Big Surprise: Rolling Stone Changes Reviewers' Ratings

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

From chicagomag.com:

Tribune rock critic Greg Kot, who contributes occasionally to Rolling Stone, revealed an interesting nugget about the rock magazine’s star ratings, in the first of a two-part interview with teen magazine New Expression. (Part two will appear later this month.) The interview was conducted by Joseph Struck, of Providence Catholic High School. We pick up the interview about midway through the first installment. Edited slightly for clarity.

Kot: It helps credibility or whatever to have pieces published in Rolling Stone, and I like it because they’ve never changed a word that I’ve written. I have always said exactly what I wanted to say in reviews. Occasionally, I’ve been surprised to see that the star ratings get changed, but that’s the editor’s decision.

Struck: They change your ratings?

Kot: Yeah, they do. They have. It is weird. Occasionally they’ll bump up a record that I didn’t feel was as good, and they don’t change a word of writing, so it’s like weird, it’s like you read the review and it reads like a two-star review but there is a three-star rating on it. So it’s just kind of strange, but the editors do have the right. I guess it is in the fine print of the review section that the editors determine the star ratings and not the writers, but often that gets misinterpreted. The writers are blamed for everything [laughs]. So it’s like, “How did you give that thing three stars?” And I say, “I didn’t. I wanted two stars on it.” So that gets a little frustrating. But I have to say that the editors there have been great for the most part.

― Jazzbo (jmcgaw), Sunday, 14 December 2003 23:49 (twenty-two years ago)

I hear they only do this to Chicago writers.

― HuckleberryMann, Sunday, 14 December 2003 23:51 (twenty-two years ago)

Named Greg Kot.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Sunday, 14 December 2003 23:52 (twenty-two years ago)

are there any other kind?

― Matt Helgeson (Matt Helgeson), Sunday, 14 December 2003 23:57 (twenty-two years ago)

The Greg Kot (Criticus Chicagoinus) can be found in great flocks in the Midwest, attending shows and pondering duly on the function of modern music in the place of society.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Sunday, 14 December 2003 23:59 (twenty-two years ago)

such a noble creature.

― Matt Helgeson (Matt Helgeson), Monday, 15 December 2003 00:07 (twenty-two years ago)

Hunted for its skins and pungent meat, it is nonetheless an eternally renewable resource.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Monday, 15 December 2003 00:08 (twenty-two years ago)

in addition to being the Jay-Z of the Bible, Ned is also the Ted Nugent of Gret Kot.

― Matt Helgeson (Matt Helgeson), Monday, 15 December 2003 00:09 (twenty-two years ago)

Nugent is a fucking purist. I use bombs and poison.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Monday, 15 December 2003 00:10 (twenty-two years ago)

It's OK, I mentally knock off anywhere from two to three stars for any RS review of friends-of-Jann-Wenner artists (Billy Joel and Foreigner are Exhibits A and B). And like Kot says, you can usually tell by reading the review if the editors messed with the rating.

― Jeff Wright, Monday, 15 December 2003 03:14 (twenty-two years ago)

Wenner's Jagger review read like a six star review though, I think he shortchanged Glimmer Twin #1.

― Gear! (Gear!), Monday, 15 December 2003 03:26 (twenty-two years ago)

star/numerical rankings are always the discretion of the editor right?

― cinniblount (James Blount), Monday, 15 December 2003 03:29 (twenty-two years ago)

not ALWAYS but for any big publication i'm aware of, yeah.

― fiddo centington (dubplatestyle), Monday, 15 December 2003 03:31 (twenty-two years ago)

Blender's always kept the ones I gave 'em. so far.

― Anthony Miccio (Anthony Miccio), Monday, 15 December 2003 03:38 (twenty-two years ago)

But yeah they could alter them if they please, contractwise.

― Anthony Miccio (Anthony Miccio), Monday, 15 December 2003 03:38 (twenty-two years ago)

blender was rankchange crazy at first and caught much flack from it (some from matos in the pages of the voice!)(you can only hope to contain ilx) so they probably have backed off from the practice alot more than their peers

― cinniblount (James Blount), Monday, 15 December 2003 03:40 (twenty-two years ago)

plus it's not like I'm trying to pull a DeRogatis and really SOCK IT TO 'EM with an extreme dismissal of Hootie or anything.

― Anthony Miccio (Anthony Miccio), Monday, 15 December 2003 03:45 (twenty-two years ago)

derogatis takes no prisoners!

― cinniblount (James Blount), Monday, 15 December 2003 03:47 (twenty-two years ago)

only one place i write for actually even uses numerical ratings, thank christ.

― fiddo centington (dubplatestyle), Monday, 15 December 2003 03:48 (twenty-two years ago)

pitchfork?

― cinniblount (James Blount), Monday, 15 December 2003 03:48 (twenty-two years ago)

yes, now guess who i am.

― fiddo centington (dubplatestyle), Monday, 15 December 2003 03:49 (twenty-two years ago)

rollo pembington

― cinniblount (James Blount), Monday, 15 December 2003 03:49 (twenty-two years ago)

if only!

― fiddo centington (dubplatestyle), Monday, 15 December 2003 03:51 (twenty-two years ago)

haha "extreme"

― M Matos (M Matos), Monday, 15 December 2003 04:19 (twenty-two years ago)

How much cash can one make reviewing cds?

― Jim Reckling (Jim Reckling), Monday, 15 December 2003 04:24 (twenty-two years ago)

depends on how much you can resell em for

― mark p (Mark P), Monday, 15 December 2003 04:25 (twenty-two years ago)

the answer is: not enough and way more than you should.

― fiddo centington (dubplatestyle), Monday, 15 December 2003 04:26 (twenty-two years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.