It only took 40-odd years of Rush being an amazing band with tons of fans for Rolling Stone to figure out that there's something to it. Or maybe they haven't, and just made a lucky mistake. Rolling Stone is a terrible magazine for music.

My hatred of the mag aside, it's about time they put Rush on the cover, and just in time, since this will probably be the last tour for the Canadian band.

While I like the band, I've never been a fanatic about them, like an ex-girlfriend of mine is. I've never bought a weird lunchbox off Ebay just because Geddy had one as a stage prop (true story), and I haven't bought the Alex Lifeson Les Paul, even though it's a nice guitar with its contour neck cutaway and piezo pickups.

But I've alway had a lot of respect for them. They've put out some of the most interesting music for 4 decades, that still has hooks and catchiness to it. Even people who don't like the band have respect for what they've done in their career.

Except Rolling Stone. That rag would rather put just popular hacks on every month, than really dig into good music. Sometimes they get a good one up, but they're like that friend who wants to be so Indie and hip, that they can't like anything that everyone else does. They have to find the obscure, mediocre bands and tout them like they're more amazing than everything else you're listening to.

And don't get me started on their treatment of metal. They just don't get it, and every 'review' of a metal album I've seen them even attempt has been pathetic. They don't even try to hide their disdain for styles of music they don't understand. If they decide you shouldn't like it, then they won't even give it a chance to be good.

I wonder who makes those decisions, and if they've been paid to make these choices? Sometimes I think their reviews are for sale, but I have no proof of that...but they always seem to love crappy albums, and hate the best stuff.

At least the bad reviews will occasionally be funny.