#1 Reason: Obsession With ListsI am not exaggerating when I say that that shit rag
Rolling Stone features a "special edition" issue every other month detailing the "500 Best Songs Ever", or the "50 Greatest Artists of All Time", or of course the infamous "100 Greatest Guitar Gods of All Time".? Each list is of course extremely subjective, pointless, and simply blows smoke up the ass of artists who are either dead or revered enough already.? The Top 10 of the so-called 500 best songs ever issue includes nothing released after the 60s ("Imagine" is basically 60s), except for "Smells Like Teen Spirit", which music magazine editors maintain is the "anthem of a generation" over and over until we can't stand it anymore.? It's not just
Rolling Stone, either.?
Spin magazine has a special edition on lists about as often, detailing the "100 Best Frontmen Ever", "The 50 Most Influential Artists Ever", or "The List Issue".? Even
Blender will bombard us with meaningless issues like "The 50 Worsts Songs Ever".
My point is, how often do we need to hear the same old bullshit about why the artists of yesteryear are so great?? We've heard all those songs and know about all those artists, give us something new.? Maybe it's because today's music scene is weak?? ?Yeah, well, these are MUSIC MAGAZINES.? They have the power to publicize bands that they think should be brought to the world's attention.
Reason #2: Less Attention Paid To Modern MusicIt seems far more common to see pictures of artists like The Beatles, Jimi Hendrix, the Sex Pistols, or Nirvana on the covers of music mags these days than pictures of modern artists.? The much-touted "Rolling Stone" interviews are never with new artists - they're with Pete Townshend, Keith Richards, Bruce Springsteen.? Unless your name is Eminem. I mean, seriously, looking at music magazines in the newsstand these days is like one big retro trip.? It's just another reason why today's popular music scene is so weak and stagnant....because people can't stop living in the past.? The 60s and 70s are over, okay?? Deal with it.? If there's one thing that annoys me more than most, it's the near-deification of Kurt Cobain.? The music magazines are still obsessed with this guy even though he's been dead for over 10 years and his band only made a few albums.? Look, he wrote a few good songs, but stop treating this three-chord punk rocker like the Jesus Christ of rock music.
Reason #3: Less Attention Paid To Music In GeneralWhy do I keep on seeing people like Jon Stewart, Lindsay Lohan (before she had a record out), and Dave Chapelle on the covers of these things?? Gee, I'm sorry, I thought these were MUSIC MAGAZINES.? Get back to music.? There's already an
Entertainment Weekly out there.
Reason #3: "Rolling Stone" magazineIt's time to let go of this ancient hippie artifact.?
Rolling Stone is easily the worst of the music magazines.? They have the most lists, the least attention paid to modern artists, and the most non-music related fluff.? Let's look at the cover subjects of 2004, found at
http://m1.buysub.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/CategoryDisplay?langId=-1&krypto=w9y0eJiN7%2F8m9BhHKauBTDsqbksSRhw4%2FYdqLV3GfOWFx4rVIToCUmYYxVZUHw%2BTKGZXjUKLsESy%0ATYvq6BvcSSdOo0r8yPaoha7Hjvm6RBE%3D.
Hmm, let's see...Eminem, Jon Stewart, Lindsay Lohan, John Kerry, Tom Cruise, Michael Moore, the guy who writes Doonesbury, D12, Usher, Quentin Tarentino/Uma Thurman, Ben Affleck....does anyone see a pattern here?? Only like two or three of those 11 cover subjects in this supposed music magazine can be called "musicians".? Oh, and I forgot the many, many lists of old subjects, like "50 Moments That Changed Rock 'n' Roll", or "The Photographs: 50 Years of Rock 'n' Roll", or who could forget "500 Greatest Songs of All Time"?? At least
Spin covers new artists, even if you'e never heard of them.
Of course,
Rolling Stone takes up just as much of its pages with stories about politics, which are okay, even if they reek of old "fight the man" hippies trying to look cool; sex stories that no one really cares about (they did an entire article on a guy who had a really large penis....certainly newsworthy); and movie reviews by the most annoying blowhard in all of criticdom - Peter Travers.? This guy can't write a review without finding the tiniest, most inconsequential detail involving sex.? Case in point: his review of
Spider-Man talks about that kiss in the rain scene as "being kind of like a public blowjob".? Gee, uh, thanks for the intellectual cinematic insight.? Dumbass.
When the Olsen Twins start appearing on your cover, you know you're not exactly a radical magazine for true rock music fans anymore.? So stop pretending.? I say, get this Britney Spears fanzine outta here.