Rolling Stone Magazine Sucribe Review
I must be getting old; I can actually remember a time when “Rolling Stone” was the best printed source for reliable information regarding music and musicians; it was timely, pertinent, and highly respected. Unfortunately, it seems to have degenerated into a sad mixture of half-baked politics, overblown hype for new movies, silly fluff about “artists” like Britney Spears, and ads, ads, ads. In fact, “Rolling Stone” is now about as relevant and meaningful as “Tiger Beat” was in its day. Do you enjoy reading about trendy “stars” who will be forgotten by this time next year? Do you like to read article-length advertisements for the latest product from Hollywood? How about some ill-informed, poorly-composed political commentary? Are you fond of being bombarded with page after page of advertisements? If so, today’s “Rolling Stone” is for you. If you are seeking worthwhile material about musicians and their music, look elsewhere – “Rolling Stone” has sold out. (Happy Customer – USA)
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. (E. A Solinas “ea_solinas” – MD USA)
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. (Ben Collins – Ventura, CA United States)
Incoming search terms for the article:
- eminem almost famous backup singer
- rolling stone credibility
- cinderella man eminem backup singer
- eminem and rebellion rolling stone
- rolling stone
- what makes the rolling stone magazine credible?
- who has the most coverage on rolling stones mag
Related posts:












Interesting article…….I do take issue with a couple of your statement tho. First off……why is it wrong for Rolling Stone to put an artist on their cover who breaks all sorts of records for sales?? Isn’t that news?? Because you do not like an artist does not make it wrong to put them on the cover of the magazine. Clay Aiken’s first single sold more copies than any single except Elton John’s song for Princess Diana. Then, his first album went 2 platinum in the first week of sales. Isn’t that news and something to talk about.
I would much rather have Clay Aiken on the cover as a musician than some stars that are not musicians but actors who sell magazines.
I do not watch American Idol. The concept is wrong to me, however, to assume that everyone who is on the show is not a good musician and should not get recognition for their music is just as wrong.
Would you complain if Linda Eder was on the cover of Rolling Stone?? She is one of the most successful female singers around, yet, she got her start on Star Search…….
Your article comes across as prejudice and it reads as if you will not accept good talent even if it is found on TV.
@ Suziq: Thank you, you are the best! Maybe someday when you come back, looks have changed!
Darn, Ben, I did not know that singers who got their start via talent shows were not bonafide singers. I beg to differ (and I will not mention that AI’s Adam Lambert, who has set no sales records of any kind, was on the RS cover).
Talent shows of “old” produced many top entertainers, including people like Dean Martin. In fact, my great uncle came in second to him in a regional talent show many decades ago..and he was a much better singer than Dino!