|
|
Post by lora on Aug 12, 2003 13:28:45 GMT -5
Okay, we need a new post on here too. Let's start a post devoted to each new issue of Rolling Stone. Hey, I never said I read the magazine... I just think this will be interesting. Any comments?
|
|
|
|
Post by SAT-I need more room!! on Aug 18, 2003 13:33:09 GMT -5
Well, I don't have the current issue, so I will just make a general comment on the magazine.
I have select issues from throughout the years, whenever a fave of mine was featured on the cover, or the Hall of Fame or year end issues.
But overall, the magazine is too much for whatever is cool at the moment. They miss too many good things by worrying about the hippest artists.
I'd much rather read Goldmine!
|
|
|
|
Post by gremashlo on Aug 31, 2008 9:08:09 GMT -5
Well, I don't have the current issue, so I will just make a general comment on the magazine. I have select issues from throughout the years, whenever a fave of mine was featured on the cover, or the Hall of Fame or year end issues. But overall, the magazine is too much for whatever is cool at the moment. They miss too many good things by worrying about the hippest artists. I'd much rather read Goldmine! This is an old post, but I had to include my thoughts... ROLLING STONE may be the biggest waste of time ever when it comes to reading...it is a vapid, self-possessed rag that has such a liberal agenda (no surprise from a mag that offered a "roach clip" with its first edition!) that you wonder why they haven't run altered photos of GW Bush molesting collies. As the previous posts mentioned, it goes too far into promoting "The Next Big Thing" to the point that they essentially kill it off (what is truly amusing now is to see how they fawned over the likes of Terence Trent D'arby and Fine Young Cannibals--yeah...they made me forget Elvis)... It has become an Entertainment Weekly for those who think "Time" is too heavy a read while waiting to see the doctor to treat your veneral disease(s). "People" magazine is a more trustworthy and influential document--and that says a LOT. Their attempts to become scholarly are hilarious--they were famous for their 1970's/'80's album review collections, but just as famous for rewriting and revising them as well (check out old volumes to see how the Doors, for example, have weaved from 'legendary' to 'overrrated amateurs' to 'legendary' again, depending on how well the Doors catalog was selling at that time). Also notorious was their 1986 Greatest Rock Singles list--while it was topped by "Rolling Stone" by Bob Dylan (no shock) and followed by "Satisfaction" (by the Rolling Stones, so RS was enjoying the name recognition pun game) the rest of the original poll was severely altered/changed/dumped by Jann Wenner and his sycophant editors to please industry and music pals who RS didn't want to offend or insult. So, their list was a blatant lie (and motivated Dave Marsh to write his own, as well as for SPIN to create their own...and so on and so forth). My sister bought me a subscription back in the late 1980's as a Christmas gift--the only truly enjoyable thing I got out of it was a computer-chip singing Camel Cigarettes ad in one of the magazines. And to think--we allow them to kill TREES to put this out! |
|
