Morrissey-solo
Archive

Morrissey album mentioned in 'Rolling Stone'

posted by davidt on Wednesday November 23 2005, @10:00AM
langworthy writes:
Does anyone know why 'Rolling Stone' seems to diminish the role Morrissey plays in music today? I've been waiting to see a write-up on 'Ringleaders' in their 'In the Studio' section and here it is:

Also in the Studio:

Morrissey is recording in Rome with David Bowie producer Tony Visconti.

Including proper names that would be 11 words.

(issue # 988 Madonna cover)
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Morrissey album mentioned in 'Rolling Stone' | Top | 19 comments | Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough:
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • Remember, Rolling Stone is an American pop magazine - and a bad one at that. If Moz ain't selling here at the moment it is unlikely they would write anything about it. Who is on the cover this month? Oh, yes....Madonna again...
    mg196 -- Wednesday November 23 2005, @10:15AM (#186443)
    (User #13031 Info)
    GG Allin saved my soul.
  • i just got my mag. in the mail yesterday and i didn't even see that. well, with so few words written about him, who could?

    where was in written?
    ella-reflex -- Wednesday November 23 2005, @11:30AM (#186452)
    (User #13859 Info | http://myspace.com/ella_reflex)
    Only when I'm dancing can I feel this free...
  • The association between Rolling Stone and Morrissey can be best described as a bad blind date ending up in the emergency room.

    There was some incident in the 80s regarding a Rolling Stone writer and Morrissey. In the interview, the writer claims Morrissey told him he was gay. The statement practically ended up as the first sentence in the article. Morrissey has always denied that statement.

    Morrissey claims the writer had some sort of gay agenda in mind by "outing" him. Morrissey also alluded in some other interviews that because of that one article, Sire Records may have steered away from promoting and/or distributing the Smiths and their "gay" frontman thereby limiting their exposure in the US.

    Rolling Stone actually was a good magazine in the 70s-80s. Not so much for music, but for investigative journalism. Now, it caters to the under 25s and mainstream artists.

    Don't expect Morrissey to be on the cover anytime soon.
    mozmic_dancer -- Wednesday November 23 2005, @12:40PM (#186458)
    (User #11277 Info)
    "I am the fun and the fair, on a Mozsite for the criminally insane..."
  • ....and you need to ask why Rolling Stone is as cutting edge as a clip-on tie?!

    It's a SHIT publication and it always has been.

    - The Treading Lemming

    "papa was a rolling stone....and in all his travels he never found it necesary to read crap "music" mags"
    Anonymous -- Wednesday November 23 2005, @12:52PM (#186461)
    • I would agree with you on Madonna if she were the impertinent exhibitionist she was 20 ago...but now she is an intrepid one...I was getting ready to log on Hotmail yesterday when the site threw me one of her new clips, "Hung Up". I have to say I became what the title described! She may be on the mainstream, but my ears and nervous system don't seem to care who is or isn't mainstream or not. Listen to her before judging her, and don't read the Rolling Stones or jugde her by its cover, because this magazine is just a publicity machine that senselessly glorifies some while it obfuscate others. I learned (or my ears have) that publicity means nothing to music. I used to hate her Terminator-style bras and her robotic walk (in the blond tour ambition show) but her image evolved a lot since then, and it is much more natural now, and more congrous with her style. She is very sexy too, just as Morrissey is. Each in their own way, even though Morrissey has been much more consistent as an artist than she has. Hats off to both!
      Mrs. Woolf -- Wednesday November 23 2005, @04:39PM (#186499)
      (User #14157 Info)
  • I'm shocked to hear Rolling Stone still writes about music. Who cares what they have to say about Moz or any other subject? Has Rolling Stone had anything relevant or interesting to say about music since, say, it's first issue?
    Anonymous is right. It is a shit mag, and always will be. Switch to Mojo or Q if you want some actual music writing in a music magazine.
    Anonymous -- Wednesday November 23 2005, @01:30PM (#186466)
  • I like this simple news,
    in a nutshell it's what we've been exited about last 6 mo.
    Granvik -- Wednesday November 23 2005, @01:50PM (#186474)
    (User #14586 Info)
  • ie: Dried up and totally irrelevent.
    BBC Scum -- Wednesday November 23 2005, @05:26PM (#186501)
    (User #8427 Info)
  • Yes, Rolling Stone sucks and all (even if Mozz fan Rob Sheffield is their reviewer), but let's not forget that Morrissey is never going to get much pub here in America; he's not the icon here that he is in Britain. The only mainstream magazine that ever gives him exposure is Spin, which gave him a cover for YATQ but never bothered to review the album for some odd reason.

    Smaller magazines like the Big Takeover are more likely to feature Mozz and bands inspired by his music. You can find good stuff here if you bother to look off the beaten path of corporate rock mags.
    ATLpunk -- Wednesday November 23 2005, @07:51PM (#186511)
    (User #13585 Info)
  • Morrissey gets more coverage on The Nashville Network than Rolling Stone. They actually tried to put him on the cover once but he didn't bother showing up for the foto session (I believe Albert Watson was to be the photographer).
    You'll be hard pressed to find a publication more in love with itself than RS.
    I remember they did give 5 stars to the Go-Go's 'Vacation' album.
    Anonymous -- Thursday November 24 2005, @06:29AM (#186536)

[ home | terms of service ]