Rolling Stone

Between 1993 — 2000 I used to subscribe to Rolling Stone magazine. In fact my first issue of Rolling Stone was the one my then English teacher lent me so that I had something to read and an alternative outsource for new music (before the internet and downloading). In fact he would lend me some of his older copies so that I would have references and background on some of the bands that I wrote about when I started my zine. This used to be THE magazine for really good articles with some of the most credible music writers in the biz. Then came 2003 and everything went downhill for me. I cancelled my subscription back in 2004 and haven’t looked back since. Even when they offered me dirt cheap prices I still didn’t go back. It wasn’t about the prices at that point but rather the content. I do still check out the on-​line version, however, roll my eyes when the annual top 50 albums are published. I do now buy vintage RS magazines to make purses that I sell on etsy, however, other than that… there is no point to the magazine anymore.

As a Liberal, i find their stories nice. The main pro-​obama or anti-​republican story is always nice.
Music reviews work, they got me into a few artists but they overhype some other ones. The stories don’t talk about smaller bands nearly enough (I use Pitchfork Media or Allmusic for that.)
I will say this again: This review is made as a liberal. Yay bias.

Dear Jann & Crew,
Greetings from the West Coast! I hope this letter finds you all well. Do you have a minute to spare? I’ve been noticing some things about your magazine which I wanted to share with you. First off, I’ve been a longtime reader, from High School on in fact. For many years you have had your finger on the pulse of the cultural zeitgeist (too flowery??) and have been involved in many cultural movements from rock to art to cinema to politics. Influential even.
I understand this is an election year and the Democrats have a lot riding on the outcome. Like usual, you are there to help them… but not everyone picks up your magazine to get hammered over the head with current affairs. Some of us read it for pure escapism. *gasp* A Democrat in SF who DOESN’T want to eat, breathe, and sleep liberal politics? The Horror… I know. Crazy right? I know you are still covering music, but lets bring the balance back. A little less politics, and a little more rock. Not asking you to get rid of your current affair coverage because you have always been known for it.
The music. I know this may surprise many of your Editorial Staff but there have been many great bands and equally great albums since Led Zeppelin broke up. Seriously. If I see one more cover story on Zeppelin or the Stones I may just quit reading. Hasn’t that field been plowed to death? They don’t need your coverage. Their bank accounts are just fine. Instead spread the wealth to a band who HAS released a good album in the last 10 years.
Speaking of covers, do you really need Britney on there again? Or Christina (Is she still going by X-​Tina)?? I know T&A sells issues, but musical talent should count for something, right? There are plenty of attractive & talented women who are more deserving of a cover story than another «Is Britney OD’ing yet?» main article. Actually, here are a few:
–Sharon Foo
–Erykah Badu
–Jill Scott
–Alison Goldfrapp
–Miley Cyrus
(j/​k on the last…)
See, that wasn’t so hard now was it. I didn’t even have to think about it.
I send this because I care. I want you to remain relevant and not be seen as the magazine people are reading at the retirement home talking about how great music use to be and the stuff these kids are listening today just doesn’t make any sense…
Yours Forever (or until Keef & Mick are on the cover again),
Bucky K.