I have been a faithful subscriber to RS for almost twenty years, and I have witnessed the magazine slowly transform from a credible rock and roll journal to the music equivilent of Tiger Beat. In the 1980s, Rolling Stone's passion was music, and it often gave well-deserved nods to artists that were on the cutting edge: U2, Prince, REM, the Smiths, and so on. These days, its attempts to sell copies are getting more desperate as they feature people like Britney, NSYNC, and BSB on their cover sometimes as much as twice a year. I have nothing against teen pop; after all, RS gave Duran Duran a cover story in the 1980s. But it's troubling to see a magazine follow trends when they used to create them.
The record reviews are, for the most part, dubious. Rob Sheffield is one of the usual suspects. Three-and-a-half stars for Britney and Destiny's Child? More trustworthy critics include longtime writer David Fricke, Anthony DeCurtis, and Barry Walters. These guys seem to know what they're talking about when they review records.
The only section of the magazine worth reading is the movies section by Peter Travers, a critic I may not always agree with but one I do respect. Travers has enough heart to go against the grain of public opinion by trashing shallow, self-important, corporate driven, Holllywood movies. It really seems that he is criticizing the very hype machine the rest of Rolling Stone seems to embrace.
All in all, RS has its moments, but its getting disappointing within recent years. Here's hoping it can regain the edge it once had back in the 1970s and 1980s.
Two years ago, Rolling Stone and MTV teamed up to create a list of the "top 100 pop songs of all time." According to that list, the number 10 song OF ALL TIME is, I kid you not, "I Want It That Way" by the Backstreet Boys. It was then that I started to suspect the once-great Rolling Stone was losing it.
In 1967, Rolling Stone started with a simple idea: a "real" music magazine to counteract trendy teenage fluff like "Tiger Beat." As the years wore on, they stayed true to their mission despite the inroads of disco and the MTV pretty boys of the '80s. Sure, artists like Duran Duran appeared on a few covers, but on the whole Rolling Stone worked hard to maintain its credibility, giving much-needed exposure to then-cutting-edge acts like Bruce Springsteen, Tom Petty, U2 and Nirvana.
Then, through a series of mergers and acquisitions, Rolling Stone eventually became part of the Vivendi Universal empire. Soon, pressure to increase circulation and "appeal to a younger audience" escalated. The people at Vivendi, a French water company that knows nothing about entertainment, seem to think "a younger audience" doesn't want to read anything about artists they've never heard of. In fact, "a younger audience" probably doesn't want to read at all; they just want to see a sexy pinup photo of Britney's boobs or Justin's pecs, whatever you prefer.
Now here's where I lost my last shred of respect for RS: All those Britney/boy band covers and the MTV Top 100 fiasco were bad enough, but what gave them the nerve to put CLAY AIKEN on the cover?! Any magazine with a reality-show contestant on its cover instantly loses all "music" credibility. They might as well hold their own "American Idol"-style contest to pick their next cover boy/girl. (You can see where that kind of strategy has gotten Vivendi; now they're desperate to sell off their entertainment assets so they can get back to what they know best, preventing cholera and dysentery among the French.)
In its heyday, Rolling Stone was a rallying point for those who truly appreciate great music. Today it's a glorified pinup fanzine with slightly better writing and production values than "Tiger Beat." Come on, Clay Aiken on the cover? Imagine the Rolling Stone of 1967 with an Ohio Express cover.
Buy Rolling Stone (1-year auto-renewal) Now
You might as well read Vibe, People or Spin--they're all the same editorially as the current shell that is called Rolling Stone. The quality that used to define RS as a distinguished platform for thoughful cultural reflection is gone.
Read Best Reviews of Rolling Stone (1-year auto-renewal) Here
Many reviewers slam RS for slipping away from the cutting edge but let's face it, that happened a long, long, long time ago when rock and roll itself stopped being cutting edge. If nothing else, Rolling Stone magazine precisely mirrors rock's co-opting with corporate America. Furthermore, in this day and age there is no shortage of available magazines, blogsites, websites, etc. for one to subscribe if they care to avoid what they perceive as blatant commericialism, so why slag off a magazine that has simply followed the path of the music form that spawned it?
I took a long time off from reading it because I too thought that RS has long since ceased to be worthwhile and it wasn't until I decided to browse some issues that I thought I'd give it another try. Since that time, I've dropped nearly all my subscriptions (too much money and not enough time in the day to read them all!!) and I'm glad that RS covers many of those various interest areas for me. I get political coverage that I generally agree with provided you understand their strong left leanings, movie reviews to keep up with what's out, solid music reviews that at least make you aware of who is releasing what, the old stand-by Random Notes, and the interviews. I still enjoy reading about rock performers and since I started back up half a year ago, I've seen enough of the older artists to satisfy my particular interests. Another good thing about it is that I can stay abreast of new acts and keep my own music collection fresh.
Yes, there are way too many ads, yes their incessant 'Top Whatever' lists are little more than reasons to get hate mail to print in their letters section, yes it is a corporate rag, yes it sucks at the teat of pop culture way too much, and yes it is too middle of the road to ever satisfy those who seek a bit more cojones in their periodicals, but it is bathroom reading at its best, it keeps me informed, keeps pressure on Washington, and still shines enough light on the dinosaurs I enjoy. When you consider that they practically give the magazine away in subscription form (versus the staggeringly high newsstand rate), it won't be a waste of your money to buy a subscription and give it a chance.
Want Rolling Stone (1-year auto-renewal) Discount?
Remember that adorable teen from "Almost Famous," who dreamed of writing cuting-edge rock articles for Rolling Stone? No way. Not now, anyway. Once an edgy herald of music and rebellion, Rolling Stone has lurched gracelessly into its old age, filled with a mess of stars du jour and frenetic MTV coverage.
Rolling Stone keeps an eye on the music industry -scandals, controversies, concert coverage and reviews of the latest albums. They cover quite a bit of movie stuff as well, interviewing/covering directors like Peter Jackson and Quentin Tarantino, as well as (always attractive and usually young) actors. And there's also political commentary, stubbornly one-sided and lacking in subtlety and brains.
Long ago, Rolling Stone was a force to be reckoned with. But now it's the magazine equivalent of a paunchy, wrinkled guy who buys a toupee and sports car, in a futile attempt to convince the world that he's still young and cool. Newer, wittier, more musically interesting magazines like Filter, Under the Radar and the online Kludge have slipped into the place that Rolling Stone once occupied.
It certainly doesn't help that Rolling Stone is having an ongoing personality crisis. Is it a music mag? A political mag? A movie mag? It tries to be all three, and succeeds at none. Their politics is ridiculously one-sided, lacking any complexity. And the music coverage is too mainstream to be terribly interesting. Yes, some of the bands covered -like the White Stripes -are good. But up-and-coming bands, not to mention most of the rich indie music scene, are left to languish in the shadows.
Certainly Rolling Stone can't be commended for many of their choices -it was a welcome relief when they put rock great Jimi Hendrix on the cover. But every cover of Jimi or the Beatles is outweighed by shirtless pictures of Timberlake or Usher, or naked pictures of Britney or Christina. Even the ones wearing clothes (like wannabe-rebel Avril) seem to be appealing to fetishes. Yep, many of the covers are eye-catching mainly for the skin factor.
Even those things might be acceptable, were the writing good. But save a handful of insightful movie reviews, the writing comes across as strained and painful. Attempts at wit and jokes fall flat. And some of the "human interest" stories border on revoltingly tasteless.
Creaking and covered in dust, boomer mag "Rolling Stone" passed its prime long ago. Let the gossip and pop coverage rest. Instead, check out mags like Filter, Kludge and Under the Radar, with their rich music coverage and insightful writing.
Save 85% Off
If you are interested in American Civil War artillery, this is THE reference for you. Coggins book is great for most first level study, but this magazine and their authors is certainly the next level. I have been a subscriber of their earlier mag, The Muzzle Loading Artilleryman...back in the 70s. The Paulsen brothers have been 'figuring-out' ACW cannon that long and first hand. They helped me determine the rate of fire for a 10lb Parrot rifle...since the rounds were so tight that the round's sabot had to be chiseled for it to slide down the rifle barrel. The ammo wasn't fixed either so the rate of fire was slow compared to the Howitzers and Napoleons...hence artillerymen of the time liked the smooth bores better, even 6 lbers!
