Reasonably nice, light blue, with a guitar motif and the words "Rolling Stone" scrawled across the front. Attached to the label was a postcard for a free subscription to the iconic -- if no longer cutting edge -- music magazine.
How about that for progress? Buy a tee-shirt and get a free magazine subscription. It used to be the other way around. How many SI football phones, TimeLife screwdriver sets, Alfred E Neuman alarm clocks and the sort litter my parents' basement (or more likely their local landfill)? Does this mean if I buy a toaster, Black & Decker will give me a free bank account?
Anyway, I got my second issue last week. And what would you think I found -- in these modern times! -- on the cover of the Rolling Stone?
The weighty importance of Blink-182's reunion tour? Revelations about pop's latest plastic creation, Lady Gaga*? Hip college favorites like Wilco or Modest Mouse? The coolness of being Jack White?
Nope. Not even close.
No, Rolling Stone parodies its own irrelevance with THIS cover:
Seriously? In 2009? The Editor's Note at front of the mag says the Beatles were pretty popular back in the day. And apparently, a lot of people still like their music.
The story inside says the band succumbed to the excesses of success: inflated egos, hurt feelings, drug use, corrupt management, creative differences, Yoko, bad hygiene, shoddy English dentistry; the exact same stuff that got David Lee Roth kicked out of Van Halen. I guess not everyone got the memo.
Well, at least there's always hope for a reunion someday! Unless one of them dies or something.
* Lady Gaga was already on it, naked, covered in bubbles. Original. Right Marilyn?
8 comments:
Dude, that's so funny--I saw this issue in the store yesterday and I thought the exact same thing.
RS long ago became the go-to magazine for aging boomers who say "there hasn't been a damn thing worth listening to since Led Zeppelin IV." Look at any of their ridiculous "best of" lists (best albums, songs, singers, etc.) and about 85% of the selections are from between 35 and 55 years ago--I actually did a statistical analysis on this recently to confirm my suspicions.
Of course, a biweekly magazine is already a month out of date by the time it hits the stores, but RS has been a major disappointment for years. This is from a guy who thought it was the best magazine in the world from when I first discovered it at age 10 (the first issue I ever bought had Blondie on the cover), until I figured out in college that most of the music that I was interested in was not even mentioned in RS. Since then, I have only bought it on the rare occasions when the cover caught my eye--and, yes, the Lady GaGa issue was one of the last ones I bought!
For the past two years I have been reading an English music magazine, MOJO, fairly regularly:
http://www.mojo4music.com/blog/
Ironically, the current issue also features the Beatles, but MOJO always has a mix of extremely well-researched (and long!) historical articles, covering artists from all pop eras--not just 60s/70s--and the most current, hip (as far as I know...we are 42, remember) acts today. They have hundreds of reviews in each issue, and each one comes with a free bonus CD, which is usually of excellent quality. It's a monthly, and it takes a while for it to cross the pond, but it's still more current than the latest RS--check it out if you get a chance (I get it at Border's).
Reviewing my post, I should say that I didn't mean to bag too harshly on your Father's Day gift--I'm sure that whoever got it for you figured that it was a good gift for a music lover, but I picked up on your comment about the irrelevance of the cover story and ran with it...anyway, RS would be good if you didn't have to pay for it, as probably about 40% of its content is usually worth reading...peace out.
Dr. B: Nice. I'll definitely check out MOJO.
And don't worry about bagging on my gift. The intended gift really was just a tee-shirt with a guitar theme (which I like well enough). No one even knew about the subscription card until I had to cut it off before wearing the shirt.
I also had a subscription to RS going back to my early teens. At that time it had a decent mix of Clapton & Lauper & Townshend & Sting. Then it started to suck and I let go. Never missed it.
The new format also sucks - now the size of a regular magazine with approximately the same verbiage. The means the typefont is shrunk too. Hard for my 42-year old eyes. Must be damn near impossible for ol' Jann Wenner (whose wife's name is Jane Wenner - how's that for a) a blast from our own past and b) just plain stupid - Jann & Jane. I guess Hansel & Gretl or Buffy & Jodie were out of the question).
On a related, uh, note I saw Kurt Loder interviewed on some late night talk show last night. The interviewer brought up the fact he used to write for Cream before switching to Rolling Stone, then moving on to MTV. Loder said he hadn't really read RS in a while. He also panned the new Woodstock movie saying something to the effect that a lot of people in the world can't wait for the last hippie to finally die off so they can get some true peace...and quiet.
Sometimes irony can be pretty ironic.
PS As it turns out, the entire original Beatles catalogue is to be re-issued as a box set next month. That seems to be the impetus for this whole show about nothing.
I liked it better on Seinfeld.
Several years ago, I too got a free subscription from Rolling Stone for going to the Rock-N-Roll Hall of Fame one afternoon on my way through Ohio. I was kinda stoked and then read the first issue and well it sucked! Full of way left wing political undertoned craps, poor attempts at review horrible music. I recall them bagging on Puddle of Mud being my last straw, I notified them I no longer wanted the mag and I had like 8 months left on my subscription. Of course I continued to received it for another 1.5 years (???) never opening it again. Then my son noticed it and started reading them, after a couple issues I handed him the latest and he said "no thanks it's kinda stupid and boring". In summary ... they suck!
I'm ashamed to admit that I still read it- mainly for Chuck Klosterman. I recommend reading any of his stuff you come across- it's good to know someone else is as neurotic as I am, always reassuring.
Klosterman is good--I have all of his books. With the exception of a strange obsession with Kiss, his rock criticisms/analyses/memoirs are usually on point, and he's funny in a "not trying to ape Hunter Thompson" way, which is how the current RS political guy (Matt Taibbi [sp??]?) writes his leftist screeds.
Agreed, that Matt guy has got to chill his liberal self out, I tend to skip most of his stuff. RE: Klosterman - love how messed up his relationships always seem to be/are with the women in his life. There's a great part in one of his books where he's road tripping by himself but creates a whole conversation with his imaginary companions, all ex girlfriends. Good stuff-
Post a Comment