Quantcast The Quad
College Media Network

Commentary: Issues with Rolling Stone's bias

By Jay Moss

Issue date: 11/12/07 Section: Entertainment

Music is one of the most powerful and mysterious forces in the world. It evokes countless emotions and indescribable feelings. The moments when one is lost amidst the sea of harmonies and colors is absolutely priceless; such audible beauty has bonded humans together over the centuries. It is reasonable to say that music possesses a supernatural quality that will never be captured in words.

However, there exist many elements of music we can describe, such as pitch, interval, and so on. Even in narrowing it down to parameters we can depict in words, music is still composed of many complex and complicated intricacies.

It tears me apart when those who know nothing about music believe that they are a true authority on the subject.

I personally know someone who degrades the beloved texture of music: my uncle. But I find it hard to blame him because there is an underlying entity that drives his insanity. It is a nearly unstoppable force, one that gathers momentum as it goes. This imperial giant has recruited thousands to its side. It is none other than Rolling Stone.

Rolling Stone is revered as one of America's greatest music magazines. Its reviews are regarded as the true test for any artist. If the Stone gives a thumbs up, one lucky musician can look forward to a fruitful career. But a bad review can annihilate years of hard work in an instant.

In conversation with some of my friends, they bring up Rolling Stone's articles as the basis for their musical opinions. They fend me off with "well Rolling Stone said their album wasn't that great and that they are an immature band."

Or just the opposite, "Rolling Stone said they are going to be the next big rock band." I have had many others recite the Rolling Stone's comments to me with complete confidence in its expert authority. They stand firm, as if there is no force on this planet stronger than that of Rolling Stone's words.

As previously stated, my uncle falls under this category. Quite often I would wonder why he thought himself an expert, but one day I saw the problem: it was Rolling Stone. He thought if he read enough, he too could become a master of musical knowledge. "Rolling Stone" had fooled him. What makes it such an authority on music? Is it the "experts" writing for it? What about the editors; are they the source? These questions burned inside me, so I decided to answer them by delving in to Rolling Stone's core.

Upon inspection, I was surprised to discover that Rolling Stone was an extremely well-done periodical. There are various sections of interest to music fans, such as album reviews, previews, artist interviews and historical articles about older music. The writing is exceptionally well-done and approaches the subject in a casual yet professional manner. It avoids rattling off facts or track names and makes the article feel more like a description from a good friend. Rolling Stone breathes relaxation in to its readers and refrains from using elevated or arrogant language. To say the least, I was taken aback. Although I had a newfound respect and appreciation for Rolling Stone, my questions hung in the air like a stale fart. I needed to know if Rolling Stone was the authority people made it out to be, so I did some more research.
Page 1 of 4 next >

Article Tools

Be the first to comment on this story

  • NOTE: Email address will not be published

Type your comment below (html not allowed)

  I understand posting spam or other comments that are unrelated to this article will cause my comment to be flagged for deletion and possibly cause my IP address to be permanently banned from this server.

Advertisement

Poll

On a scale of 1-5, how safe to you feel on and around campus?
Submit Vote

View Results

Advertisement