I have had a real set against Rolling Stone magazine for a long time now. Nothing (well a little) to do with the fact that I used to regularly write for the Australian version. I just find it a ridiculously conservative, retrograde organ and I have never found it a pleasure to read, not really. It bugs me that it has often been considered a journal of record and most specifically, right now, it is burning me up that wikipedia is so beholden to noting when records make lists of Rolling Stone's hundred whatever albums (same with AllMusic and that Erlewine who cannot possibly have written all that stuff ascribed to him... or if he did, how the hell did he find time in a life to listen to so much?!). The fact (yes fact) is that RS best-of lists are utterly revisionist, at least, they revise the actual magazine's response to things at the time of release/relevance. RS has often not had the courage of its convictions, or rather, it has had no convictions: it's stuck being a conga line of one suckhole lock step behind the music industry. I remember, and this is a silly example because I don't know what RS ultimately did or has since said about this record, that I reviewed Mercury Rev's Deserters Songs for (Australian) RS and gave it 5 stars, and they wouldn't let me, apparently this was tainting the brand or something (words to the effect of, we only give a couple of records a year that kind of rating). I don't know why I'm telling that story because it doesn't mean much unless we know more about the way RS subsequently has dealt with that album but I do know (from just looking it up on wikipedia to see what year it came out) that it was the NME's album of the year that year. Aust RS people didn't have a clue what it was. I certainly hadn't heard of Mercury Rev before, at least I don't think I had. But I think I'm right that it was/is a fabulous record and that it's a great example of an RS-friendly record... anyway. Who cares, no-one, it just gets my goat.
When the Australian version of the magazine finally gave up and went online only, a few years ago, I was on social media not crowing exactly but throwing a little shade on people who were bemoaning its loss and the response (from music journalist types, obviously) was, well, it was a good earner for some. But that's not the point. If you want to write shit for a shit magazine, you've already given up your dream of being a quality writer for a living. I was always a hack for $$ in the magazine industry, not proud of it, but proud of not being proud of it.
