complain about them were born & only know about the reviews through Hammer Of The Gods. If you were born after Zep ceased to exist, don't complain about RS & Zep's relationship, that battle has already been fought. Also, Rolling Stone is not a music magazine, it's a pop culture magazine based around the music scene much like People is a pop culture magazine based around TV & movies, thus their best of lists are always pop culture based.

And I realize this thread was not about RS trashing Zep, but the mere mention of RS descends into foaming of the mouth for a lot of people on the forum. Complaining about the Treaty Of Versailles is more relevant in 2010 than this lol.

Hello kaiser & estofest!

You are certainly entitled to your opinion just as I am. I did go through the Zeppelin era and have my reasons for not caring at all for this (print, rag, magazine), whatever you want to call it. We all have choices and I choose not to read RS.

I cannot point out anything to you as to what has been stated about Zeppelin in the last 20 years in RS as I DO NOT read this and never will. I can appreciate your opinion and ask the same in return.

[Oracle]

Rolling Stone had some great articles back in the 60s and 70s. But since they dissed LZ many times, the fans discount the rest of it's journalism. Ho-hum.

Having said that, I found Melody Maker more interesting for my tastes and a better read. For those who don't know, it was a UK publication, "The world's oldest weekly music newpaper".

[Wolfman]

My problem with RS is the rock artists they do kiss up to compared to the ones they don't. If Bruce, Dylan, or Bono takes a dump, they'll write a book on it. They made their bread on "classic rock" artists but kind of look down on many of them now (as if they were cheesy or something to be ridiculed now that they are not the current product being pushed).

That said, I loved their recent article on the making of the Stones "Exile on Main Street" but I couldn't help thinking that they would never do this with a Zep album (like Zep IV). Also, I understand that their main goal is to make money so they need to stay with the current product but this constant coverage of these hip-hop and pop bands turns me off. Countless times they give one of these artists newest albums four or five stars. Those should be reserved for classic albums no matter what the genre of music is (including hip-hop and pop). Not albums that will be forgotten in a few months if not years. The ironic part is often in these reviews, they will talk how trite and unoriginal the music is. That makes no sense. You also sense an elitist view from them that they are be all and end all when it comes to music.

Mostly though, I think it comes down to one basic feeling; RS doesn't view Zeppelin the way most of us do. It's obvious from these lists they put together or non-coverage of their past. It would be ridiculous to expect them to constantly cover LZ though but it would nice to see some coverage once in a blue moon. Hell, they write articles on the Stones and Beatles all the time. I think they respect Zeppelin but do not look at them the same way they look at the Stones, Beatles, Dylan, U2, or Bruce. To their credit though, they do compare a lot of newer bands sound to Zep's which is basically saying how influential Zeppelin is on rock artists. RS isn't a terrible magazine and actually have had lots of fantastic articles, but I personally have never been a huge fan (even before I got into Zeppelin). I personally like how people on here despise them because RS is too full of themselves at times. They deserve a little hate.

[kaiser]

As I said before, I'm not a fan of Rolling Stone and I loathe Jann Wenner as a person & "thing". Still, the reasons for my feelings have nothing to do with what RS had to say about Led Zeppelin 30-40 years ago. I could care less. I was born in 1972 & I didn't start buying the magazine until 1988 Robert Plant was on the cover & his new album recieved a glowing review & Zeppelin's recorded output recieved a complete overhaul about how great they were in that same issue & how enormous their legacy is. In the past 3 years Led Zeppelin has been on the cover of RS twice, once again with much ass kissing coming from RS for a band that no longer exists. Zeppelin are hardly being ignored by RS. Zeppelin also appeared on the cover in 1990 when the first box set was released and Page & Plant appeared on the cover in 1995, both again to glowing reviews.

I'm not trying to convert anyone to RS, I don't care if anyone reads it to be honest. The only thing that bothers me is that Zeppelin fans as a whole look like a bunch of persecuted whiners because there are those who can't let it go that Zeppelin recieved some bad reviews from RS early on in their career & at some points later on. It's done. The past has been corrected with just a few examples I gave above & many more I haven't mentioned. Move on or continue to whine & feel persecuted.

[guitarmy]

RS is the worst. Their updated top 500 song list has "Smells Like Teen Spirit" way above "STH". Stairway is much more of a iconic song. Never liked RS; never will.

A sign of the times and Rolling Stone's audience.

Your old road is rapidly agin'.

Please get out of the new one

If you can't lend your hand

For the times they are a-changin'.

[Wolfman]

I do agree with Kaiser that their attitude has changed towards LZ over the years .I would just prefer an article about one particular aspect about Zeppelin (like a making of an album, TSRTS movie, or something different) instead of the typical retrospective of the bands career. That would be very cool to read in RS. I still think they have their particular faves (Beatles, Stones, U2, Dylan, and Bruce) that get constant coverage, while many other rock bands of the 60's and 70's are basically ignored. Again, it comes down to making money, so I'm guessing the younger readers would have little interest in "classic rock bands" since that isn't there scene. Overall, I'm just not a fan mostly due to that fact. The magazine mostly revolves around the current music scene. Not a big fan of hip-hop and pop so it's not a pleasure for me to read about these artists. My sister gets it so I do thumb through the articles to see if anything catches my eye. Btw, I also think they are horrible at reviewing movies. On a side note, I used to look at old issues in my school's library to find anything about Zeppelin. Never could find anything because they were all cut out.

P.S. I never did see what they said when Bonzo died. I heard it was just a small panel in their obituary section. Anyone ever see what they printed or have it to share with us?

[kaiser]

Also, as I said earlier, Rolling Stone is a pop culture magazine that centers around music and not a music magazine. Literally half of every issue is dedicated to politics, which is what I hate about the magazine because they still think it's the 60's, that every conflict is Vietnam, that everyone who is middle of the road to conservative is Nixon, that every political scandal involving a Republican is Watergate, & that every politician who's a Democrat who came of age in the 60's/70's is to be viewed as some sort of saviour for America. Not exactly fair & balanced coverage of the vast political landscape of America, but what does one expect from a magazine that's run & owned by some multi millionaire hippies which in itself used to be a contradiction. Then there's the rest of the magazine which focuses on what's going on in TV & movie reviews. There's a sports column in there now for goodness sakes! This is hardly a music magazine, that's why I compared it to People magazine.

Mojo is a music magazine because that is all it's devoted to. Whether it's the Beatles to Zeppelin, Dylan to Bruce Sprinsteen, the Sex Pistols to the Clash, T Rex to Bowie, Public Enemy to Jay Z, Oasis to Blur, Johnny Cash to Willie Nelson, the Pixies to Nirvana, Ray Charles to James Brown, Radiohead to Bjork, and Devandra Bernhardt to Rufus Wainwright... it's strictly about music that leans on the rock & roll side. No political column, no sports column, no TV, movie, or book reviews that aren't music related... it's all about music. There's also at least 3 Zeppelin related articles every year for the last 10 years.

[Wolfman]

This is hardly a music magazine, that's why I compared it to People magazine.

You couldn't have said it better.

[kaiser]

I do agree with Kaiser that their attitude has changed towards LZ over the years .I would just prefer an article about one particular aspect about Zeppelin (like a making of an album, TSRTS movie, or something different) instead of the typical retrospective of the bands career. That would be very cool to read in RS. I still think they have their particular faves (Beatles, Stones, U2, Dylan, and Bruce) that get constant coverage, while many other rock bands of the 60's and 70's are basically ignored.

That's why I read Mojo if I'm interested in something that's strictly about music because you won't find it in Rolling Stone. For example, Mojo had Zeppelin on the cover 10 years ago that had a great article strictly focused on the making of "Led Zeppelin III" & why it was such an important album in their career & how that album eventually led to the seeds of "Stairway To Heaven". What other magazine would tackle "Led Zeppelin III", the least appreciated of their early albums? I can't think of any that's not a Zeppelin fanzine. Their's a great article on Dylan in the last issue of Mojo that explores his "Self Portrait" & "New Morning" albums, which the former being his most hated & the latter his so-called return to form. Rolling Stone, no matter how much they worship Dylan, would never write that article simply because they're going to concentrate on the pop culture aspects of Dylan & not just the albums his die hard fans squabble about. Mojo always has some interesting article to read in every magazine even if I'm not a particular fan of the band or album they're focusing on. I just like the fact that they're so well researched & they've turned me onto things I probably wouldn't have given much thought to. I'm not a big Pink Floyd fan but I loved their article on the making of "Animals" for instance. Then there's bands I do love like the Damned & Mojo's article on their album "Machine Gun Etiquette" was fantastic because you wouldn't see that anywhere else.

[ally]

Also, as I said earlier, Rolling Stone is a pop culture magazine that centers around music and not a music magazine. Literally half of every issue is dedicated to politics, which is what I hate about the magazine because they still think it's the 60's, that every conflict is Vietnam, that everyone who is middle of the road to conservative is Nixon, that every political scandal involving a Republican is Watergate, & that every politician who's a Democrat who came of age in the 60's/70's is to be viewed as some sort of saviour for America. Not exactly fair & balanced coverage of the vast political landscape of America, but what does one expect from a magazine that's run & owned by some multi millionaire hippies which in itself used to be a contradiction. Then there's the rest of the magazine which focuses on what's going on in TV & movie reviews. There's a sports column in there now for goodness sakes! This is hardly a music magazine, that's why I compared it to People magazine.

Mojo is a music magazine because that is all it's devoted to. Whether it's the Beatles to Zeppelin, Dylan to Bruce Sprinsteen, the Sex Pistols to the Clash, T Rex to Bowie, Public Enemy to Jay Z, Oasis to Blur, Johnny Cash to Willie Nelson, the Pixies to Nirvana, Ray Charles to James Brown, Radiohead to Bjork, and Devandra Bernhardt to Rufus Wainwright... it's strictly about music that leans on the rock & roll side. No political column, no sports column, no TV, movie, or book reviews that aren't music related... it's all about music. There's also at least 3 Zeppelin related articles every year for the last 10 years.

The rag was always just an extension of the local free presses that back in the day, were circulating all over North America. Not that it really matters but the best way I can describe what the rag has become is that it is extremely main stream and it's been that way for many a year . BTW, whatever happened to Jerry Brown

[kaiser]

Jerry Brown... Governor Moonbeam. No coincidence that when Rolling Stone was on his d*ck that they gave his then girlfriend (Linda Rondstadt) and his friends (Jackson Browne, The Eagles ) much coverage in the 70's. I think RS has FINALLY realized it's never going to happen for Jerry Brown. Now I feel like listening to the Dead Kennedy's "California Uber Alles".

[kaiser]

I'd also like to add that the last Mojo issue with the Dylan article I enjoyed featured AC/DC on the cover & the main article was about the death of Bon Scott & the making of "Back In Black". Major articles on Dylan & AC/DC in the same magazine, ideally that's the way it should always be.

[justawoman]

"Also, as I said earlier, Rolling Stone is a pop culture magazine that centers around music and not a music magazine. Literally half of every issue is dedicated to politics, which is what I hate about the magazine because they still think it's the 60's, that every conflict is Vietnam, that everyone who is middle of the road to conservative is Nixon, that every political scandal involving a Republican is Watergate, & that every politician who's a Democrat who came of age in the 60's/70's is to be viewed as some sort of saviour for America."

Thank you Kaiser, you have stated beautifully why I dislike RS.

It really has nothing to do with them dissing LZ years and years ago. I don't put much stock into their opinions or anything they write because of the above reasons. They are obviously biased and gear themselves more to 'pop culture' then rock and roll. So them dissing LZ way back when was to be expected. They just couldn't wrap their pointy little heads around a band as unique, different and in-your-face as LZ. Also, LZ wasn't doing political statement music a'la Dylan, the Beatles, CSN&Y, Springstein, U2, which is probably another reason RS didn't think highly of LZ. Really, I didn't (and don't) need RS to 'bless' Zeppelin. By them not doing so was better IMO.