Became weak in the 90's and hasn't recovered for me.  Once a great rock magazine with guest pieces from tough writers (like Hunter S. Thompson) has succumbed to the decline of popular music in the last 10 years by catering to the lowest common denominator.  There was a time when Rolling Stone ridiculed the likes of teen pop shite instead of legitimizing it as worthy of being called real music or an object worthy of coverage/respect.  What a shame.  And it can be a painfully leftist publication on the wrong issues while hitting the mark on others.

Top Knotch music magazine

I love all music mags!!! <3

Caricature of what it once was... Obama the rock star, Please!

its really the only magazine that says Fuck and Shit lol

This is one of the most BIAS magazines EVER, if it ain't oldie stuff they give it a horrible rating, I've seen them rate crap like Paris Hilton's CD higher than true muscians such as Rise Against or The Academy Is. They aren't a true music magazine, they're basically the celebirty music magazine, they're only intrested in stuff like Nelly and Paris Hilton.

Very uneven. Sometimes brilliant, sometimes inept.

And of course, it is more than a music magazine, which also contributes to its unevenness.

I usually scan it on the magazine rack, to see who is writing, before deciding whether to buy.

When they put Justin Timberlake and Britney Spears on the cover . . I was gone.

Started out okay, with decent interviews and articles. For a long time now, it has been simply filled with ads. Will change its mind, musically speaking, at the drop of a hat, and can be relied upon to automatically give established entertainers gifts of good reviews for even lousy work. Has been a part of the established media for so long, and projects a pseudo- revolutionary outlook whilst being as corporate as possible. Jan Wenner and his friends, like Robbie Robertson, control the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame machine, as if something so subjective as music could ever really be assessed or quantified. Has played a huge part in, depending on your viewpoints regarding such musicians, hyping or advancing the careers of Jackson Browne and Bruce Springsteen, to name just two. Overall, if this was 1968, I might give it 4 stars, but for at least two decades, it's deserved a 1. Hypocritical, self-important and concerned only with the almighty dollar, and the only good music writer they have is David Fricke, if he still works for them.

Has gotten a bit too "glossy" over the decades,but still runs a decent article or two quite frequently.Less catering to fickle teens would raise the rating.

A real crappy mag! Don't waste your money! I'd used to subscribe to it in the late 80s when it at least gave fair coverage of several artists/bands until the 90s when it started giving alot of space to rap and grunge and the only time you see anything about any other artists/bands it was very little of except if it was about Areosmith or the Rolling Stones!

This magazine made my mother think a Corporal in the Marines killed some cops because of his time in Iraq. The liberal bias of the magazine is off-the-charts. I will not ever look at a page in this magazine again. Corporal Raya was a former gangbanger who obviously had some issues, especially with cops. This had nothing to do with Iraq, although his Marine experience obviously taught him a few tricks. Anyway, what does Rolling Stone want us to do, disband the armed forces? Go to hell...

What can I add that hasn't been said already? The mag had it's day in the '60's. The writers are all so liberally biased that they have NO credibility left. The articles on personalities tend to be only of the it person of the day, most of whom need to disappear and the what little of the mag that is still devoted to music tends to glorify what is being forced down our throats by the recording industry and the HUGE corporate radio machines and devoting little time or effort in supporting smaller markets. They give the impression that it is OK to download illegally and that the government, the music companies, and the artists should just live with it. Anything to get the support of the younger generations, I guess. Really a sorry excuse of a magazine.

the best

Bitterly ironic that they now hail Kurt Cobain as a musical genius when they initially gave the album Nevermind a somewhat mediocre three stars. This magazine appears to be staffed by nothing more then tired hacks with an inability to embrace the cutting edge of music who have sadly realized glossy photos of scantily clad women (once an avant gaurde piece of their lore, now merely a standard marketing tool) are now their only selling point. Oh how the mighty have fallen...

The joke that was the recent '100 greatest guitarists' poll sums how far RS has fallen since its heyday. When you get rudimentary strummers like Jack White and Kurt Cobain rated higher than Eddie Van Halen you know something's wrong.

It seems as if the Rolling Stone shares the corporate, sales oriented ideals that the music industry has now become. Have any of the writers ever played a musical instrument? Do they know the difference between F# and B? Have they ever played a modal scale? It's ludacrous because anyone can grab a job at this magazine so long as their good with the written word. More than likely the writers have spent more time listening to pop music rather than learning about it. They don't understand the structure of music, or the patterns that make it work. Their focus is more on the words of the artists rather than the music itself, making it more qualified as a poetry magazine. This is why they see Kurt Cobain as a musical genius. Sure he was good at irony in his lyrics and such, but 14 year who just learned power chords could write his music (sorry Nirvana fans). Though I always thought Kurt was a decent guitar player, his songs never showed it. Anyone who knows about music will tell you Britney Spears does not deserve 3 or 4 stars for any of her albums. It seems the critics dont know the difference between well written and well produced music. I have too many problems with the magazine to list right here, so Ill just sum it all up with this question: How can you judge something when you dont know a thing about it?

Shouldn't have left the 60s. Utter crap.

Rolling Stone USED to be such an excellent magazine, especially during the 1980's once it got past all that nasty 70's music. But NOW, it continually covers one hit wonders like they are some kind of musical genuises, it basically reminds me of SMASH HITS or maybe even TIGER BEAT. But with the exception of the political articles, this magazine is very much pointed at teenagers. I suspect soon that SPIN will finally pass it in sales, as it is so much better than this rag......*****but I must give Rolling Stone credit for all the wonderful years of wonderful covers, with the exception of the last few years. (this makes it two stars instead of one)

A magazine for people that buy books for the pictures.. They left anything even close to integrity behind years ago.. The biggest joke in music.. Let's see... Each individual N'Sync/Mickey Mouse club member w/ their own cover ? Christina Aquilera ? Britney Spears ? And now Clay Aiken on the cover in a glamour shot. This magazine is on a fast track to obsolescence. Are they even a music magazine anymore or are they a more shallow Tiger Beat.. I think the Enquirer has kept more credibility..

Used to be so good back in the days when it was in the format of a newspaper, but now it's just another glossy, advertising-driven piece of crap that tries to be all things to all people. This is a strategy that ususally fails. Also, when you realize how vacant and boring the music scene currently is, it's no surprise this publication, as a mirror to our lame popular culture, has plummeted in quality.

The writers in Rolling Stone always seems to think that their opinions are the end-all be-all of anything ever written about a singer or band, without any room for debate. In a way they have become a self-parody, and they have tried so hard to be hip that they are now just about anything but.

The covers are terrible and they should have more r.e.m. They focus to much on hasbins.

The best music magazine of all-time.

A book with lots of pretty ads and a few articles on the hottest thing of the month. Let's not even get into the fact that most of their writers are stoned-out Dead Head, liberal democrats. Automatically, they will have no sense of honest journalsim and unbiased opinions, or understand the concept of credible research or the idea of common sense.

Rolling Stone lost its edge years ago when it abandoned hipness in favor of trendiness. If I wanted to read about NSync or Britney I'd read Tiger Beat. In short, RS has sold out big time.

Well, Rolling Stone, if you don't like Queen you can stay the hell out of their business; they don't like you either! But I gotta give them a little credit for having a good staff of writers. If any of you go on their site, watch out for queennremrock-that's me :-). The reviews they right for R.E.M and Rolling Stones stuff are pretty good, even if they have something against Queen :-(. Overalll, RS is a god mag with a cool website, and the star I took off is a grudge on the Queen-haters. Take care, everyone!

This is a well presented magazine, but it's a bit too pretentious and self-conscious. It seems to be all about following trends - not music. This is a magazine for people who like to be told what to think, but not for musicians or hardcore fans.

wee hee

This is a horrible magazine. I shudder to think that anyone reads this as more than a dumb fan magazine or for the record reviews. Aside from the occasional PJ O'Rourke column (and even he is over-rated), the political journalism here is absolutely laughable. The fawning Dem-partisanship is as embarrassing as their stuck-in-1974 sense of what's interesting in music. I remember realizing this was pretty lame back when I was a subscriber in high school -- 15 years later, it's only become worse.

Leans more towards the good side than the bad side but it's "OK". Wouldn't waste a subscription on it. Some interesting articles but a lot of nothing. Could be better.

Revolutionary in keeping up with generation X culture. They are not afraid to clown on artists that suck and frequently look at both sides of any type of music. Their ads are so great.

Rolling Stone has some interesting things. They have decent bands on the cover... sometimes. And they review some bands that deserve more recognition than they usually get. But of course it could be better. Almost anything could be better. It seems like all the magazines cover the same thing! Do something different for a change! But it's all about money. So when the record companies tell the public what they like, the magazines write about them. Maybe not because they want to, but because that's what sells.

They provide good info on bands. It's easy reading. Good concert info. They let you know what's cool and what's not, what's in and what's out.

Rolling Stone in my opinion is a magazine for those artists who already have made it. The layout/photography is great. Sometimes I buy them just to put the cover on my wall, for they have featured greats such as Beck, Radiohead, Madonna, etc. But if you want to know about up and coming bands, it's not the magazine to read.

It has a lot of variety and doesn't focus only on one type of music. It gives a lot of information on the stars in music.

It is just the best magazine which covers the music that I like.

I like Rolling Stone because they cover every type of music from Hip Hop to Pop, etc. They always have the most popular people on the cover. I like how they conduct interviews from my favorite artists.

This magazine is all advertisements. The little reporting that they do is on crap that has only been deemed worthy due to sales. The only, and I mean only thing good about the magazine is the photos but usually the subjects of the photos can be filed under the afore mention crap.

A far cry form the originality of CMJ, Rolling Stone caters to coporate sellout monsters and the masses of mornic public. Read this if you have no musical integrity (because Rolling Stone doesn't) or if you need some cheap laughs. If you've ever seen MTV, you've seen Rolling Stone magazine.

Probably my favorite music magazine-nice coverage of societal issues and current events. Good coverage of all genres-including college and European music.

Great gossip magazine, if you like to gossip. It isn't very technical, if you want technical effort in band groupings. There are too many pop bands in Rolling Stone.

Bad, this is the worst magazine. I do not miss reading it.

Rolling Stone is an institution. Despite its popularity, it has managed to maintain an edge. Spin may do a better job of covering the alternative scene, but for great writing, great photography, and interesting music news, Rolling Stone is and will continue to be the best bet.

Rolling Stone is still my first stop for music news.

It is informative and filled with pictures.