In a meeting of the minds last week at BreakThru Radio headquarters in Chelsea, New York one of the BTR interns read the letter that had been printed on the back of Rolling Stone Magazine’s last issue. The letter, titled “A Big Fat Thanks to Record Execs,” was actually a reprint of a stunt pulled by the magazine giant on October 28, 2002. Back then it was through The New York Times that they reached out, publishing the letter in a full-page ad in arguably the world’s most read newspaper. Here is the letter:
.jpg)
While the RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) continues with its losing battle against P2P file-sharing, media Web sites, and bit torrents used by millions, it is Rolling Stone Magazine itself that I would like to address in this article, leaving the RIAA lawsuit editorials to legal blogs and tech-y sites.
To the people of Rolling Stone—tell me you see the irony in this overly sarcastic letter appearing on the back of a “music” magazine selling copies on the coattails of Katy Perry’s rack. The issue that featured the RIAA letter had a headline that read: “Sex, God, and Katy Perry.” Other articles featured on the cover were Michael Cera (not a musician), an Aerosmith comeback (really? that’s refreshing news to the music world), and Arcade Fire’s recent album success (okay, that’s a quality music story, but how can they be ignored?). Even Rolling Stone Magazine couldn’t overlook Arcade Fire; but notice how the band isn’t good enough to make the cover. Katy Perry isthough. Clearly her album must be so much better.
The joke improves. The very next issue published (the current issue) featureseven more nudity on the cover and within the pages. This time it is the cast ofTrue Blood who are naked and splashed with vampire blood on the cover. I mean, come on Rolling Stone, they don’t even have an album. At least Katy Perry attempts music. The headlines in this issue read: “They’re hot. They’re sexy. They’re undead: The Joy of Vampire Sex."
The street cred of Rolling Stone Magazine as an accurate voice for the ever-morphing music industry began to flounder years ago. To be completely and utterly blunt: it’s become a fuckin’ joke! Their most recent issue features top stories with headlines like: “True Blood’s steamy Rolling Stone cover shoot." It also includes an article called “Vampire State of Mind," in which writer Peter Travers “breaks down the best and worst vampires of all time.” Along with, “Bono Storms Back,” a report on U2’s return to the stage after Bono’s back surgery.
Is this really the same magazine that sarcastically derided the RIAA, claiming that “[b]ecause of [them], millions of kids will stop wasting time listening to new music and seeking out new bands.” Are you kidding me? Maybe you should be asked a similar question. What have you done for new bands recently Rolling Stone?
Just look at the arrogant tone to the letter of discussion. While its message may be valid, its sender is questionable. RSM is more interested in naked photos of Katy Perry, Anna Paquin, Stephen Moyer, and Alex Skarsgård than anything to do with the music industry, especially when it comes to “new music.” Under the music tab on rollingstone.com, its featured articles are about Steven Tyler joining American Idol, a new Neil Young album, and a lawsuit between an LA clothing designer called “Material Girl” and Madonna for allowing her daughter to design under the same registered trademark. Slow down on the “new music” coverage Rolling Stone, these “millions of kids” can’t read it all fast enough.
The irony is that Rolling Stone Magazine is just as guilty for marring the music industry as the RIAA. They don’t give a shit about “new bands” anymore than major record labels do. They’re only purpose is to sell magazines. And what sells a magazine these days better than slutty photos of Katy Perry,interviews with True Blood cast members, and editorials on vampires.
The millions of kids referenced in the letter on the back cover don’t even readRolling Stone. Why would they? Nothing in its pages appeals to them. Rolling Stone Magazine is nothing more than a prop to the college frat-boy bro whobuys it so he can get laid. What college chick doesn’t want to sleep with the guy who is “into music” and reads Rolling Stone? The magazine has becomean ornament on the beach at Spring Break right along with a straw cowboy hat and barbed-wire bicep tattoo. I could go on with the imagery, but you get my point. There is really only one thing left to do...
.jpg)
You remind me of the fans that booed Bob Dylan when he went electric at the Newport Folk Festival in 1965.
ReplyDeleteWhether Dylan was “selling out” or “re-inventing” himself is a debate we have had before that has remained unresolved.
Perhaps Rolling Stone is doing the same thing?
But even so, I’m not sure your accusations toward Rolling Stone’s “change of direction” are valid.
While Rolling Stone has been perceived by the public as being a “music” magazine for many years, Rolling Stone’s roots, in fact were not just music – but specifically Rock ‘n Roll.
And according to Uncle John’s Music Bathroom Reader, “Rock ‘n roll was more than just music in San Francisco in the summer of 1967. The city was the center of the counterculture movement, and the rock music generated there… was at the center of the cultural shift…
(Jann) Wenner wanted to start a magazine that talked about politics, pop culture, trends, and society…”
But even more relevant to this topic, “Wenner wanted his magazine to earn him a living, so it would need to be professional and marketable.”
And in doing so, Wenner sometimes submitted to pressure by slanting articles to please the advertisers.
From the very beginning Rolling Stone has compromised what many have believed was or should have been their ideals.
“In one instance he (Wenner) ordered a writer to pan a Jimi Hendrix release on Capitol Records at the request of Warner Bros. Records, who had signed Hendrix after he left Capitol”.
Greil Marcus was fired for writing a nasty review of Bob Dylan’s “Self Portrait” album produced by Columbia Records who provided Rolling Stone with mucho advertising dollars.
So where did the expectation that Rolling Stone was the champion for the indie (or any other) musicians come from? It’s only a half-truth to suppose that “their only purpose is to sell magazines”. Ultimately, their only purpose was and always has been – to earn Jann Wenner a living.
And if you check out the Rolling Stone Website, you’ll see that the four subjects they cover are “Music, Movies, Politics & Culture”. So whether it’s Katy Perry’s rack or Vampire nudity – they’ve got it covered – all on the Cover of the Rolling Stone.
Jim,
ReplyDeleteI appreciate your comments. Thank you.
Your argument is well developed and you bring up a lot of good points. However, I think you missed the point I was trying to make.
It is not so much the business model embraced at Rolling Stone Magazine that irks me; it is the facade of trying to be something they are not that I was attacking.
Of course RSM is out to be "professional and marketable," and of course the company is trying to make money. Even further, the ideals of RSM to be a magazine about "politics, pop culture, trends, and society…" are identifiable and valid. What I was attempting to address in my essay was the irony that the cheeky letter to the RIAA employed a tone that made RSM appear noble in its fight against the imbalanced music industry, while accusing the RIAA of the opposite.
In other words, how seriously could anyone take a BP Petroleum advertisement that smugly derides Enbridge for the recent oil spill in the Kalamazoo River in Michigan?
Rolling Stone Magazine may be doing its job by continuing to report on modern pop cultural trends and earning the company lots of green in return. Fine. Just don't bullshit a bullshiter. Don't pretend to be something you are not. Don't write a letter addressed to the RIAA from the point of view of a corporation that is vehemently supporting the independent music scene. It's not who you are.
It pisses me off when corporations that used to be tiny and somewhat ethically minded, and over the years have grown to massive companies, think they still represent the little guy when all signs point to the opposite. Google is a perfect example of this. And it is exactly what RSM did when they published their sarcastic letter to the RIAA.