Rolling Stone Magazine....

[Elvis Presley]

So, I know someone who is interning at Rolling Stone this summer and I have repeatedly forced my opinions of thier general suckiness over the past 4-5 years to her.
The Britney/Justin/American Idol covers are only one of my many complaints about a rag that was formerlly "the" pulse of music..........

Here is a snippett from an email I got from her today explaining the Clay Aiken cover....

"covers sell magazines. to have a mag in
business, you have to sell, obviously. but, it is what is inside the cover that really
matters. so, while clay aiken or brittany spears may just play as "bait" in order to
sell (brittany on the cover sold a record amt....it is sad, but there is just a market
for that stuff) those covers allow us to grab the reader's attention and then fill the
inside pages with great stuff such as the feature on the war on iraq and a great
radiohead feature. you know? you can't judge a mag by it's cover....and you
have to remeber that RS has a job to do as well...sell magazines, or else there will
be no more RS. we are not an indie music mag, but like to feature a great
assortment of things. "


whatever...

 

[cujo]

assortment of what exactly?

Corporate whore is what that magazine is

 

[meegannie]

interns

 

[u2popmofo]

I dont even know who Clay Aiken is, and I dont think I want to.

 

[Elvis Presley]

yeah, hes that guy from American Idol....


I dont buy the whole thing, I think the RS organization has gone to crap, they know sex sells and thats important to them. Money, not giving us the info about music that they should.

I mean, thier reviewers are such crap too, I was on RS.com reading a review for the new Jay Fararr album that the reviewer gave 2 stars. Not a big deal right, just tell us why eh? Well, he was able to summarize it in about 3 sentences!!! A load of crap......

I will never support RS again, I promise you that.

 

[HeartlandGirl]

I actually thought having Clay Aiken on the cover was an improvement for RS. At least he's got talent.

RS overall =

And that's pretty sad that they put that much stock into the cover. If the magazine is great on the inside, people will find out about it and buy it anyway.

 

[brettig]

Is media the reflector or the director...

If a magazine cover doesn't catch your eye, do you pick it up? No.

Rolling Stone was never an indie music magazine anyway, so why the outrage?

 

[Elvis Presley]

Re: Is media the reflector or the director...

If a magazine cover doesn't catch your eye, do you pick it up? No.

Rolling Stone was never an indie music magazine anyway, so why the outrage?

I dont think its outrage, and youre right, they never were indie, I really wish thier reviews would improve though. And they did seem more about the music in the past (i may be kidding myself), and now its all about the money, thats obvious.

 

[LarryMullen's POPAngel]

 

[MrBrau1]

I'll buy RS when U2's on the cover. Other than that, I won't even skim it at the newstand anymore, the things like 50% ad pages.

 

[HelloAngel]

Re: Re: Is media the reflector or the director...

I dont think its outrage, and youre right, they never were indie, I really wish thier reviews would improve though. And they did seem more about the music in the past (i may be kidding myself), and now its all about the money, thats obvious.

Exactly. I think I would faint if I actually saw real musicians on the cover for once instead of pop starlets, shitty rock bands and whoever is promoting a movie that week. blargh.

 

[JOFO]

who even buys magazines anymore when you can just read them online?

 

[brettig]

Re: Is media the reflector or the director...

Exactly. I think I would faint if I actually saw real musicians on the cover for once instead of pop starlets, shitty rock bands and whoever is promoting a movie that week. blargh.

HA, you were in the music trade at one time, yeah? So you'd know how the PR machine works...people with decent taste in music don't generally get to make these sorts of decisions simply because most of the market doesn't think enough about music to care about artistic cred. Or at least, the market that does is not big enough to satisfy the circulation goals of the magazine.

Most people here would say they only get Rolling Stone if U2 makes the cover, which is exactly why they put out the covers they do...people do buy them for their covers! And the majority of people out there want popstars on the cover.

Yep Rolling Stone is about money, but what music mag isn't? The music press really is just a gravy train most of the time.

I can't defend the reviews though, either they'll be pushing an agenda with it or they'll be writing something ill-informed and poorly researched.

 

[dsmith2904]

When Rolling Stone launched in the late '60s it was a counter-culture magazine featuring interviews with John Lennon and columns by Hunter S. Thompson. It was a music mag but it was also about pop culture and politics. Soon though pop culture took over and most issues would have the casts of Seinfeld or Friends, Sarah Michelle Gellar in bondage atire, Tori Spelling in a shower to sell Scream 2 and very, very rarely would any bands or musicians make the cover.
When I went to see Almost Famous in the theater and the scene came on when Ben Fong Torres says, "We'd like you to write for us," it was like my dream come true. Rolling Stone did always have this iconic quality because it was such a big deal, because they did get great interviews with great artists -- U2, Guns 'n Roses, Madonna and so on. Today, sadly, the magazine has become something of a joke. Instead of being counter-culture or arbiters of cool, it's just following whatever sad trend is being perpetrated by Maxim or kid sister publication US. Because of this sales are down and the staff has been shuffled and reshuffled several times in the last few years to try to come up with some type of solid direction for the magazine.
There has been some controversy over this Clay Aiken cover, people asking why American Idol runner-up Clay was chosen over winner Ruben Studdard, racism has even been brought up. To me, that seems to be a false issue, my concern over this cover is it's truly the last nail in the coffin for Rolling Stone. Why is the magazine just now jumping on the American Idol bandwagon? Why devote a cover to a person who has released only one, non-original single? Why not devote time to breaking bands? Why not do a cover story on the reunited Janes Addiction and the relaunched Lollapolooza? What about Radiohead? What about Luther Vandross having the number one album while lying in a coma?
There's so many great stories in music, so many wonderful artists deserving of the attention from Rolling Stone but the magazine is either too lazy or too out of touch to catch on. It really does make me sad because I'd like to think that Rolling Stone could stay relevant for 40 years, that anything could matter for that long, but maybe that's not possible. At least I can count on Q now to cover music the way it should be.

 

[HelloAngel]

Re: Re: Is media the reflector or the director...

HA, you were in the music trade at one time, yeah? So you'd know how the PR machine works...people with decent taste in music don't generally get to make these sorts of decisions simply because most of the market doesn't think enough about music to care about artistic cred. Or at least, the market that does is not big enough to satisfy the circulation goals of the magazine.

You are correct.. but knowing how the machine works and actually agreeing with it are two different things. Sex and hype sells the most covers, a plaintive rocker does not, unless of course their shirt is unbuttoned.

 

[brettig]

At least I can count on Q now to cover music the way it should be.

Can you? In the UK people are saying the same thing about Q as what's being said about Rolling Stone here! Granted they haven't fallen quite as far but the reviews they give aren't terribly authoritive these days. Get a chance to look at the REM buyers' guide they had up on the website the other week? Shallow skimming to say the least...

Edit: Read that guide here

I've got a book of Rolling Stone articles which date from about 66 to 72. I actually wasn't that impressed by them. There are a few classics but the majority lack the sort of insights you expect from such hallowed times (Woodstock, Beatles breakup, deaths of Hendrix, Joplin etc) while the writing is rather dense and uninspired. Maybe its the authors' supply of grass/acid talking

HA, that would make Meatloaf kinda a grey area huh?

 

[Angela Harlem]

Thats not like you to repeatedly force your opinion on someone EP!
RS is like the Billboard of magazines, merely one more 'look' much like the alternative indie scene where moody and brooding is the desired aproach.

Blech, I think Betty and I just agreed on something...

 

[HelloAngel]

HA, that would make Meatloaf kinda a grey area huh?

LMFAO. "It was never Meatloaf!"

 

[yertle-the-turtle]

Yes I think I jinxed Q, because since I've started buying it Christina Aguilera has started appearing on the cover.

 

[dsmith2904]

Yes I think I jinxed Q, because since I've started buying it Christina Aguilera has started appearing on the cover.

Damn I forgot about that one!

I don't think Q is a hardcore fanboy magazine, I think it's dedicated to readers who fall somewhere it between the category of people who live for those "Now That's What I Call Music" compilations and characters from Nick Hornby novels. The magazine does cover a variety of stuff, from dance to teen pop to hip hop to metal to classic rock to whatever bridges those gaps. I like that in one issue I can read about Dave Gahan, Marilyn Mason, tAtU and NWA. How often does Rolling Stone offer that kind of variety?
Of course, there's no guarantee that Q couldn't go south as well, but as long as they keep their mission in mind they should be solid. Rolling Stone definitely needs some work on theirs.

 

[Flying FuManchu]

Hrrrmph

If Rolling Stone wants to be considered a music magazine then there needs to be a fair share of Britney, N'Sync, American Idol type of covers displayed.

 

[Elvis Presley]

Thats not like you to repeatedly force your opinion on someone EP!
:

 

[sulawesigirl4]

rollingstone is a waste of time. i buy it when U2 is on the cover, purely for collector's purposes but other than that, I leave it.

 

[ouizy]

I stopped my subscription the day I discovered the internet.

 

[cujo]

Well if your problem with RS lies in the content of their reviews and their overall focus, you have to remember that most of the critics are not artists themselves. They may have an informed opinion, but most of the time the stuff posted in Rolling Stone is bullshit sponsored by the flavor of the week and payolas. If you want a real music digest type magazine, I suggest you look more towards the instrumental publications. Although a mag like Revolver may at first glance seem trashy and fabricated like the rest, most of the reviews are honest. These days I rarely pick up magazines in the music genre... and if I do it's usually guitar-based.

Guitar-World

 

[LarryMullen's POPAngel]

Yes I think I jinxed Q, because since I've started buying it Christina Aguilera has started appearing on the cover.

thanks a lot, yertle!!!

 

[JOFO]

When Rolling Stone launched in the late '60s it was a counter-culture magazine featuring interviews with John Lennon and columns by Hunter S. Thompson. It was a music mag but it was also about pop culture and politics. Soon though pop culture took over and most issues would have the casts of Seinfeld or Friends, Sarah Michelle Gellar in bondage atire, Tori Spelling in a shower to sell Scream 2 and very, very rarely would any bands or musicians make the cover.
When I went to see Almost Famous in the theater and the scene came on when Ben Fong Torres says, "We'd like you to write for us," it was like my dream come true. Rolling Stone did always have this iconic quality because it was such a big deal, because they did get great interviews with great artists -- U2, Guns 'n Roses, Madonna and so on. Today, sadly, the magazine has become something of a joke. Instead of being counter-culture or arbiters of cool, it's just following whatever sad trend is being perpetrated by Maxim or kid sister publication US. Because of this sales are down and the staff has been shuffled and reshuffled several times in the last few years to try to come up with some type of solid direction for the magazine.
There has been some controversy over this Clay Aiken cover, people asking why American Idol runner-up Clay was chosen over winner Ruben Studdard, racism has even been brought up. To me, that seems to be a false issue, my concern over this cover is it's truly the last nail in the coffin for Rolling Stone. Why is the magazine just now jumping on the American Idol bandwagon? Why devote a cover to a person who has released only one, non-original single? Why not devote time to breaking bands? Why not do a cover story on the reunited Janes Addiction and the relaunched Lollapolooza? What about Radiohead? What about Luther Vandross having the number one album while lying in a coma?
There's so many great stories in music, so many wonderful artists deserving of the attention from Rolling Stone but the magazine is either too lazy or too out of touch to catch on. It really does make me sad because I'd like to think that Rolling Stone could stay relevant for 40 years, that anything could matter for that long, but maybe that's not possible. At least I can count on Q now to cover music the way it should be.

one of the best posts ever.

 

[Salome]

Sex and hype sells the most

ah, perhaps I should aim for hype then

 

[HelloAngel]

ah, perhaps I should aim for hype then

Oh, you've already got the hype, baybeee

Devlin You rock, girl. It was a fabulous post

 

[zonelistener]

I am SURE I am about to reiterate here, but............

For every glossy, ad-filled Rolling Stone sitting at your dentist's office - there are probably three more "indie-like" publications out there with better reviews, better features, etc. etc. etc. Go to your local newstand or bookstore with a decent selection of magazines, and you can find some real gems. has anyone checked out Under the Radar? I read this last week, and it pretty much fits my music listening to a T. If I want features on something other than music, I pick up a different magazine (at my hairstylist or off an airplane, etc. etc.). So many choices out there.