Motorshooter Posted April 25, 2011 Share Posted April 25, 2011 QUOTE (ioc @ Apr 24 2011, 08:09 PM) OBLIGATORY: Now that is funny!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silas Lang Posted April 25, 2011 Share Posted April 25, 2011 I've always felt since they started it that a hall of fame is the antithesis of what music is all about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strangiato Posted April 25, 2011 Share Posted April 25, 2011 The only copy of Rolling Stone that i have ever bought was the one with Megan Fox on the cover. I don't mind never buying another issue Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
briremo Posted April 25, 2011 Share Posted April 25, 2011 A friend bought me a subscription for RS last year and I could not read it. It was soooooo politically driven and focused on the latest BIG thing in music, most fo which I consider pop-garbage, not rock-n-roll. They can suck my ass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D3strukt Posted April 25, 2011 Share Posted April 25, 2011 I've been reading this thread for hte past 2 days. This guy is an asshole, but that is to be expected with the elitist-bastards at Rolling Stone Magazine. Like the band, they suck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the masked drummer Posted April 25, 2011 Share Posted April 25, 2011 QUOTE (Strangiato @ Apr 25 2011, 01:43 PM) The only copy of Rolling Stone that i have ever bought was the one with Megan Fox on the cover. I don't mind never buying another issue I must admit that your acquisition (megan fox issue) was acceptable and needs no apology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GernTheFish Posted April 25, 2011 Share Posted April 25, 2011 (edited) QUOTE (Silas Lang @ Apr 25 2011, 12:58 PM) I've always felt since they started it that a hall of fame is the antithesis of what music is all about. Good point. It's all based just on some idiots' opinion. But I think there could be a systematic way of determining who gets in to the RRHOF, maybe based on a combination or longevity, record sales, etc. Edited April 25, 2011 by GernTheFish Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rottingham13 Posted April 25, 2011 Share Posted April 25, 2011 I've been looking into Rolling Stone lately, and that magazine has lost all it's credibility over the years as it is. Instead of focusing on the music it focuses on image and what is popular now. RS doesn't give a crap about a band/artist "making it," but instead promoting them when they are popular and bashing them when they lose success. I mean, look at what they did to Michael Jackson. I agree that Rush doesn't need RS or the Hall of Fame to prove just what they have done, because we the fans know what they have done. Everything about them is unique, and no one could ever even attempt the copy their sound, technique, or progression. It just kills me that Neil Peart can be named the Greatest Living Drummer by RS magazine and they down Rush so badly. I for one think people WOULD vote for them, but they are better than just an induction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ancient Ways Posted April 25, 2011 Share Posted April 25, 2011 This is getting tired and old. RS is not what it once was and I will be surprised if it is still around in 5-1o years while people will still love rush. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
men_who_hold_high_places Posted April 25, 2011 Share Posted April 25, 2011 I hope Rush gets nominated. Then inducted. And in their acceptance speech, they all tell whoever runs the RRHOF to go screw himself. And they sign my bass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
driventotheedge Posted April 26, 2011 Share Posted April 26, 2011 RS was cutting edge and interesting when it was young (as was I)......interviews with Lennon, Morrison, etc. I bought it and read it up until the point that they reviewed a new J. Geils Band album and the reviewer gave it a poor review. It was the album "Monkey Island" and since I was a fan of the Geils Band, I ignored the review and bought it anyway. It was the first album of theirs that received a negetive review from the mag so I thought that maybe the guy just had the ass for that band. After a number of listens, I found I didn't like it any better than he did and agreed with most of what he had to say. Then the next issue came out and I was perusing it when I found an editors' statement in the album reviews section retracting the negetive review of the Geils album in the previous issue and stating that it was in fact a good record. At that point I knew the rag was nothing more than a shill for the record industry and that they had likely been pressured to retract the poor review to attempt to get better sales figures for the record. I have never read the magazine since and never will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Todem Posted April 26, 2011 Share Posted April 26, 2011 (edited) Rush themselves don't give a flying f**k about the farce known as the RRHOF. I don't give a shit either. Seriously.....who cares anymore? We all know the RRHOF is a joke. And so do most fans of great music. Edited April 26, 2011 by Todem Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jesse2112 Posted April 26, 2011 Share Posted April 26, 2011 I really dont see the appeal of Rush being in the RRHOF. They're still goin to be remembered among the music world for decades and decades Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjohnson30 Posted April 30, 2011 Share Posted April 30, 2011 Billy Corgan said it well in Beyond the Lighted Stage that if at some point you can't acknowledge their body of work and accomplishments, regardless of what you think of their music, then you're just being a douche. Who knows, maybe he was even taking a little shot at the RRHOF there. Whatever objective criteria there is out there for induction (admittedly not enough) they've met nearly all of it. No, they didn't usher in a whole new genre of music like say the Sex Pistols or Nirvana, but Album sales, longevity, influence, fan following, they've got all that and it's been enough for other acts to get in. Their status as, in the words of RS themselves, the "World's Biggest Cult Band" one can that can somehow maintain cult status while also selling millions of records and sell out large concert venues year after year uniquely sets them apart in the industry. But a few douches in suits don't like Geddy's voice and Neil's lyrics and so they don't get in. You kind of lose all credibility when you're that subjective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheWhalerfan Posted May 1, 2011 Share Posted May 1, 2011 The whole thing is a joke, and I actually find it comforting that many of my favorite bands are not in the stupid thing. Rush (fav band) is the most obvious omission, but my 2nd fav band, Heart, is also snubbed. Read that they don't like the fact Heart switched so many band members..um, excuse me? If that is an issue why is Fleetwood Mac in? Kiss. Actually I am not really a Kiss fan, but to exclude these guys is retarded. Love or hate them , their mark on rock music is undeniable...I don't think I have ever met anyone with even a passing interest in music that doesn't know who Kiss is. Tonight I learned that Toni Basil got in for "Oh Mickey, you're so fine..." I give up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Not Posted May 1, 2011 Share Posted May 1, 2011 I'm happy to hear this news. I'm glad Rush, even if just barely, remains a "cult" band today.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
micgtr71 Posted May 1, 2011 Share Posted May 1, 2011 You know, I have not read an interesting Rolling Stone article since Jerry died back in 1995. Even then, they were pandering to the teeny boppers and worried more about selling adverts than being credible. Still, any reason to boycott corporate rock and roll is fine by me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
driventotheedge Posted May 1, 2011 Share Posted May 1, 2011 (edited) QUOTE (mjohnson30 @ Apr 29 2011, 06:24 PM) Billy Corgan said it well in Beyond the Lighted Stage that if at some point you can't acknowledge their body of work and accomplishments, regardless of what you think of their music, then you're just being a douche. Who knows, maybe he was even taking a little shot at the RRHOF there. Whatever objective criteria there is out there for induction (admittedly not enough) they've met nearly all of it. No, they didn't usher in a whole new genre of music like say the Sex Pistols or Nirvana, but Album sales, longevity, influence, fan following, they've got all that and it's been enough for other acts to get in. Their status as, in the words of RS themselves, the "World's Biggest Cult Band" one can that can somehow maintain cult status while also selling millions of records and sell out large concert venues year after year uniquely sets them apart in the industry. But a few douches in suits don't like Geddy's voice and Neil's lyrics and so they don't get in. You kind of lose all credibility when you're that subjective. Nirvana did not create a whole new genre of music.....they were a nice mix of punk and classic rock with emphasis on the former (and worthy of induction IMO). The Pistols did create a new genre, sort of though the roots of punk go back to The Kinks, early Who, etc. They did so along with The Clash and The Ramones though the latter 2 had FAR more talent. Besides, creating a whole new genre of music didn't get Black Sabbath into the Hall of Shame until they'd been eligible for like 10 years or so. F**k Jann Wenner, f**k the Hall of Shame and f**k RS magazine. Edited May 1, 2011 by driventotheedge Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeddyRulz Posted May 1, 2011 Share Posted May 1, 2011 QUOTE BOYCOTT "ROLLING STONE" MAGAZINE!!! I think you're preaching to the converted. I don't know of any Rolling Stone supporters or subscribers on this board. Not one. We already HAVE boycotted Rolling Stone. And as far as getting OTHERS to boycott it: do they care about the "fiasco" enough to? Chances are, what we see as a "fiasco" is no such thing in their minds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeddyRulz Posted May 1, 2011 Share Posted May 1, 2011 QUOTE (mjohnson30 @ Apr 29 2011, 08:24 PM) Billy Corgan said it well in Beyond the Lighted Stage that if at some point you can't acknowledge their body of work and accomplishments, regardless of what you think of their music, then you're just being a douche. Who knows, maybe he was even taking a little shot at the RRHOF there. It was Matt Stone who said that, and what he called them was "dikkheads." And he most definitely WAS taking a shot at Rolling Stone and their ilk, because he named them. Between Stone's comment and Corgan's comment right before it, I think the two of them have nailed the Rush situation. Given Rush's success and longevity, at some point they have to be acknowledged. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
circumstantial tree Posted May 1, 2011 Share Posted May 1, 2011 It's really not that big a deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
laughedatbytime Posted May 1, 2011 Share Posted May 1, 2011 I used to get Rolling Stone, but then my bird died, so I had no more use for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PumpkinHead Posted May 1, 2011 Share Posted May 1, 2011 The R&R HoF without RUSH is like the MLB HoF without Pete Rose! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RushFanForever Posted May 2, 2011 Share Posted May 2, 2011 (edited) Rolling Stone magazine actually interviewed Rush a couple of times before: Rush Never Sleeps - July 2008 Rush: Power From The People - May 1981 The 1981 article/interview with David Fricke is my contribution that I emailed to John at Cygnus X-1 who then posted it. I recently emailed the critic at the Montreal Gazette who posted those comments about the band 30 years ago and included in the email a copy of the recent review from that same paper. Concert review: Rush's three-hour triumph I asked him if he saw the Rush documentary and if he's had a change of heart about the band many years later. His response was: 'thanks for writing and reminding me of a piece written 10,000 years ago. Yes, my view of the band has changed radically. They are a Canadian icon and insitution, very talented and incredibly nice guys - met them a number times. Still can't stand their music and the thought of 3 hours with them (meaning hearing the music) Wed. would make me crazy. p.s. loved the doc'. Edited May 2, 2011 by RushFanForever Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BellaCheval Posted May 3, 2011 Share Posted May 3, 2011 Yes, about the only thing RS is good for is birdcage liners, and that's only after I run out of local newspapers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now