What happened? The once hip music magazine has turned into something that is dull and universally frowned upon by most serious musical communities, yet it is still the most popular music magazine in the United States.
When Rolling Stone was first published in 1967 it was seen as a forum of the counterculture that was predominant in the rock music scene of the late 60’s. The magazine was able to successfully blend elements of politics, culture, music, etc. and turn out a magazine that represented a generation and community fairly well. Rolling Stone was one of a kind, especially because rival magazines were yet to be started, it was a beacon of light for music lovers and readers that were interested in the counter culture movement. The strong political voice affiliated with the magazine has always been a leftist one, with brash subjects criticizing various U.S. wars, current presidents and anyone that represents ideals that conflict with those of democratic party.
The current incarnation of Rolling Stone is hardly what it once was. It is a puffed up magazine that focuses on shameless celebrities, wanabe punks and faux hipsters. Why has the once powerful music and culture magazine turned into something that centers around soft articles with little or no reverence to music culture. Part of the change can be traced to the early 2000’s when Rolling Stone was facing strong competition from lad mags of the likes of Maxim and FHM. Rolling Stone was faltering and was forced to reinvent itself. They hired former FHM editor Ed Needham and started offering more sex orriented content with features on young TV and film stars as well as youthful rockstars. This is when Rolling Stone started to favor style over substance and as a result turned into something that contrasted the original vision of the magazine.
Style and fashion sections are abundant in the current issues, these sections are shameless advertising plugs that advise readers on what is and isn’t cool clothing. These sections don’t belong in Rolling Stone, this is a music magazine not a style guide. Photo spreads of celebrities are also rampant throughout the mag, these spreads are tacky and belong in periodicals like People and OK! Magazine. In the past few years Rolling Stone has started back up their strong political coverage that brought them early predominance, it might be because they have an easy target with George W. Bush in the White House. This political coverage is intensely skewed, picking on the Republicans (rightfully so) to a degree that is totally unbalanced, this type of commentary that should belong in The Nation or some other clearly defined leftist print. In addition the magazine has a general bias towards musicians and bands that were around during the 60’s and 70’s. Artists from these time periods are still making headlines regardless of their sway over the modern day music scene. Phil Collins and Pete Townshend are still gracing the pages with their presence for Christ sake!
Regardless of the magazines downfalls it is still very popular, possibly due to brand loyalty. Rolling Stone has been the go to music magazine of choice for the past several decades, even now, with the trumped up issues being produced, people turn to Rolling Stone because it has been around for so long and has had such an influence on the music scene.
If you are unsatisfied with Rolling Stone convert to the internet publication www.pitchforkmedia.com
No comments:
Post a Comment