Has Rolling Stone Lost Its Touch?

People have been making the claim that Rolling Stone has been losing its touch essentially since their inception. At first it was easy for them to praise bands that were already established as greats since their slate was clean. But time has shown that they are capable at making horrific miscalculations as to the direction of music. The most infamous blunder was the scathing reviews that Led Zeppelin received. However, it should be noted that Jeff Beck's first album Truth was met with a certain amount of praise. Perhaps they believed that Led Zeppelin was nothing more than a ripoff of Beck's work. Is that the case? Well, kinda. Read for yourself. They are definitely deserving of some criticism to fail to see the differences between Truth and Led Zeppelin I, because even though they seemed minor, they were colossal.

The 90's then showed disdain for Nirvana, another band that would become a worldwide sensation and change the face of music. Again, Rolling Stone was called upon to answer for their mistake. Honestly, I personally don't blame them for dismissing Nirvana, as they were nothing more than a glorified version of the Pixies. Besides, grunge went on to inspire some really terrible music, and that's basically why there isn't any grunge left. Regardless, I'm not a professional critic, so my points are moot. In the end, Rolling Stone decided to recognize the "mistake" and include Nirvana's catalog in their list of the greatest 500 albums.

They also gave a lukewarm response to Layla and Other Assorted Love Songs, refused to put Rush on a cover for years because they weren't "cool" enough, bashed Wheels of Fire, and attempted to adopt hip-hop (which they previously dismissed) and criticized Jay-Z. But all of that was a while ago, surely Rolling Stone has gotten better in the past few years, right? Well, not exactly. The purpose of this article to to examine Rolling Stone reviews in the twenty-first century to see what they're getting right and, perhaps even more importantly, wrong. Considering the editors oversee the final rating of all albums, I won't hold the actual reviewer as solely responsible.

What they've been getting right:

Beck - Rolling Stone review of Modern Guilt

Since Beck's inception RS have been hitting the mark right. They give Beck his due credit without flattering him. Yes, Beck is a very good artist of our day, but it would be rather risky to call any album besides Odelay a classic.

Cat Power - Rolling Stone review of You Are Free

Chan Marshall has the ability to stray critics. Many see her as a cheap female imiation of Bob Dylan, but she's not. She's her own singer-songwriter, and a unique one at that. Her ability to compose and interpret music is impressive, and Rolling Stone have shown that they fully recognize that.

Death Cab For Cutie - Rolling Stone review of Narrow Stairs

A quirky group who has a catalog of hit-and-miss entries. Accordingly, Rolling Stone have either praised or scolded them, and they get it right.

M.I.A. - Rolling Stone review of Kala

On his own site, Robert Christgau gave Kala a perfect rating. Why RS didn't is odd, but either way, they gave it four-and-a-half and called it the best album of 2007. I'm not sure if I would say the same; I would have said it's a five-star album, but I also think it has fierce competition for album of the year from Neon Bible and In Rainbows. Still, they figured out M.I.A. is brilliant.

Other notable right calls:

Against Me! - New Wave

Band of Horses - Cease to Begin

Fleet Foxes - Fleet Foxes

LCD Soundsystem - Sound of Silver

The White Stripes - Elephant

Questionable ratings:

Arcade Fire - Rolling Stone review of Neon Bible

I understand that three-and-a-half stars is a good rating, but Neon Bible is beyond excellent. It's perfect; a classic album easily. However, they believe that not all the tunes work, and that maybe Funeral was better. Do the Springsteen influences shine through too hard? No, I think it's exaggerated.

My rating of Neon Bible - *****

Feist - Rolling Stone review of Let It Die and The Reminder

These are iffy. RS has nothing against Feist, but then again, each review seems to be a little low for what they should actually be rated. Let It Die is more acceptable than The Reminder, which is tough to break at first, but reveals itself after several listens, all of which are well deserved.

My rating of Let It Die - ****1/2

My rating of The Reminder - ***1/2

Gnarls Barkley - Rolling Stone review of St. Elsewhere

I wouldn't have picked on RS for this one had they given it even just a slightly higher rating. It's obvious to everyone that St. Elsewhere was better than The Odd Couple, even though the latter was still a close second.

My rating of St. Elsewhere - ****

Other notable questionable calls:

Lily Allen - Alright, Still

The Raconteurs - Consolers of the Lonely

Thom Yorke - The Eraser

The White Stripes - De Stijl

What they got wrong:

Amy Winehouse - Rolling Stone review of Back to Black

Christian Hoard, in an otherwise positive review, ends by saying "the tunes don't always hold up." Certainly he listened to it more than once, as Back to Black is an absolutely gorgeous album. There are few albums now - or in history, for that matter - that are as genuine in emotion as this one. And considering she's the only artist who is mixing 60's Motown with neo-soul and R&B - actual R&B - is incredible. Know why? Because she understands soul and jazz, she was brought up on it. If she doesn't die, she'll be a legend. A three-star review pitiful on their part.

My rating of Back to Black - ****1/2

Ben Folds - Rolling Stone review of Rockin' the Suburbs

Another three-star review of a near-classic album. Ben Folds used to be someone I almost couldn't listen to, but thankfully I got over myself and realized how brilliant he really is. He's the next step in piano rock, as John and Joel are practically retired. This release is Folds' magnum opus (as of now) and is far better than anything he did in Ben Folds Five.

My rating of Rockin' the Suburbs - ****1/2

The Black Keys - Rolling Stone review of Thickfreakness and Rubber Factory

Once again, three-star reviews all around. In all actuality, the first review isn't that bad, but Hoard's review of Rubber Factory again has completely missed the mark. It's missing tunes? I think you're missing ears, Mr. Hoard. Along with the White Stripes, the Black Keys are the only band that are true masters of the blues, music that is the foundation for everything we have today.

My rating of Thickfreakness - ****1/2

My rating of Rubber Factory - ****

Daft Punk - Rolling Stone review of Discovery

While they have no problem giving accolades to Moby, Rolling Stone have repeatedly given the middle finger to this French duo. We may have Robert Christgau to thank for that, who gave Homework a rather scalding review as well. Still, Christgau has come around to liking them, being very positive in response to Alive 2007. So why is Rolling Stone lagging?

My rating of Discovery - ****

The Mars Volta - Rolling Stone review of De-Loused in the Comatorium

Even I was scared of the Mars Volta after my first listen. I had never really heard anything like it before. But instead of putting it out of my mind I set a goal to understand it. I haven't done that yet, there are still several elements within the music of the Mars Volta that I don't grasp, but I can tell that they are geniuses at work. Who else but Mr. Hoard gave De-Loused a crap review.

My rating of De-Loused in the Comatorium - ****1/2

Other notable wrong calls:

Broken Social Scene - Broken Social Scene

Clinic - Internal Wrangler

The Kooks - Inside In/Inside Out

The Last Shadow Puppets - The Age of the Understatement

These are only a handful of ratings that Rolling Stone has made in the twenty-first century, and there are loads of grades that are correct, off by only a half-star, or completely wrong, far too many for me to post here. Either way, it's clear that for every correct thing that RS says, they have another that's way off. That wouldn't be so bad if they were able to justify themselves, but they don't. When asked to defend reviews after years gone by, they either admit the mistake and suddenly embrace the artist or keep completely silent. I'd rather they follow what one of their own writers, Robert Christgau, does. If he doesn't like something, he says why, even if the reason isn't that good. Christgau, while frustrating, at least sticks with what he believes. The same cannot be said about Rolling Stone. Writers for that magazine must ask themselves, do they really want their reviews read back to them fifteen years from now?