smoe.org mailing lists
ivan@stellysee.de
| From | "Michael Bennett" <mrhonorama@hotmail.com> |
| Subject | Rolling Stone list |
| Date | Tue, 25 Nov 2003 22:37:06 -0600 |
[Part 1 text/plain (1.1 kilobytes)]
(View Text in a separate window)
Insofar as erring on the side of recent releases -- I think that's common
with most magazine lists. According to Entertainment Weekly, about 25 of
the 50 greatest tearjerker movies were made in the past 15 years or so, por
ejemplo.
As for biases -- no doubt, but pro-punk??? If anything, they are extremely
skimpy on punk, but that's just my bias.
Mike Bennett
Record reviews and more at http://fufkin.com
From: "josh chasin" <jchasin@nyc.rr.com>
I do think, though, that there are certain genre biases in Rolling
Stone:
against prog and power pop, and pro-punk. And as a rule they tend to err on
the side of undue enthusiasm with respect to recent (last 5-7 years, say)
releases. I say this last point because you can track over time how certain
albums pop and then recede-- or disappear entirely-- from these lists over
time.
Record reviews and more at http://fufkin.com
_________________________________________________________________
Gift-shop online from the comfort of home at MSN Shopping! No crowds, free
parking. http://shopping.msn.com
For assistance, please contact
the smoe.org administrators.