"Rolling Stone" magazine - then & now

[Wie Gehts?]

Perhaps like many of the older denizens of this forum, as a teen I anxiously awaited the biweekly publication of "Rolling Stone" for music news and record reviews. During the late sixties and early seventies, it was THE premier source of information on upcoming releases and all other aspects of the current pop music scene. The political and counterculture articles were of secondary interest to me at the time, but it was still sort of exciting to see four-letter words in a semi-mainstream publication. :)

The modern incarnation of RS resembles a teen version of "People" magazine; I can't even bring myself to thumb through it at the bookstore these days. For an interesting interview with co-founder Jann Wenner, in which he explains the inevitable evolution of RS from scruffy counterculture tabloid to the slick, advertising laden, fluff mag of today, check out the following:

http://rockcritics.com/david_dalton_and_jann_wenner.html

[BradOlson]

Dreamcatcher, I do not like Rolling Stone nowadays at all. I agree with you that it is a bunch of fluff. When I am in Carlson's bookstore in Duluth, Minnesota they have a huge selection of vintage Rolling Stone magazines and they are definitely worth browsing unlike today's Rolling Stone magazines.

[Kayaker]

I agree it is abysmal now. Up until last month I just looked at the reviews at a book store. After the five star Jan Werner suck up to Mick Jagger for his three star CD, I gave up.

[poe_man]

I've got some of the issues from the 60's and 70's and totally agree! The stories and
articles were great! I can't say that about the same magazine today. It seemed that it
used to be a reflection of the times, now I get the impression that it's about
making money. Blame it all on MTV!

[Matt]

I have to agree with Cameron Crowe when he said that Rolling Stone does get it together when, say, an important artist passes away, like John Lennon or even recently with George Harrison. But, they seem better at looking back at the past. As a contemporary magazine, it's often an embarassment, which is a real shame because they still have some good writers on that staff.

[Michael]

I remember reading the first issue. There is no comparison. Boy have times changed!

[Sckott]

MOJO & ICE are a lot of fun to read. Last time I had a subscription to Rolling Stone was 1986. I first subscribed in 1983 or so. I think Bruce Springsteen's "Born In The USA" was the first review I read, at 5-Stars. I remember that. Not many albums got those 5-Star reviews in Rolling Stone.

Times have changed. Music isn't as important anymore. We, as a collective, aren't doing the same simple things anymore. No time to sit and listen?

Matt shares my opinion too. it's now about trends and fashon, not music, art and class. Die, Rolling Stone. Your shining moment has passed.

[ED in NY]

Originally posted by Sckott
Times have changed. Music isn't as important anymore. We, as a collective, aren't doing the same simple things anymore. No time to sit and listen?

Sckott how many people did you poll to come up with this blanket statement ? Personally I MAKE time to sit and listen. Music IS just as important to me as it was 17 years ago when I started "listening". I won't speak for anyone else here but I'm sure I'm not the only one who feels this way. Please feel free to leave me out of the "collective".

-ED

[Vivaldinization]

Actually, it's kind of interesting...I don't read RS for anything approaching musical content (althoguh their reviews can be interesting), but I do enjoy some of their articles.

For music, it's The 910, ICE, and Mojo.

-D

[Michael]

The 910 is indespensible! Followed by ICE.

[guy incognito]

It was all downhill for Rolling Stone when they moved to NYC and Wenner & Co. became more interested in celebrity butt-kissing and getting on the right side of velvet ropes than in journalism.

[mikenyc]

"Times have changed. "

It's not only the times, Sckott. It's us that have changed. We are now "Them".

It's not Rolling Stone's fault that people mature, and with that our tastes and desires.

[Sckott]

Originally posted by ED in NY

Please feel free to leave me out of the "collective".

-ED

Will do, and my apologies. I'm surely not one who listens like a drive-by. My feeling is, we need more time for better music. Truth is, we're busier than ever before. That I can't ignore.

[ED in NY]

Originally posted by Sckott
Will do, and my apologies. I'm surely not one who listens like a drive-by. My feeling is, we need more time for better music. Truth is, we're busier than ever before. That I can't ignore.

Thanks Sckott. I guess, for me the best way to look at this is time management. Like many people I work an 8+ hour day, come the end of the work day I'm looking forward to going home spending time with my wife and our 2 dogs. For an hour or two before I go to bed I'll listen to music at least every other day. When I say listen I mean sit / lie down and listen not do chores with background music. I usually most of my days off doing household chores and maintenance stuff like that. Now unlike many people I don't have any children so I think it's fair to assume that if I did, my agenda and priorities would be vastly different, quite possibly my listening time being far less, possibly not at all. I don't know.

But, it all comes down to us as individuals and what our priorities are. For me and how my life is structured (how I hate that word !) music is pretty high on the list.

Best Regards - ED

[Oatsdad]

I won't pretend that RS is a great mag, but I maintain my subscription because it remains entertaining, and it also helps me stay at least marginally informed about new music. I may never LISTEN to any of it, but I like to know what's happening nonetheless!

And they really CAN produce some great work when the time is right. Their 9/11-relayed issue was absolutely stunning - a real time-capsule piece...

[freeflyt]

Originally posted by Matt
I have to agree with Cameron Crowe when he said that Rolling Stone does get it together when, say, an important artist passes away, like John Lennon or even recently with George Harrison. But, they seem better at looking back at the past. As a contemporary magazine, it's often an embarassment, which is a real shame because they still have some good writers on that staff.


That's true. Of course these days they don't have much to work with.

[TSmithPage]

I subscribe to RS, but certainly not because I value their opinion on a particular new release. In fact, I generally ignore music reviews, except for the opinions of those here on the sound quality of a particular version of a release.

By the way, what's The 910? I am not familiar with it. Is it a monthly periodical, a web site, what? Inquiring minds want to know...