Sometimes I hate Rolling Stone

[Dave in KC]

In the story about CSNY 1974(current issue) they say the following, "Nostalgia for the recent past swept the nation. Happy Days and Grease presented a rose-colored view of the 1950's. Even the Beach Boys, reduced to a theater act a couple of years before, were suddenly playing to enormous crowds hungry to sing along to Good Vibrations once again."
Really?
1972 was in the heart of the period of their best live performances, and 1974 was even deeper. I'll let the subscription run out again.

[SMiLE Brian]

I was thinking the same thing when I read that.

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

Rolling stone is a bloated, ponytailed half dead corpse still hopelessly clinging to those bygone days when the record biz was a billion dollar racket and payola was king! The only purpose they serve is to prop up the remaining few "big label names" and to pretend that they still matter ...... All we get now (aside from the great Matt Tambi articles) are endless Jack White fellating write ups to fascinating insights into how Dave Matthews comes up with a set-list .... A big "rock n roll moment" for them is when the drummer from Weezer catches a frisbee mid-song!

Good riddance.

[Jason]

Rolling Stone has always been garbage.

[alf wiedersehen]

Yeah, I usually hate Rolling Stone.

At one time, someone gifted me a subscription, which it worked out great because the cover stories seemed to luckily coincide with whatever band I was obsessing over at the point.
However, I can't even remember the last time they had a cover story I was interested in. I'll probably just let the subscription run out and we will go our separate ways.

[runnersdialzero]

Allthetime I hate Rolling Stone.

[SurfRiderHawaii]

Yeah, but in this case the writer is correct. He refers to the release of "Endless Summer" in 1974 and the enormous wave of nostalgia  driven, sold out stadium tours that followed. I don't take it as an insult to the BBs creative output in the early 70s.

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

Yeah, but in this case the writer is correct. He refers to the release of "Endless Summer" in 1974 and the enormous wave of nostalgia  driven, sold out stadium tours that followed. I don't take it as an insult to the BBs creative output in the early 70s.

There's a picture from that tour of Neil Young watching The Beach Boys perform. He has the hugest smile on his face. it's a great picture. I looked for it, but no luck.

[SurfRiderHawaii]

Yeah, but in this case the writer is correct. He refers to the release of "Endless Summer" in 1974 and the enormous wave of nostalgia  driven, sold out stadium tours that followed. I don't take it as an insult to the BBs creative output in the early 70s.

There's a picture from that tour of Neil Young watching The Beach Boys perform. He has the hugest smile on his face. it's a great picture. I looked for it, but no luck.

Neil does love him some Beach Boys. Many don't know Neil has been surfing for eons.

[KittyKat]

I think Rolling Stone is not that offensive with that line, IMO. The Beach Boys new releases in the '70s didn't sell all that well. Their big comeback with "Endless Summer" was built on the wave of '50s and pre-Beatles' '60s nostalgia.  The Beach Boys can thank George Lucas for giving them props in "American Graffiti." There were also retro style bands like Sha Na Na and Flash Cadillac around in the early '70s and late '60s. Sha Na Na played at Woodstock, if I remember correctly, and they were apparently on the bill at places such as the Fillmores West and East. Guys like Jerry Lee Lewis, Fats Domino, and Chuck Berry were also playing those places. Due to that nostalgia for the old school rock among the hippies, it wound up being logical for the Beach Boys to play with the Grateful Dead. The comeback of Elvis as a live performer also helped build a demand for old school rock acts, though his was a slightly different audience than the crowds that went to the Fillmores.  I'm sure "Endless Summer" sold to a lot of the hippies still around in the '70s as well as their teeny bopper little brothers and sisters, and quite a few of the type of  people who were going to see Elvis in Las Vegas.  Yet only a select few, comparatively speaking, were buying the new Beach Boys music.

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

I think Rolling Stone is not that offensive with that line, IMO. The Beach Boys new releases in the '70s didn't sell all that well. Their big comeback with "Endless Summer" was built on the wave of '50s and pre-Beatles' '60s nostalgia.  The Beach Boys can thank George Lucas for giving them props in "American Graffiti." There were also retro style bands like Sha Na Na and Flash Cadillac around in the early '70s and late '60s. Sha Na Na played at Woodstock, if I remember correctly, and they were apparently on the bill at places such as the Fillmores West and East. Guys like Jerry Lee Lewis, Fats Domino, and Chuck Berry were also playing those places. Due to that nostalgia for the old school rock among the hippies, it wound up being logical for the Beach Boys to play with the Grateful Dead. The comeback of Elvis as a live performer also helped build a demand for old school rock acts, though his was a slightly different audience than the crowds that went to the Fillmores.  I'm sure "Endless Summer" sold to a lot of the hippies still around in the '70s as well as their teeny bopper little brothers and sisters, and quite a few of the type of  people who were going to see Elvis in Las Vegas.  Yet only a select few, comparatively speaking, were buying the new Beach Boys music.

All good points! It's just fun to bash RS for any reason

[Mujan, 8@$+@Rc| of a Blue Wizard]

Rolling Stone has always been garbage.

Absolutely this. Look up their unfairly negative reviews of classic albums then hilarious back-tracking when time proves them wrong. Look up their white-washing of RnR history claiming Elvis invented everything. Look up their embarrassing Top 500 albums list that gives the Beatles something like 6 of the top 10 spots, essentially because thdyre the Beatles.

Rolling Stone is, has been and always will be fit for toilet paper and nothing else.

[Mikie]

That's B.S.

Rolling Stone may not be what it use to be, but generally calling it garbage is ridiculous. They did some great pieces over the years on the Beatles and Stones and The Who and Creedence and Led Zep and whoever else various bands, and I enjoyed reading them very much. I disagreed with some of what Jann Weiner said in articles/interviews, and before many of the good writers left in a mass exodus, it was very good. Then it got to be too commercial. The two-parter in 1971 about The Boys and the one in 1976 about Brian and The Boys were great and so was photographer Annie Leibovitz. So many good, informative issues. I subscribed for awhile in the 70's until around the early to mid-80's and looked forward to a new one every time. But now I don't even bother pick it up off the rack at the grocery store to look at it.

[Mikie]

P.S. Dave in KC, all you have to do is what I do. Send the writer an e-mail and tell him he's full of sh*t and back up your comments with the facts, that's all.

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

The Beach Boys basically WERE a theater act in the early 70s. Jon Stebbins's excellent concert book bears that out. They were well received overseas, but stateside the then-current material didn't always go over that well. What the article neglects to mention is the fact that began to change in 1973, before ES, and  RS themselves named them the best live band in 1974.

[Mujan, 8@$+@Rc| of a Blue Wizard]

That's B.S.

Rolling Stone may not be what it use to be, but generally calling it garbage is ridiculous. They did some great pieces over the years on the Beatles and Stones and The Who and Creedence and Led Zep and whoever else various bands, and I enjoyed reading them very much. I disagreed with some of what Jann Weiner said in articles/interviews, and before many of the good writers left in a mass exodus, it was very good. Then it got to be too commercial. The two-parter in 1971 about The Boys and the one in 1976 about Brian and The Boys were great and so was photographer Annie Leibovitz. So many good, informative issues. I subscribed for awhile in the 70's until around the early to mid-80's and looked forward to a new one every time. But now I don't even bother pick it up off the rack at the grocery store to look at it.

Well, you seem to know more about it then me so I'll defer to your judgement on this one, I suppose. Personally, the only worthwhile thing I've read from them is the article that was published in the aftermath of Altamont.

[Aum Bop Diddit]

That's B.S.

Rolling Stone may not be what it use to be, but generally calling it garbage is ridiculous. They did some great pieces over the years on the Beatles and Stones and The Who and Creedence and Led Zep and whoever else various bands, and I enjoyed reading them very much. I disagreed with some of what Jann Weiner said in articles/interviews, and before many of the good writers left in a mass exodus, it was very good. Then it got to be too commercial. The two-parter in 1971 about The Boys and the one in 1976 about Brian and The Boys were great and so was photographer Annie Leibovitz. So many good, informative issues. I subscribed for awhile in the 70's until around the early to mid-80's and looked forward to a new one every time. But now I don't even bother pick it up off the rack at the grocery store to look at it.

Well, you seem to know more about it then me so I'll defer to your judgement on this one, I suppose. Personally, the only worthwhile thing I've read from them is the article that was published in the aftermath of Altamont.

Mikie's right.  Although Wiener and RS had  a lot to do with the BBs low hipness cred in the late 60s, the major articles on the group in the 70s were enormous in their revival, and there was a ton of focus on Pet Sounds, Smile, Surf's Up, Holland, Love You etc.  Also the magazine was very important at the time in the political realm -- and they essentially gave us Hunter S. Thompson.

I'm not denying the douche quotient, but as much as we like to paint with broad strokes, saying RS always sucked just isn't the case.

[Mikie]

That's B.S.

Rolling Stone may not be what it use to be, but generally calling it garbage is ridiculous. They did some great pieces over the years on the Beatles and Stones and The Who and Creedence and Led Zep and whoever else various bands, and I enjoyed reading them very much. I disagreed with some of what Jann Weiner said in articles/interviews, and before many of the good writers left in a mass exodus, it was very good. Then it got to be too commercial. The two-parter in 1971 about The Boys and the one in 1976 about Brian and The Boys were great and so was photographer Annie Leibovitz. So many good, informative issues. I subscribed for awhile in the 70's until around the early to mid-80's and looked forward to a new one every time. But now I don't even bother pick it up off the rack at the grocery store to look at it.

Well, you seem to know more about it then me so I'll defer to your judgement on this one, I suppose. Personally, the only worthwhile thing I've read from them is the article that was published in the aftermath of Altamont.

Mikie's right.  Although Wiener and RS had  a lot to do with the BBs low hipness cred in the late 60s, the major articles on the group in the 70s were enormous in their revival, and there was a ton of focus on Pet Sounds, Smile, Surf's Up, Holland, Love You etc.  Also the magazine was very important at the time in the political realm -- and they essentially gave us Hunter S. Thompson.

I'm not denying the douche quotient, but as much as we like to paint with broad strokes, saying RS always sucked just isn't the case.

Forgot about Hunter S. Thompson, Aum.  Excellent author and journalist in the 60's and 70's. Really enjoyed his writings in RS and his book about the Hell's Angels. Always wrote in the first person and his stories were both humorous and bizarre.

[Mujan, 8@$+@Rc| of a Blue Wizard]

That's B.S.

Rolling Stone may not be what it use to be, but generally calling it garbage is ridiculous. They did some great pieces over the years on the Beatles and Stones and The Who and Creedence and Led Zep and whoever else various bands, and I enjoyed reading them very much. I disagreed with some of what Jann Weiner said in articles/interviews, and before many of the good writers left in a mass exodus, it was very good. Then it got to be too commercial. The two-parter in 1971 about The Boys and the one in 1976 about Brian and The Boys were great and so was photographer Annie Leibovitz. So many good, informative issues. I subscribed for awhile in the 70's until around the early to mid-80's and looked forward to a new one every time. But now I don't even bother pick it up off the rack at the grocery store to look at it.

Well, you seem to know more about it then me so I'll defer to your judgement on this one, I suppose. Personally, the only worthwhile thing I've read from them is the article that was published in the aftermath of Altamont.

Mikie's right.  Although Wiener and RS had  a lot to do with the BBs low hipness cred in the late 60s, the major articles on the group in the 70s were enormous in their revival, and there was a ton of focus on Pet Sounds, Smile, Surf's Up, Holland, Love You etc.  Also the magazine was very important at the time in the political realm -- and they essentially gave us Hunter S. Thompson.

I'm not denying the douche quotient, but as much as we like to paint with broad strokes, saying RS always sucked just isn't the case.

Forgot about Hunter S. Thompson, Aum.  Excellent author and journalist in the 60's and 70's. Really enjoyed his writings in RS and his book about the Hell's Angels. Always wrote in the first person and his stories were both humorous and bizarre.

I loved the movie and novel of Fear and Loathing. I confess I haven't read anything else by him yet.

[Mujan, 8@$+@Rc| of a Blue Wizard]

That's B.S.

Rolling Stone may not be what it use to be, but generally calling it garbage is ridiculous. They did some great pieces over the years on the Beatles and Stones and The Who and Creedence and Led Zep and whoever else various bands, and I enjoyed reading them very much. I disagreed with some of what Jann Weiner said in articles/interviews, and before many of the good writers left in a mass exodus, it was very good. Then it got to be too commercial. The two-parter in 1971 about The Boys and the one in 1976 about Brian and The Boys were great and so was photographer Annie Leibovitz. So many good, informative issues. I subscribed for awhile in the 70's until around the early to mid-80's and looked forward to a new one every time. But now I don't even bother pick it up off the rack at the grocery store to look at it.

Well, you seem to know more about it then me so I'll defer to your judgement on this one, I suppose. Personally, the only worthwhile thing I've read from them is the article that was published in the aftermath of Altamont.

Mikie's right.  Although Wiener and RS had  a lot to do with the BBs low hipness cred in the late 60s, the major articles on the group in the 70s were enormous in their revival, and there was a ton of focus on Pet Sounds, Smile, Surf's Up, Holland, Love You etc.  Also the magazine was very important at the time in the political realm -- and they essentially gave us Hunter S. Thompson.

I'm not denying the douche quotient, but as much as we like to paint with broad strokes, saying RS always sucked just isn't the case.

I'll confess, I was thinking primarily of their ratings and unfair dismissals of certain bands and/or LPs that were contemporaries of the big acts like, say, the Beach Boys and Beatles.

Even in the present, I feel they simplify history by over-emphasizing the well known. But you and Mikie have a point, I'm overlooking the years in between my personal "zones of interests" and ignoring the years in between (the 70s apparently) as well as the impact outside the pages of the actual magazine.

[Dave in KC]

P.S. Dave in KC, all you have to do is what I do. Send the writer an e-mail and tell him he's full of sh*t and back up your comments with the facts, that's all.

I've long given up defending/standing up/ making a case for the Beach Boys. I ain't writin' no letters to the editor. Where's their representative when he's needed. If this is OK with all the camps then so be it. It's probably too late anyway.  You had to be there, as I was, to dig it.

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

The Beach Boys basically WERE a theater act in the early 70s. Jon Stebbins's excellent concert book bears that out. They were well received overseas, but stateside the then-current material didn't always go over that well. What the article neglects to mention is the fact that began to change in 1973, before ES, and  RS themselves named them the best live band in 1974.

In fact, wasn't that 74 tour something of a back-step for them, as far as them opening for someone else when they were perfectly capable of headlining high end gigs?

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

Further proof:

http://m.rollingstone.com/music/news/weekend-rock-question-whats-the-best-phish-song-20140627

[Billf]

That's crazy. The article is spot-on. The truth is that the group's albums sputtered commercially and its concerts played to increasingly more selective audiences in more and more intimate venues and less gate receipts. Capitol, from which the Boys fled to the potentially greener pastures of WB, found gold in the moldy oldies of the 60s, and the group began living in the past, on a gradual basis. First, it pulled out a medley of the old stuff as an encore of the less successful live new material, to let its hardy fans leave on a high note. Seeing how well that played, it gradually took over, and the shows became celebrations of the past, a healthy antidote to the more cerebral and often progressive fare of the day. In a word, they captured fun and made a lot of money in the process, which they liked. RS was correct.

[Robbie Mac]

Rolling Stone has always been garbage.

No. Just no.