doctorwho
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
I came across the following on youtwo.net:
September 5, 2001
Condensed from Rolling Stone:
We're disturbed -- but not surprised -- to see U2 whoring out "Beautiful Day" to any movie company that wants to use it in a trailer. And, judging from our recent excursions to the cinema, that appears to be all of 'em . . .
This simple statement infuriates me.
I find it ridiculously hypocritical for Rolling Stone magazine to claim that U2 are "whoring" themselves simply because they are selling song CLIPS to studios, while Rolling Stone apparently has no problem putting a made-up band, who do not write their own songs or play their own instruments, on 6(!) different covers and declares them the "World's Biggest Band." Clearly the six different covers were created to sell more magazines (as collector's would want each cover). Furthermore, how can one possibly fathom a made-up band as world dominators? This declaration is especially questionable considering N'Sync's latest chart performance. N'Sync's "Celebrity" plummetted from the Top 100 of U.K. charts after 4 short weeks, dived out of the Dutch charts in the same amount of time and never even made it onto the Australian or Irish charts. Even in the U.S., "Celebrity" has dropped below sales of 100,000 copies per week in only its 6th week (in contrast, ATYCLB sold over 100,000 copies a week for its first nine weeks). Therefore, can someone please explain why N'Sync was declared the World's Biggest Band?
Of course, that is a rhetorical question, as I know the answer. Clearly Rolling Stone's declaration was for one reason and one reason only: to cater to the younger U.S. crowd and sell more magazines (as U.S. teenagers are more prone to spending $$ on silly things).
I don't have a problem with this in and of itself. I do believe in marketing and advertising. However, I draw the line at hypocrisy. How dare Rolling Stone accuse U2 of "whoring" themselves simply for marketing a clip of a song, while Rolling Stone is blatantly catering to the whims of today's youth with the hopes of selling more magazines? Clearly the bigger "whoring" transgression is Rolling Stone's.
I can tolerate Rolling Stone putting Brad Pitt or Jennifer Anniston or other actors on the cover, even though they have nothing to do with music. I can accept Rolling Stone incorporating more ideas into their magazine other than music so that they can sell more. But what I cannot tolerate is this blatant hypocrisy.
I will NEVER again read or peruse Rolling Stone magazine or their web site.
[This message has been edited by doctorwho (edited 09-06-2001).]
September 5, 2001
Condensed from Rolling Stone:
We're disturbed -- but not surprised -- to see U2 whoring out "Beautiful Day" to any movie company that wants to use it in a trailer. And, judging from our recent excursions to the cinema, that appears to be all of 'em . . .
This simple statement infuriates me.
Of course, that is a rhetorical question, as I know the answer. Clearly Rolling Stone's declaration was for one reason and one reason only: to cater to the younger U.S. crowd and sell more magazines (as U.S. teenagers are more prone to spending $$ on silly things).
I don't have a problem with this in and of itself. I do believe in marketing and advertising. However, I draw the line at hypocrisy. How dare Rolling Stone accuse U2 of "whoring" themselves simply for marketing a clip of a song, while Rolling Stone is blatantly catering to the whims of today's youth with the hopes of selling more magazines? Clearly the bigger "whoring" transgression is Rolling Stone's.
I can tolerate Rolling Stone putting Brad Pitt or Jennifer Anniston or other actors on the cover, even though they have nothing to do with music. I can accept Rolling Stone incorporating more ideas into their magazine other than music so that they can sell more. But what I cannot tolerate is this blatant hypocrisy.
I will NEVER again read or peruse Rolling Stone magazine or their web site.
[This message has been edited by doctorwho (edited 09-06-2001).]
