United States
Deutschland
South Africa
Schweiz (Deutsch)
Visit www.OnGuardOnline.gov for social networking safety tips for parents and youth
Copyright © 2010 Sony Music Entertainment. All Rights Reserved.
COLUMBIA and "Walking Eye" Design are registered trademarks of Sony Music Entertainment.
Send Us Feedback | Privacy Policy | Terms and Conditions
Replies for this Board Topic
RS has no idea.
This album is an 11.
--
Do the best you can and that wont go unseen
out of how many?
--
Wish me luck, I know you think I'll need it.
For all the hardest roads we have to walk alone.
I haven't seen it but RS is usually 5 stars.
I had the same questions...the only album of late with 5 stars is the Beatles reissue. RS loves the Avetts, I am surprised it's not a 4.
F Rolling Stone.
But seriously.
--
Wish me luck, I know you think I'll need it.
For all the hardest roads we have to walk alone.
sorry if this has already been posted, but i just found it...
http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/30138422/rolling_stones_2009_fall...
'F Rolling Stone' is right. Out of 5 stars this is at least a 6. Rarely do I agree with them, though I can see why the Beatles got 5. I mean, duh.
--
~Megan
"Free is not your right to choose, it's answering what's asked of you, to give the love you find until it's gone."
3.5/5 from Rolling Stone for an unconventional indie (or, that's how they would view it) album by a band that most people haven't heard of yet actually isn't so bad. Especially for a first major label effort. Considering most of Rolling Stone's "best of" lists for each year contain albums that received 4 or even 3.5 stars... That's not bad at all.
Look what I found when I googled 3.5 stars from Rolling Stone
http://www.shoutmouth.com/index.php/news/12829
I don't think 3.5 stars is bad...there are many more at 3 than at 4 and basically none at 5...it all makes me think of Adam Sandler in Spanglish yelling F U when he gets 4 stars!
Rolling Stone 3.5 = Child, please.
--
A live performance is a fleeting moment. A recording is a lasting work of art.
Rolling Stone = Child, please. It's basically a hip culture mag. But it's cool to see them get some recognition, considering most of the albums they review don't get even a 4.
--
I'm like my grandma: short, but I stand tall, playing every card that's dealt to me. Some days are aces, and some days are faces, and some days are twos and threes.
Generally, for Rolling Stone, this is how I've perceived their rating system from how they typically rate music:
2 stars: Passable (possibly deemed bad)
2.5 stars: Some redeeming qualities, but mostly passable (possibly deemed bad)
3 stars: Averageish...
3.5 stars: Good
4 stars: Great!; very much noteworthy
4.5 stars: Increeeeedible
5 stars: Godly (Pretty much everything Beatles and many classics of the music genre.)
Considering the number of really great albums that have received a 3 from Rolling Stone... I think we're doing okay. And for all we know this may be one of those albums they suddenly change their minds about in the future... or throw on their best album of the year list... Oh, Rolling Stone.
Does anyone interested in music read the Rolling Stone anymore? C'mon!
who cares what RS rated the album, just so its good ole honest avett music, then its good with me!!!
--
Sincerely yours
-Stephen-
"One foot in and one foot back,but it don't pay to live like that"
My sentiments exactly. Sometimes I like to see what ratings they gave music I've already heard, but I don't take anything they print seriously...
Rolling Stone magazine is a worthless piece of garbage. There it is.
--
I wanna live, and I want you to live happy and free
Well, I still read RS semi-regularly and have for years. I understand that we all think the record is worth a 5 on the scale, but the fact that it got a 3.5 is really not a bad thing. As Erik said there are often albums rated 3.5 which end up on the year end best of lists. I think they define 3 as good, 4 as excellent, and 5 as classic, and very few albums are rated above a 4. Anyway, I see this as a good thing so I'm gonna keep whistling At The Beach, and riding the high of the media circus that the release of TAB's major label debut has become. And it spread...
I do really like the 3.5=child please comment though...
--
"If you’re loved by someone, you’re never rejected
Decide what to be and go be it"
http://www.facebook.com/timothycmercer
http://picasaweb.google.com/TimMercer57
http://www.youtube.com/user/timdog57
http://twitter.com/timdog57
Chill out everyone. It's just one writer's opinion. It's not like all of the magazine's writers got together and came up with a slightly above average consensus. That said I would have been pissed if they got anything less than 3 stars, and I haven't even heard the album.
I try to read Rolling Stone every now and then, usually for the political articles. It's kinda hard to take them seriously as a legitimate source of music news when they have the likes of the Jonas Brothers on the cover.
--
I know that won't buy anything
But I would steal you anything
Tommy,
I'm right there with you. I read Rolling Stone for everything BUT the music stuff, unless they happen to be featuring a band I actually like.
I'm fairly positive that The Jonas Brothers have been featured on the cover twice in the last year or so, and currently there's a whole "Special Edition" RS (fatter than a usual issue) completely dedicated to them. Weak. I remember shortly after I saw their first RS cover story issue, I immediately came home and posted a thread here called "Wrong Pair of Brothers"
I'm very conflicted when it comes to Rolling Stone. If David Fricke had more involvement they'd be one awesome magazine. They interviewed him in the Wilco documentary, "I Am Trying to Break Your Heart" and he spoke so eloquently about the album, and the state of music today in general.
If he wrote all their reviews, they would probably be more accurate, because he knows how to spend time with an album and let it grow on you before passing judgement. He was a big proponent of Yankee Hotel Foxtrot by Wilco, which was #3 in that list of Most Underrated RS Reviews posted earlier.
I got in on a promotion when I was in college for a lifetime subscription to Rolling Stone and I had been reading it for several years prior to that. So I would say that I have seen every RS for the last 12 years or so. Review aside, I agree with BhamAvettFan, RS IS a worthless piece of garbage.
I severely dislike (my mama taught me not to say I hate) commercial music and publications. You can't measure Avett albums with a number of stars. The only measure of a new Avett album is against other Avett albums. I give this one 4.99 Avetts out of 5 just because it isn't pressed on Ramseur vinyl and discs.
--
"The nights only get darker before your sun will shine...leave the clock alone my brother, your enemy is time."
True. Rolling Stone is toliet paper in my book. I also strongly dislike it. Everything they think is really great, I normally think really sucks. That aside, however, there is a great deal of respect from around the music industry it seems for what they say, and people pay attention. So I'm happy that they get a good mention; I'm sure they're honored.
--
~Megan
"Free is not your right to choose, it's answering what's asked of you, to give the love you find until it's gone."
Love or hate the Rolling Stone, it is iconic in the music industry. And I'll go out on a limb and predict the Avett Brothers will grace the cover of the Rolling Stone before 2010 is over.
~spike~
they may pay us off in fame
but that is not why we came
and if it compromises truth then we will go
While I never would dismiss good press of any sort, I have to wander as an aside, when was the last time RS had an influence?
I think the coverage from magazines like Paste would be more beneficial for artists like the Avett Brothers anyhow.
--
http://www.facebook.com/reiggin
http://www.flickr.com/photos/reiggin/sets/72157621996248530/detail/
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=34346606FEC38E83
I vote for "worthless piece of garbage" from every perspective of its existence for the last two decades. It's relationship to reality is 0 on any scale.
--
"Technology to wipe out truth is now available, not everyone can afford it but it's available." B. Dylan
Rejoice always, Mark
I just got my RS in the mail. I think it's pretty clear what their intentions are when the issue has a huge Merle Haggard article, but they choose to put Megan Fox on the cover.
The fall preview snippet is not the review. The 3.5 isn't so bad, what is bad is that they are relegated to the last page in the review section and lumped into a 'roots music' sidebar with some other bands. I knew they wouldn't be the #1 review, but with major label influence I figured they would be one of the 'longer' ones. Not so.
I believe Samantha Crain got a 3.5 and seem to remember that Langhorne Slim did with "spinning compass" (although I do not see the review on their site, but remember talking about it to scott once) . they should have at least been a 4 and should have had a bigger write up.
I read this yesterday. As if the score wasn't insulting enough, the review was crap. Chamber folk music? Really? Eff Rolling Stone.
We all love our TAB too much! While i agree RS stopped being relevant years ago, its a fair score for this album.
Is I & L&Y really better than 4 Thieves Gone, Mignonette or Emotionalism? i dont think so
To give nearly any album a 5 is setting the bar way too high. Maybe something like Sgt. Pepper's deserves a 5. And even that would be in retrospect, when seeing it as an influential, groundbreaking achievement.
It's all apples and oranges, anyway.
Some probably give L'il Wayne a 5. I have not heard a 5 in a while. Even "classics" such as Nirvana's 'Nevermind,' which really moved me, is not what I would call a 5.
Well, we could go on and on . . .
--
"Ronnie and Neil, Ronnie and Neil
Rock stars today ain't half as real
Speaking there minds on how they feel
Let them guitars blast for Ronnie and Neil"
Giving it a 3.5 seems as if it is just barely above average, which is poppyc***.
--
A live performance is a fleeting moment. A recording is a lasting work of art.
"I try to read Rolling Stone every now and then, usually for the political articles. It's kinda hard to take them seriously as a legitimate source of music news when they have the likes of the Jonas Brothers on the cover." TommyFromNC
Ha! I'm right there with you man. I had a free subscription once and the political articles led me to purchase another until they put the Jonas boys on the cover. The thought of the Jonas Bros. in my mailbox was too much for me. Rolling Stone is a music magazine and for them to recognize bubblegum pop above all other forms is reason enough for me to stop giving them money, no matter how much I liked the non-music articles.
Their politics reflects their musical taste.
--
"Technology to wipe out truth is now available, not everyone can afford it but it's available." B. Dylan
Rejoice always, Mark
That's just, like, your opinion, man.
--
I know that won't buy anything
But I would steal you anything
"Avett Brothers will grace the cover of the Rolling Stone before 2010 is over."
I agree with Spike, just a matter of time. Then maybe some of the folks who are hating on RS will reconsider.
I take the cynical view and think they gave it a 3.5 before ever hearing the album, if indeed anyone's listened to it yet. All of it's rigged. RR is a powerful force within the industry and that's why they're getting any recognition at all. Doesn't anyone else think it's amazing that they've been as good as they are for all these years and only now they're receiving their well deserved renown and accolades? They're truly nobodies, therein lies their greatness!
--
Erin by the side of the road, New London, North Carolina
Wow, I guess I'm not an Avett fan afterall b/c I voted for the wrong guy. WTF do musical taste have to do with politics?
Apparently if you are conservative you listen to Toby Keith. If you are liberal you listen to whatever Rolling Stone is pushing...
--
I know that won't buy anything
But I would steal you anything
I guess not. Although I am not sure which wrong guy you are referring to.
--
"Technology to wipe out truth is now available, not everyone can afford it but it's available." B. Dylan
Rejoice always, Mark
Rolling Stone is hilarious. Any magazine that would give green day the time of day, and give their new album an "instant classic" rating has completely lost sight of the real world. They feed off fodder, and while its a highly entertaining read, i feel like the whole magazine is one big joke. Do they mean to be behind/wrong on everything? Is Jann Wenner laughing madly and raking up the profits?
Just to clarify, my dogging RS has nothing to do with the review. I just happen to think it is a joke of a magazine. TAB would have to be on a year's worth of covers for me to reconsider that. Funny thing is, anyone that reads Paste magazine and some of the other indies out there would've heard about The Avett Brothers 3 or 4 years ago, maybe more. Just sayin'...
I agree with ChocolateMilkMaid. If radio has become totally pay-for-play, why would the largest media outlets be any different?
My opinion of RS is like my opinion of another once-great magazine, cigar Aficionado. As an avid music lover, RS now makes me sick. As an avid cigar smoker, so does cA.
What's wrong with magazines nowadays? They seem to be about everything sensational and craptastic and rarely about their former intended subject.
--
http://www.facebook.com/reiggin
http://www.flickr.com/photos/reiggin/sets/72157621996248530/detail/
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=34346606FEC38E83
I don't take RS seriously anymore, and haven't for a long time. The issue with the Jonas Bros. really ticked me off. Particularly the story on Gregg Allman. They seem to have an inside agenda with every artist they write about. I listened to an interview where Gregg called the article bull**** and toilet paper.
Rolling Stone should stick to the political news, they haven't done legitimate music news in a long time.