A review of Rolling Stone Magazine’s review of Fortune by Chris Brown
http://www.rollingstone.com/music/albumreviews/f-a-m-e-20110322
On 2011, Chris Brown released an album called F.A.M.E. that got a positive review from Rolling Stone magazine. The reviewer wrote that instead of including “shrilly defensive responses to his infamy” that Chris Brown “concentrated on making great songs.” The reviewer went on to elaborate that “F.A.M.E. is a pop ‘n’ b album with something for everyone: bedroom ballads, dance-floor thumpers.” All this praise was given despite the fact that F.A.M.E. included this poor excuse for a song:
The next year, Chris Brown released a new album called Fortune. Only this time around the good people at Rolling Stone were not as generous with their words. Rolling Stone even went as far as to say that Chris Brown is “a guy so reviled mosquitoes won’t bite him.” Ouch! That’s the kind of stuff I would have written.
http://www.rollingstone.com/music/albumreviews/fortune-20120716
I will admit that I am not a fan of Chris Brown. I don’t care for his music, his heavily studio tweaked singing, or his 3rd rate Usher wannabe shtick (which is in reality a 5th rate Michael Jackson imitation). I’m not even going to get into his track record of acting douchey in public…That being said, I found the music I’ve heard from F.A.M.E. to be no better or worse than the stuff I heard on Fortune. Sure the F.A.M.E material was more up tempo and the Fortune tracks were slower but I would say that the “quality” of the material was consistent. So why the change of heart Rolling Stone?
A while back I wrote a review of a Rolling Stone magazine music review of the Britney Spears album Femme Fatale. I went through a great deal of effort to demonstrate how far the Magazine has strayed from the days of trashing Led Zeppelin albums.How since at least the late 90’s the magazine tends not give a negative music review to a popular pop contemporary artists.Rolling Stone even gave The Soundtrack to ‘Hair Metal Movie Musical’ Rock Of Ages a favorable review. Branding it as “mild kitsch-karaoke fun.” The reviewer even closed the review by stating that “the real takeaway is how great the
1980s originals were.”
A Review of Rolling Stone’s Review of the new Britney Spears Album
Nevermind that back in the 80’s Rolling Stone was not very supportive of this particular style of Rock Music. Poison’s Open
up and Say…Ahh!, which included the original versions of the ‘great 1980’s originals’ found on Rock of Ages “Nothing but a good time”and “Every Rose has its Thorn” was given a one star review. Rolling Stone dismissed the record as “an annoying parade of limp three-chord clichés and breathy harmonies.” The reviewer went on to elaborate that the lyrics on the record are “a guided tour of rock-catch-phrase hell, and Poison’s bus doesn’t miss a single stop.” It even stated that Poison is “a nasty reminder of what can happen when swagger takes precedence over substance.” I’m certain that the favorable review the Rock of Ages soundtrack got had everything to do with the musical merit of the songs and NOTHING to do with the fact that
one of the main characters on the film is A ROLLING STONE REPORTER.
When Rolling Stone does give an artist review that is two stars or lower they tend to be geared towards artists who are either: past their career peak, up and comers who may or may not stick around for the long haul or easy targets such as the Black Eyed Peas. I cannot help but wonder: Does Chris Brown’s album Fortune getting two stars from Rolling Stone mean that it is now officially o.k. to hate on Chris Brown’s music?
ahandfullofnapalm 
Leave a comment