Rolling Stone's 500 Worst Reviews
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Other music related lounges
Forum Name: General Music Discussions
Forum Description: Discuss and create polls about all types of music
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=97247
Printed Date: November 23 2024 at 13:44
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Rolling Stone's 500 Worst Reviews
Posted By: Toaster Mantis
Subject: Rolling Stone's 500 Worst Reviews
Date Posted: February 23 2014 at 04:07
|
http://rateyourmusic.com/list/schmidtt/rolling_stones_500_worst_reviews_of_all_time__work_in_progress_/" rel="nofollow - This list from RYM has probably already been posted here, but if that's the case I haven't seen it as it will have been a long time ago. Amusing and interesting reading, first because it shows how much conventional wisdom on so many legendary records has changed since the time of their release, second because it shows how many of RS' writers might have been among the first to take rock music seriously as a form of art but certainly weren't very good at it. ------------- "The past is not some static being, it is not a previous present, nor a present that has passed away; the past has its own dynamic being which is constantly renewed and renewing." - Claire Colebrook |
Replies:
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: February 23 2014 at 04:59
|
how about Rolling Stone's Worst-Written Reviews, that'd be good for a laugh |
Posted By: Man With Hat
Date Posted: February 23 2014 at 19:15
^ Admittedly that's what I thought this was going to be.  ------------- Dig me...But don't...Bury me I'm running still, I shall until, one day, I hope that I'll arrive Warning: Listening to jazz excessively can cause a laxative effect. |
Posted By: KingCrInuYasha
Date Posted: February 23 2014 at 19:58
|
I would like to see that. ------------- He looks at this world and wants it all... so he strikes, like Thunderball! |
Posted By: irrelevant
Date Posted: February 24 2014 at 00:18
------------- https://gabebuller.bandcamp.com/" rel="nofollow - New album! http://www.progarchives.com/artist.asp?id=7385" rel="nofollow - http://www.progarchives.com/artist.asp?id=7385 |
Man With Hat wrote:Posted By: Toaster Mantis
Date Posted: February 24 2014 at 03:54
Well, that's partially what it is...
I actually find it more interesting how many sacred cow albums got a lukewarm or downright negative reception upon release, I always knew that could sometimes be the case but had no idea how often that happened. Really makes you think about the processes that causes music to be seen as "dated" because apparently it happens in reverse just as often. (on a related note, I often wonder how much of music's datedness has to do with production technique) ------------- "The past is not some static being, it is not a previous present, nor a present that has passed away; the past has its own dynamic being which is constantly renewed and renewing." - Claire Colebrook |
Posted By: Chimaera
Date Posted: February 24 2014 at 08:31
|
Rolling Stone reviews suck. They are just one persons opinion. At least on here there are lots of one persons opinions so you get a broader view.
|
Posted By: BaldJean
Date Posted: February 24 2014 at 08:55
I don't believe production technique has anything to do with music sounding "dated". there are many jazz albums out there that are 60, 70 or more ears old, yet they sound hot and fresh. I don't give a heck about the production of an album. or perhaps I do, but rather the opposite way: I prefer a less than erfect production because it does not sound so sterile -------------  A shot of me as High Priestess of Gaia during our fall festival. Ceterum censeo principiis obsta |
Posted By: Toaster Mantis
Date Posted: February 24 2014 at 13:17
|
Well, there's some production technologies that are very specifically associated with particular times and places like vocoders with the disco age of the late 1970s or reverbed drums with the 1980s or "scooped" guitar sounds (all low-end/high-end with little mid-end) with the early 1990s.
------------- "The past is not some static being, it is not a previous present, nor a present that has passed away; the past has its own dynamic being which is constantly renewed and renewing." - Claire Colebrook |
Posted By: stonebeard
Date Posted: February 25 2014 at 11:10
|
I prefer to call it 3.5 Star Magazine.
------------- http://soundcloud.com/drewagler" rel="nofollow - My soundcloud. Please give feedback if you want! |