New topic
Printable| Author | Message |
|
Do you realize that Rollingstone gave Musicology the same rating that they gave 1999? and Evil White Male will still argue 'til his dying day that Prince has gone downhill? Now I don't need a magazine for validation , like Nikki I need it for other things, but wouldn't all the glowing reviews at least make the even the most skeptical, cynical Prince "fan" wonder what was going on? "New Power slide...." |
- E-mail - orgNote -  Report post to moderator |
unfortunately, rolling stone does not hold the critical relevance it did back then. honestly, it is no better than if teen beat or 16 magazine gave it a good review. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
SassierBritches said: unfortunately, rolling stone does not hold the critical relevance it did back then. honestly, it is no better than if teen beat or 16 magazine gave it a good review.
Yeah, I have to agree. The final straw for me before I cancelled the subscription was a ***** review for Mick Jaggers last solo album. 
I bought it and it sucked! I still think Musicology is a good album though. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
|
SassierBritches said: unfortunately, rolling stone does not hold the critical relevance it did back then. honestly, it is no better than if teen beat or 16 magazine gave it a good review.
Right. I agree. So what publication does hold enough critical relavance to make someone reconsider their opinion and say "Wow, maybe I was wrong. Maybe I am being hypercritical of everything" ? If "Purple Rain" was released today many people at this site would shit on it. What's the deal with the negativity? "New Power slide...." |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Just today they sent me a free preview issue in the mail, I didn't know they did such a thing. I haven't had a subscription for what seems like about a decade now. The ironic thing is, it's the issue with the Anthony DeCurtis review of Musicology, AND the March 29th review of the Staples Center gig. This post not for the wimp contingent. All whiny wusses avert your eyes. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
What's the deal with the negativity?[/quote]
Oh no. Don't go down this road. They just said RS sucks now and it does. By the way they gave 1999 ****1/2 stars. Try this link: http://princetext.tripod....99.html#rs | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
skywalker said: SassierBritches said: unfortunately, rolling stone does not hold the critical relevance it did back then. honestly, it is no better than if teen beat or 16 magazine gave it a good review.
Right. I agree. So what publication does hold enough critical relavance to make someone reconsider their opinion and say "Wow, maybe I was wrong. Maybe I am being hypercritical of everything" ? If "Purple Rain" was released today many people at this site would shit on it. What's the deal with the negativity? no negativity. i just think rolling stone is a shit magazine. i'd love to see him in paper or face. there are others out there too. they don't necessarily have the commercial name of 'rolling stone' but they are well respected amongst serious music lovers. hell, even entertainment weekly is more credible at this point than rolling stone. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |