Once upon a time a must read for a generation regarding music, culture and politics which, at that time, were one and the same. I still have issues from the 60s and 70s packed away when Rolling Stone was on newsprint and folded. As it became a slick magazine and more of a selling piece for the industry I lost interest. I would venture that a number of readers of this site went through a similar transformation. Now, the current owners want you to pay to be what these days they call an "influencer" whatever the fluck that means. But, than again, the Stones are hawking candy bars, so what do I know.

[www.theguardian.com]

Imagine if they'd charged Hunter S Thompson to write for them...

Its the age of ..... Anything For A Buck



ROCKMAN

I think I gave up on RS, in general, in 1994. I still bought issues about the Stones - the 1997 coverage was a lot of fun, some hilarious shit going on, with some great pics. The Bob Marley and Led Zeppelin books are pretty good.

The last 22 years I think the only time I've ever bought a magazine was in an airport.

The website - to read an old article, or most of them, it seems, one needs to have a $7.99 a month subscription. There's zero reason to do such a thing.

>Imagine if they'd charged Hunter S Thompson to write for them...


Would have saved us being exposed to a lot of drivel.

jb

A once great magazine.

I am enjoying the stories on AXS though. Good background information.

Killed by the damned internet!

Maybe they'll try selling RS branded chocolate bars

In 1976, when I was 14-years-old, a neighbor was cleaning out his garage and gave me all his copies of Rolling Stone from 1968 (No'1967s) to 1976. I read every issue cover to cover (they are now in my garage). I was hooked and subscribed myself in 1977. I enjoyed it up until the 1980s, but then found it boring and redundant. Plus the acts they were covering in the '90s sucked. I should have cancelled then, but it was relatively cheap and I was lazy when it came to cancelling the subscription. But one day I opened my mailbox and there was one of the Boston Marathon bombers on the cover LOOKING LIKE JIM MORRISON. I was infuriated, cancelled by phone and told them the reason why. Rolling Stone is a useless piece of garbage and culturally irrelevant. Good riddance...

Yes, Rolling Stone has gathered some moss.....

Jann sold out for the $$$

>there was one of the Boston Marathon bombers on the cover LOOKING LIKE JIM MORRISON.
>I was infuriated, cancelled by phone


I don't get it. You don't like Jim Morrison? (I can identify with that, but don't see your point.)

jb

"publication is not guaranteed" lol

>there was one of the Boston Marathon bombers on the cover LOOKING LIKE JIM MORRISON. I was infuriated, cancelled by phone


I don't get it. You don't like Jim Morrison? (I can identify with that, but don't see your point.)

My point is they glamorized a cold blooded killer in a manner that made him look like a rock star! It was revolting and in very poor taste. And I don't offend easily...

Huh. Ever hear of Charlie Manson? There is plenty of precedent for putting some distasteful character on the cover. It certainly wasn't limited to Charlie, but that would be the most obvious example. Thats what made RS what it definitely is not these days.

jb

[bigthink.com]

I loved it when it was sort of a national underground magazine, akin to what we were getting locally in the bigger cities. Followed it until just a few years ago, when they tried to renew my subscription without my permission. I hate that. Thankfully there's still MOJO. There's just not that much interest in music in America any longer.

About having one of Boston Marathon bombers on the cover. Years ago they did a similar thing putting quite a flattering photo of Charlie Manson on the cover and running an in-depth interview with him... thereby elevating him to a kind of "star" status, exatly the same treatment/presentation as it if had been John Lennon or Bob Dylan. I remember that put me off Rolling Stone already way back then...