Rolling Stone recently reports that the top 25 songs of the year have zero rock and roll songs. They blame lack of radio, no good albums, bands. Bands like Linken Park and others are tanking this year. They do report that 2011 may be a comeback for rock music.

The real sad part is that country music is blazing. The Oakies are winning.

There's kind of a theory that hard rock only thrives when there is a Republican in the white house. Someone to rebel against.

2freaky4church1 said:

Rolling Stone recently reports that the top 25 songs of the year have zero rock and roll songs. They blame lack of radio, no good albums, bands. Bands like Linken Park and others are tanking this year. They do report that 2011 may be a comeback for rock music.

Out of the scores of rock bands that released music in 2010 they couldn't find ONE SONG that was at least as good as the 25 they picked? Including a rock album that won Album of the Year at the Grammys?

I'd expect more from music journalists.

Rolling Stone ain't even a rock magazine anymore so fuck them.

Timmy84 said:

Rolling Stone ain't even a rock magazine anymore so fuck them.

Its hilarious though because they hand out five stars to every band like Linkin Park and Arcade Fire etc....so they now blame them for the shit rock thats out there??? stop giving it five stars then, i mean i can name plenty of the top of my head but they are by artists that rolling stone would call old and over in their reviews...so like U said Fuck em.

lastdecember said:

Timmy84 said:

Rolling Stone ain't even a rock magazine anymore so fuck them.

Its hilarious though because they hand out five stars to every band like Linkin Park and Arcade Fire etc....so they now blame them for the shit rock thats out there??? stop giving it five stars then, i mean i can name plenty of the top of my head but they are by artists that rolling stone would call old and over in their reviews...so like U said Fuck em.

Always sucking dick then get mad when they call themselves reviewing the music scene. They ain't nothing but fucking posers.

Timmy84 said:

lastdecember said:

Its hilarious though because they hand out five stars to every band like Linkin Park and Arcade Fire etc....so they now blame them for the shit rock thats out there??? stop giving it five stars then, i mean i can name plenty of the top of my head but they are by artists that rolling stone would call old and over in their reviews...so like U said Fuck em.

Always sucking dick then get mad when they call themselves reviewing the music scene. They ain't nothing but fucking posers.

And they should not talk about "rock" when they put Justin Beiber, Kesha, and Zac Efron on the cover of your so-called "MUSIC" magazine.

lastdecember said:

Timmy84 said:

Always sucking dick then get mad when they call themselves reviewing the music scene. They ain't nothing but fucking posers.

And they should not talk about "rock" when they put Justin Beiber, Kesha, and Zac Efron on the cover of your so-called "MUSIC" magazine.

Hypocritical assholes.

Timmy said these things come in cycles.

TD3 said:

Timmy said these things come in cycles.

Not in the way Phony Stone says it.

Timmy84 said:

lastdecember said:

And they should not talk about "rock" when they put Justin Beiber, Kesha, and Zac Efron on the cover of your so-called "MUSIC" magazine.

Hypocritical assholes.

They are POP stars/media stars, save them for Enterntainment Weekly or something like that, but Rolling stone wants to make money and "be down" so who are they gonna give a cover to? REM for their new masterpiece? NO they'll give it to whoever is doing something media wise that is attracting attention, not being a music magazine that should be Hipping people to new stuff.

lastdecember said:

Timmy84 said:

Hypocritical assholes.

They are POP stars/media stars, save them for Enterntainment Weekly or something like that, but Rolling stone wants to make money and "be down" so who are they gonna give a cover to? REM for their new masterpiece? NO they'll give it to whoever is doing something media wise that is attracting attention, not being a music magazine that should be Hipping people to new stuff.

Yeah Phony Stone hasn't been about the music in 30 years.

Timmy84 said:

Rolling Stone ain't even a rock magazine anymore so fuck them.

TRUE! They are getting too the point where they are no longer much different from MTV.

I have a subscription and after receiving the most recent issue with Justin Bieber on the cover I'm pretty certain that I'm not going to bother renewing my subscription. That's just lame and they do it all the time. There are lots of great artist out there that they could be covering but they are more interested in selling magazines. From a business standpoint, that totally makes sense, but you end up losing credibility with many music fans in the process.

Timmy84 said:

lastdecember said:

They are POP stars/media stars, save them for Enterntainment Weekly or something like that, but Rolling stone wants to make money and "be down" so who are they gonna give a cover to? REM for their new masterpiece? NO they'll give it to whoever is doing something media wise that is attracting attention, not being a music magazine that should be Hipping people to new stuff.

Yeah Phony Stone hasn't been about the music in 30 years.

Yeah i mean even if its some hot chick on the cover like Vanessa Hudgens or Britney, Beyonce,Katy Perry,Rihanna, etc...Im still like really??? I mean if i really want them in little clothing there are magazines like Maxim and King that showcase that all the time.

lastdecember said:

Timmy84 said:

Yeah Phony Stone hasn't been about the music in 30 years.

Yeah i mean even if its some hot chick on the cover like Vanessa Hudgens or Britney, Beyonce,Katy Perry,Rihanna, etc...Im still like really??? I mean if i really want them in little clothing there are magazines like Maxim and King that showcase that all the time.

They should just change the name of the magazine to Rolling Tits.

Timmy84 said:

lastdecember said:

Yeah i mean even if its some hot chick on the cover like Vanessa Hudgens or Britney, Beyonce,Katy Perry,Rihanna, etc...Im still like really??? I mean if i really want them in little clothing there are magazines like Maxim and King that showcase that all the time.

They should just change the name of the magazine to Rolling Tits.

Oh, come on now less get with the times, this isn't the 60's or the 80's for that matter. I was a reader of R.S. from it's inception to the mid 90's; I always knew R.S. would one day change as the music scene and it's demographics change. Would I love to read the great interviews and lots more substantive investigative reporting as they once did? Yes, but those ways don't fit this generation thinking per say. So know now it's more T&A and washboard abs . . . . you guys are kinda snobbish.

=============

[Edited 2/28/11 16:14pm]

TD3 said:

Timmy84 said:

They should just change the name of the magazine to Rolling Tits.

Oh, come on now less get with the times, these isn't the 60's or the 80's for that matter. I was reader of R.S. from it's inception to the mid 90's; I always knew R.S. would one day change as the music scene and it's demographics change. Would I love to read the great interviews and lots more substantive investigative reporting as they once did? Yes, but those ways don't fit this generation thinking per say. So know it's more T&A and washboard abs . . . . you guys are kinda snobbish.

My opinion still stands on Rolling Stone. The music is a different story.

Great rock from 2010:

chile i can't believe they put lil wayne on the cover

[Edited 2/28/11 16:03pm]

Moonbeam said:

Great rock from 2010:

I don't necessarily agree with your pics but you are the first one to actually offer some songs that you think deserve to be among the top 25 of the year. Everyone else is just bitching about how shitty Rolling Stone is. I think they have a point and the state of rock music is appalling.

lastdecember said:

Timmy84 said:

Hypocritical assholes.

They are POP stars/media stars, save them for Enterntainment Weekly or something like that, but Rolling stone wants to make money and "be down" so who are they gonna give a cover to? REM for their new masterpiece? NO they'll give it to whoever is doing something media wise that is attracting attention, not being a music magazine that should be Hipping people to new stuff.

Every album since Reveal has been hailed as a classic and a return to form but in reality they have all stunk. I ain't falling for it anymore.

TD3 said:

Timmy84 said:

They should just change the name of the magazine to Rolling Tits.

Oh, come on now less get with the times, these isn't the 60's or the 80's for that matter. I was a reader of R.S. from it's inception to the mid 90's; I always knew R.S. would one day change as the music scene and it's demographics change. Would I love to read the great interviews and lots more substantive investigative reporting as they once did? Yes, but those ways don't fit this generation thinking per say. So know now it's more T&A and washboard abs . . . . you guys are kinda snobbish.

=============

[Edited 2/28/11 16:07pm]

its not snobbish, the magazine sucks and hasnt been relevant in a long time.

rialb said:

lastdecember said:

They are POP stars/media stars, save them for Enterntainment Weekly or something like that, but Rolling stone wants to make money and "be down" so who are they gonna give a cover to? REM for their new masterpiece? NO they'll give it to whoever is doing something media wise that is attracting attention, not being a music magazine that should be Hipping people to new stuff.

Every album since Reveal has been hailed as a classic and a return to form but in reality they have all stunk. I ain't falling for it anymore.

really everyone blasted "Around the Sun" except for me, and "Accelerate" was a great record, and i heard the new one and its a combination of rock, and quirky type songs from the early days of the band, REM hasnt really had a bad album, the only one that i cant really get with is "UP" outside of that great work

lastdecember said:

TD3 said:

Oh, come on now less get with the times, these isn't the 60's or the 80's for that matter. I was a reader of R.S. from it's inception to the mid 90's; I always knew R.S. would one day change as the music scene and it's demographics change. Would I love to read the great interviews and lots more substantive investigative reporting as they once did? Yes, but those ways don't fit this generation thinking per say. So know now it's more T&A and washboard abs . . . . you guys are kinda snobbish.

=============

[Edited 2/28/11 16:07pm]

its not snobbish, the magazine sucks and hasnt been relevant in a long time.

I don't even associate RS with music. Why should it?

lastdecember said:

rialb said:

Every album since Reveal has been hailed as a classic and a return to form but in reality they have all stunk. I ain't falling for it anymore.

really everyone blasted "Around the Sun" except for me, and "Accelerate" was a great record, and i heard the new one and its a combination of rock, and quirky type songs from the early days of the band, REM hasnt really had a bad album, the only one that i cant really get with is "UP" outside of that great work

Eh, I guess like a lot of folks I love everything from Murmur-New Adventures In Hi-Fi but after that they really tailed off. I bought Up and Reveal mostly out of loyalty but after that I decided to listen before I buy and for me they just totally lost the magic that they once had. I'll give the new album a listen but I'm not expecting much out of it.

Timmy84 said:

lastdecember said:

its not snobbish, the magazine sucks and hasnt been relevant in a long time.

I don't even associate RS with music. Why should it?

Yeah, OK. It like saying I don't assocaite The New York Times with news.

I see.

note. i think timmy knows i'm razzing him for another post in another thread.

Give Rolling Stone credit for Matt Taibbi's articles. Those should be required reading for every American.

But back on topic, what are some great rock songs from the year 2010 that you guys think are deserving of attention? Honestly I've barely listened to any new music from the last year but I quite like this song:

Dig the Grant Morrison cameo.

TD3 said:

Timmy84 said:

I don't even associate RS with music. Why should it?

Yeah, OK. It like saying I don't assocaite The New York Times with news.

I see.

note. i think timmy knows i'm razzing him for another post in another thread.

You like to play pin the tail on Timmy anyways.

BTW, the New York Times ain't been "news" in a while.

Yeah I went there.

WHAT!

rialb said:

lastdecember said:

really everyone blasted "Around the Sun" except for me, and "Accelerate" was a great record, and i heard the new one and its a combination of rock, and quirky type songs from the early days of the band, REM hasnt really had a bad album, the only one that i cant really get with is "UP" outside of that great work

Eh, I guess like a lot of folks I love everything from Murmur-New Adventures In Hi-Fi but after that they really tailed off. I bought Up and Reveal mostly out of loyalty but after that I decided to listen before I buy and for me they just totally lost the magic that they once had. I'll give the new album a listen but I'm not expecting much out of it.

To be honest though in the RS review they tout "reveal" as their last classic, which i disagree with, i liked Reveal but i think "around the sun" blew it away, though many hated that record, even "Accelerate" brought back the balls that "monster" had, to me "Reveal" was like a part 2 of "Up" and had some songs that i could never get into, that album starts off great and then hits a wall