data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/19e07/19e0710a855847f2817f7669c067efe409748516" alt=""
Rather than offer up the snide, vengeful blog I first intended to write (Rolling Stone, thanks for providing glossy shit-catcher for my parakeet, or something in that vein), I’ve decided to go all Bacharach on y'all by adhering to his love, sweet love credo. There’s enough madness and misdirected ire skulking about to last us another two World Wars; for that reason, I’ll try to keep this rant relatively civil. It’s nearly Christmas, after all, and I’ve had a very pleasant day.
But you ain’t off the hook, Wenner (Jann Wenner is the co-founder and publisher of Rolling Stone magazine). Let’s take a moment to consider how RS, cultural fossil and THE one-time titan of the music print world, has baited and switched into a fanzine for indiscriminate rock fans and/or fifty-five year old men and/or naïve Top 40 receptacles interested in The Killers and/or Jackson Browne and/or Beyonce.
RS’s most recent list (The Top 50 Albums of 2008) says more than any blog can. Here’s a few artists that made the cut:
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/582c3/582c3b80c7618877263b7f09e412f108689e6e86" alt=""
Let’s wade thru this whiplash sea of greying goatees and tweeny glitter and break it all down. What happened here?
Well, a few things. Rolling Stone--many, many moons ago--wagered every last chip on standard guitar/bass/drums rock n’ roll. Granted, it’s hard to blame Wenner for his fanciful astigmatism since we know what was going on in 1967 (the year RS debuted): Doors, Beatles, Hendrix, Cream, Floyd, Stones, Kinks, Donovan, Velvets, Who, Love, Beefheart, etc., etc. All powerhouse rock bands, every last one of them releasing disgustingly great vinyl within a period of about nine months. RS got in at the right time (Wenner deserves credit for capitalizing on a golden nugget of opportunity, though--admittedly--said nugget was nestled square in a crease of the most affluent pocket of rock history we’ve ever seen) and recruited a readership the old-fashioned way: thru stimulating, no-bullshit analysis of the mainstream music scene.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/59441/59441063b7416902810d8be5428b7f66b3aa6bd4" alt=""
I cite the above fellas only to remind all three of my readers that RS once meant something.
Depending on who you ask, RS forfeited relevancy sometime in ‘68/9 (when it failed to recognize hard rock and heavy metal as legitimate movements, choosing instead to champion singer-songwriters above all others), ’77 (when they laughed off punk as a passing craze) or ‘round the time that hip-hop and rap broke (since--you guessed it--they paid the genre no mind). Some insist they’re still relevant, but I have yet to hear a viable argument in the magazine's defense.
In short, RS has always been a few steps behind the pace car. For a publication that claims to worship the forward-thinking Dylans and Lennons of the world, RS seems content reclining in its well-eroded rocking chair, head bobbing along to--oh, I dunno--Eric Carmen?
What I’ve witnessed whilst methodically dissecting this whole RS fiasco (believe me, I’ve been watching closely) is an all-too-common trend in the corporate world: a glaring lack of direction.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/5099d/5099dabe43abf9fbc8552707f39a728bd402b328" alt=""
…which brings us back to RS. Has Wenner ever called a closed-door meeting to discuss the future of the magazine? I get the feeling he hasn't sent that memo in well over two decades. When rock--in the narrow, 60s sense of the word--branched off into all these other subgenres (metal, prog, punk, post-punk, synth-pop, grunge, hip-hop, indie, etc., etc.), RS still had a choice. They could’ve decided--then and there--to tack one way (“let’s stick to covering radio-friendly rock…”) or the other (“let’s isolate a niche and exploit the hell out of it…”). Wenner, though, never called that meeting; as a result, his precious rag suffers from an identity crisis.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/5e6f4/5e6f481642ad98c776d117e461539940f859be9e" alt=""
Where’s the continuity?
Wenner’s recent decision to cover all vaguely-important artists (even the burnouts who clamored around during RS’s formative years) has resulted in the muddled mess you see before you today. It’s a shame. A damn, damn shame. You could’ve done it so much better, RS.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/9b65f/9b65fed27aa13330f1f58e2a604c0f9db10e0b39" alt=""
Love you all. Happy Christmas. War Is Over!
(If you want it.)
1 comment:
Preach it bro! I totally agree. I have never really picked up Rolling Stone because of exactly the stuff you pointed out. I think it is unfortunate that such an influential magazine has fallen so far. I am especially disgusted that the Jonas Brothers are on the cover.. who are they catering to? Junior High girls?
Post a Comment