Rolling Stone: Not so pretty

Wednesday, March 25th, 2009 | musiX

It’s no secret that Rolling Stone magazine has steadily been going to hell in a handbasket for years. Financially, too, I’m sure. I receive a free subscription to the hippie-hipster rag because I purchased a few tickets through Ticketmaster (I figured I’m owed about $183 for all those service charges I’ve paid over the past 20 years).

It’s bad. Thin political pieces. Lame interviews. Predictable album reviews. Buzzing about buzz bands that buzzed so many moons ago. My favorite part of the magazine? Reading the From the Vault section and waxing nostalgic on the songs and albums that were popular decades ago.

Three things that have recently made me cringe: A sorry stab at satire in the form of a faux interview with former President George Bush in January; a five-star review of the new U2 record by usual suspect David Fricke; and the latest cover featuring two pretty young things from a show called Gossip Girl sharing an ice cream cone … looks like strawberry, perhaps.

Don’t get me wrong—I don’t like Bush, I like-like U2 and I really like pretty young things and ice cream … oh ice cream … sweet, sweet ice cream …

… where was I? Yes, during the first week of March in 1979, the Top 10 singles were as follows:

1. Gloria Gaynor
“I Will Survive”

2. Rod Stewart
“Do Ya Think I’m Sexy?”

3. Bee Gees
“Tragedy”

4. The Pointer Sisters
“Fire”

5. Donna Summer with Brooklyn Dreams
“Heaven Knows”

6. Olivia Newton-John
“A Little More Love”

7. Peaches and Herb
“Shake Your Groove Thing”

8. The Doobie Brothers
“What a Fool Believes”

9. Village People
“Y.M.C.A.”

10. Dire Straits
“Sultans of Swing”

Tags: , ,

7 Comments to Rolling Stone: Not so pretty

Dude04
March 25, 2009

i dunno, the interviews in RS are actually pretty great, don’t know who does ‘em better…

Mark
March 25, 2009

I used to think the interviews were good…some recent ones have been pretty boring (the Brad Pitt interview immediately comes to mind).

Jack
March 25, 2009

On a related note, the magazine recently changed their actual page size to a smaller, more standard format. It’s the first change to the page dimensions at least since I’ve been paying attention (which would be around the early 90s). They may not be up to the quality of their earlier decades, but it’s sad to see any long-standing music magazine fading into obscurity in the present climate.

Bob
March 25, 2009

There have been some pretty good foreign reporting and some interesting news-y pieces within the pages of this rag, but otherwise, they are just trying to sell copies the only way they know how - provocative cover art and stroking the egos of record companies and bands who pay big bucks to advertise within its pages. I mean, what other magazine would run an ad trying to help David Crosby sell his yacht, then run a “news” item on the same thing in the next issue?

Dave Dave
March 27, 2009

I’m mostly with you on this, Mark. RS prints a lot of tripe, especially when you consider the Hunter S. Thompson reporting during the early 70s. But Matt Taibbi’s article in the current issue, besides the fact that he’s always doing a bad HST impression, is a pretty good overview of the overview of the people and the decisions behind the financial meltdown.

Other than that: their paparazzi pictures drive me crazy, and every time I see David Fricke’s name, all I can think of are really big teeth.

Mark
March 27, 2009

The political pieces and the interviews are hit and miss. Just seems like they’ve been more miss than hit lately. I think RS tries too hard sometimes, and is having a difficult time figuring out what it wants to be.

Maddog
April 5, 2009

Jann Wenner is a weiner.

Leave a comment

Search

Topics of Destruction