Can someone explain the Rush - RSM relationship?

[Checkster2112]

I've been a fan of Rush for a long time (as long as a 21 year old can be a fan I guess), and I am continually hearing about Rolling Stone Magazine's reputation of ignoring Rush's music. Can someone please explain to me how over the approximately 40 years that this band has been around, RS continues to treat Rush this way? I am just personally unaware of the history behind this. I have seen all of the lists that RS have issued that leave Rush off of the greatest band, song, album, musician, etc lists, but have never understood it. RS is a big production, how is it possible that such unanimous positions by their writers occur for such a long period of time?

[-D-RocK-]

Here's my theory, and it's probably way off, but none the less........

 

 

Rolling Stone is a magazine written by Americans about other Americans for Americans.

 

 

 

 

[ReRushed]

Rock critics are a pretentious clique that usually despises "progressive" bands like Rush, so they're marginalized within Rock criticism. Watch the documentary, Billy Corgan explains it pretty well.

 

[Checkster2112]

I've heard the doc discusses this, I'll have to wait until it ships to see it.

 

Seriously though, Rolling Stone baffles me.

[troutman]

Because it's a piece of sh** magazine that's why!

[spok]

rock critics write for other rock critics and could care less what a real music fan likes.

[Choose/the/light]

QUOTE (-D-RocK- @ Jun 28 2010, 03:26 PM)

Here's my theory, and it's probably way off, but none the less........ Rolling Stone is a magazine written by Americans about other Americans for Americans.

not really, all their favorites are the Beatles and Bob Dylan.

 

PS Rolling Stone Sucks.

 

horrible biased magazine

[ReRushed]

QUOTE (Choose/the/light @ Jun 28 2010, 08:22 PM)

QUOTE (-D-RocK- @ Jun 28 2010, 03:26 PM) Here's my theory, and it's probably way off, but none the less........ Rolling Stone is a magazine written by Americans about other Americans for Americans. not really, all their favorites are the Beatles and Bob Dylan.   PS Rolling Stone Sucks.   horrible biased magazine Bob Dylan is an American!   My problem is their sucking up to Bruce Springsteen. I like Springsteen, a lot, but he's not the artist Rolling Stone makes him out to be.

[Some Half-Forgotten Stranger]

QUOTE (ReRushed @ Jun 28 2010, 07:26 PM)

QUOTE (Choose/the/light @ Jun 28 2010, 08:22 PM) QUOTE (-D-RocK- @ Jun 28 2010, 03:26 PM) Here's my theory, and it's probably way off, but none the less........ Rolling Stone is a magazine written by Americans about other Americans for Americans. not really, all their favorites are the Beatles and Bob Dylan.   PS Rolling Stone Sucks.   horrible biased magazine Bob Dylan is an American!   My problem is their sucking up to Bruce Springsteen. I like Springsteen, a lot, but he's not the artist Rolling Stone makes him out to be. You aint seen anyone get their ass kissed until you've seen how they treat Yoko Ono....You'd think she is John Lennon.

[ReRushed]

QUOTE (Some Half-Forgotten Stranger @ Jun 28 2010, 08:30 PM)

QUOTE (ReRushed @ Jun 28 2010, 07:26 PM) QUOTE (Choose/the/light @ Jun 28 2010, 08:22 PM) QUOTE (-D-RocK- @ Jun 28 2010, 03:26 PM) Here's my theory, and it's probably way off, but none the less........ Rolling Stone is a magazine written by Americans about other Americans for Americans. not really, all their favorites are the Beatles and Bob Dylan.   PS Rolling Stone Sucks.   horrible biased magazine Bob Dylan is an American!   My problem is their sucking up to Bruce Springsteen. I like Springsteen, a lot, but he's not the artist Rolling Stone makes him out to be. You aint seen anyone get their ass kissed until you've seen how they treat Yoko Ono....You'd think she is John Lennon. They "respect" Yoko Ono because they kissed John Lennon's ass. But, that's nothing compared to their delusional worship of Springsteen. They also give U2 undue praise.

[danielmclark]

Whoever said, basically, that they're anti-prog rock as a rule has it right, to my mind. I haven't picked up Rolling Stone in years, but for the years that I did keep up with it, I was astonished at their coverage of fad bands that had no past and no future. That, coupled with extensive coverage of anyone that sold billions of records - U2, Springsteen, Madonna, Jackson - and well, there's only so many pages they can ship every month.

 

But mainly, music critics in general, and especially those that end up writing for Rolling Stone, have zero interest in Progressive.

 

Unless it's Pink Floyd... and then, only when they trot out the "Dark Side of the Moon has been on the charts for a gazillion weeks!!!!! OMFG!!!!11" articles.

[GeddysMullet]

A few words on this subject:

 

http://www.youtube.com/RushBeyondTheLighte...u/1/LVFgqfJg7FE

[CorinthianCaricature]

QUOTE (GeddysMullet @ Jun 28 2010, 08:46 PM)

A few words on this subject: http://www.youtube.com/RushBeyondTheLighte...u/1/LVFgqfJg7FE

 

That video sums it up perfectly! Even though I do really like Elvis Costello & David Bowie I get what he is saying and its completely accurate

[peoplecanteatmachinefood]

The rock critics raved about Green Day's album American Idiot when it came out. You really think these people have some sense in them?

[Mara]

RSM is all about bands and music that Jann Wenner likes. That's my theory, anyway.

[RushFanForever]

Before Rush was featured in the July 2008 Rolling Stone story 'Rush Never Sleeps' and various Q&A's with Geddy Lee with the magazine from 1996 and onward, there was a story on the band from the May 28, 1981 issue with Susan Sarandon on the cover titled 'Rush: Power From the People' by David Fricke here.

 

Rolling Stone had a link to the story up on their website, but no longer exists when the site was revamped this year.

 

 

[Drumnut]

Rolling Stone is a rag, it's not worth the paper it's printed on.

[GeddyRulz]

Rock critics hate Progressive Rock and generally hate Metal, too. Rush were both, so they received particular scorn.

 

Rolling Stone and other rock critics think they can dictate what people listen to, and with Rush they discovered they can't entirely do that. The people dictate what's popular, not the critics, and Rush are a constant unpleasant reminder to RS that they failed to steer the public's tastes to their way of thinking.

 

Jann Werner went on record several years ago, saying that Rush would NEVER be in the RRHOF if he had anything to say about it. (Which he does, unfortunately.) I still think they'll get in. As Billy Corgan and Matt Stone said in the documentary, the critics and the mainstream will eventually give them their due; whether they "like" Rush or not, they have to respect Rush for their body of work, their longevity, and their sustained success. I hate the Stones, but I respect their accomplishments and their legacy.

 

The July 2008 feature article on Rush in Rolling Stone was very good, and as fair to the band as we could've expected... but is only the second Rush article in RS over a 40 year span. At least it looks like they're coming around, and Rush have seen a lot of mainstream exposure over the past couple years.

[SlyJeff]

I don't read RS- but I never really expect much exposure for Rush in any kind of publication that attempts to be "cool". Because Rush really isn't cool.

 

They sing about air cars, futuristic revolutions, robots, warring gods, and religious skepticism. They write songs that require effort to truly appreciate and sometimes more than 5 minutes to listen to, much less digest.

 

The last song Rush did that the general public would likely agree is "cool" is Working Man. It's a great song that a lot of people can identify with without much thought.

 

Of course, "cool" stopped mattering after high school to everyone except that group that shows up to your ten year reunion still clinging to an irrelevant image. RS is like that group of people- I just kind of shake my head and move on with my life. Better to have never been cool than to be stuck living in high school all your life.

 

 

[Sathington WillOUghby]

Rock, at its core, is and will always will be a simple three chord progression. Anyone who listens to it can easily get into it and dream of being able to do it themselves. Most who try to learn/play simple rock are able to do so. A small percentage of people however are unable to even accomplish this minimalistic musical journey. If they are hard working persons, they can be roadies (although the best roadies can play as well.) If, however, sweat makes them uncomfortable, the last line of involvement is to critique the music (those who can't do...critique.)

 

While rock is simple music at its core, it allows for tremendous exploration beyond its base progressions. Some of these explorations may be small steps while others may be more extensive. The progressive rock genre, by its very nature, fits into the more extensive exploration category.

 

This brings us back to the typical rock critic. The fact that he/she is a "want to be" rock and roller, but is incapable even accomplishing the basics causes those who can go far beyond the basics to come across, to them, as a slap in the face. "The prog rockers are just to lofty, they grab up all the notes." So their retribution is to belittle that which they are forever incapable accomplishing and/or understanding. "The rockers are all kept equal, by hatchet (jobs), axe and pen."

[GeminiRising79]

QUOTE (Mara @ Jun 28 2010, 09:01 PM)

RSM is all about bands and music that Jann Wenner likes. That's my theory, anyway.

You are on the money, Mara. Ooops...what am I doing here?

 

[SpiritOfRush]

QUOTE (Mara @ Jun 28 2010, 09:01 PM)

RSM is all about bands and music that Jann Wenner likes. That's my theory, anyway.

That's exactly right and it's a known fact that Wenner hates Rush.

[Khan]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v423/KublaKhan/fart.gif Rolling Stone

[GuitarKid 1880]

QUOTE (RushNut @ Jun 29 2010, 09:48 AM)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v423/KublaKhan/fart.gif  Rolling Stone

 

Rolling Stones is just a shitty magazine in general, they suck up to some good bands and ignore or put down other good bands. Their just jealous that they don't get Rush.

[Checkster2112]

Its such a shame.

 

Oh well, who needs critics...