How Rolling Stone Magazine Sabotaged Paul McCartney’s RAM Album! #thebeatles #paulmccartney

[ronster]

Right on. There was definitely an anti McCartney bias in the early 70’s at Rolling Stone… and elsewhere.

[stephanieredden]

Ringo is more talented than most people know.

[buddygreco]

Thank you for doing this. Wenner is a moron for doing what he did. He's never impressed me. Ram is absolutely brilliant!!

[leonardblush]

I was 18 when Ram came out, I thought, "OMG, this is a mini-masterpiece, as creative as Pepper, albeit in it's own very different way." When the reviews came out, I was in shock. Finally, Circus magazine came out with a strong thumbs up, which helped a alittle bit. The negative garbage never stopped me from playing it daily for weeks, though.

[AndrewLoukidis-jrbp]

Ah yes, the famous "friends of Jann" policy.
He praised every Yoko album, giving them great reviews

[phillipanderson]

I went back to the original Rolling Stone review of Paul and Linda's album. John Landau ( later to be Bruce Springsteen's producer) said at least Dylan's "Self Portrait" could be hated, but RAM was "totally inconsequential" and " “Ram represents the nadir in the decomposition of sixties rock thus far".

[beachlifebestlife]

i lov'd mccartneys debut solo LP "cherries album"

[johnanthonycafe]

Disagree. Firstly the vocals which were fantastic were never duplicated.
Secondly their unique fusion of different
musical influences. Thirdly they self critiqued until it sounded right.

[captainfantastic]

Akin to music journalists on both sides of the Atlantic who banned together to slander every Stephen Stills album or single because he represented the worst of the arrogant Laurel Canyon fatcats to them.

Review the artists' WORK, not their personality.

[Kamala-Walz--America]

All of the Beatles did put out some great music post Beatles. There were generally a few great songs on each album. But there was also a lot of filler. The one exception might be Band on the Run. Otherwise, what happened after the Beatles broke up is they all lost the benefit of including their songs on a unified album.

[slappyabromowitz]

Really fantastic point and factually, correct. The review of RAM was unconscionable. from McCartney to emerge so victorious despite that horrendous takedown is a testament to his character

[martyreking]

Rolling Stones is like the CNN of music magazine.

[scottramirez]

You are crazy😂 😂😂😂😂 Ringo put out some decent stuff but only thanks to George Harrison

[bobbcarpenter]

Same level of favoritism found in the Rock 'n' Roll HoF!

[jamesnash]

…the first McCartney album has a single listenable song…Weak sauce from all of them, the feeling at the time being “well, what’s the point in breaking-up if you’re just going to flood the market with lesser material under your individual names ?”

[thomasminarchickjr.]

Rolling Stones was filled with a bunch of pretentious critics that had no talent of their own and bagged on anything that wasn’t their version of what rock should be.

[californiadreaming]

Why they couldn’t have agreed to just make their individual albums at Abby Road

[moonbeamskies]

Ram was far worse than even the reviewers said it was. The magnitude of awfulness of Ram actually balances out all the good of the Beatles discography. Ram is the yin to the Beatles yang. 1 out of 10.

[Jominycrocket]

He was in Lennon’s pocket bc he kissed Yoko’ ass. Such a dirtbag

[leonardtomaine]

Rolling Stone has always been garbage. A music magazine that knows Nothing about music.!