Why Rolling Stone Sucks (NZC pretty much)

[Trent Thornton <blisstrent@xxxxxxxxx>]

Speaking as someone who wasn't even around at the time, it seems like RS was 
the hub of its day.  It was where people could find out about new bands they 
might otherwise not have been exposed to, given the limited media of the time.

>From all accounts, The Powers That Were knew and understood that and took 
>their music journalism pretty seriously.

Again, speaking as a child of the 90's, all RS ever was to me was yet another 
"media" magazine filled to overflowing with hackjob wannabe editorialists who 
had more pithy remarks than genuine contributions to make.  Really, it is and 
was only a notch above Entertainment Weekly in many respects.

Go with me on this.  There came a point in the mid or late 90's when MTV 
stopped defining "what's cool" and started reflecting it.  Obviously this was 
back when they still played videos.  Anyway.  Instead of setting the trends, 
MTV became merely another trend-follower.

And that's boring, sorry.

My impression is that RS was a similar trendsetter back in their day.  Maybe 
*THE* trendsetter.  And like MTV, at some point it fell into a similar rut of 
recycling the mainstream instead of helping to shape it.

These things may be inevitable.  I wouldn't know.  But the sticking point for a 
lot of us is that RS (and MTV, come to think of it) is still afforded the same 
level of credibility by "the mainstream" as it had in the 70's.  The same 
magazine that published covers with Britney Spears' "trashy" era.  That's bad.  
But it's also the same magazine that had Al Gore "pitching a tent" on the 
cover.  That's worse.

If the general public were to equate Rolling Stone on the same level as People 
Weekly (and the similarities are vast), I suspect many of us wouldn't think 
twice about what RS publishes.  But (A) RS is still a respected (for some 
reason) publication and (B) putting Jimi fucking Hendrix at the #1 slot is the 
safe and easy choice.  Fact is, Hendrix SUCKS.  Yeah, that's right, I said it.  
I'm sorry, but I've heard nothing -- NOTHING -- from Hendrix that ever made me 
sit up and say "holy crap, that was AWESOME".  Again, maybe it's a generational 
thing.  Maybe if I'd been reared on mostly George Harrison type solos and 
nothing else, Hendrix would seem a lot more revolutionary.

But I wasn't and he doesn't.  Hendrix is fucking BORING and I for one am tired 
of music editors slobbering his cock when Duane Allman, Stevie Ray Vaughan 
(yes, Hendrix-influenced, spare me), Jimmy Page and numerous other players are 
far more interesting as songwriters, performers, soloists or any other category 
you care to mention.  Hendrix is out-classed by those and many others, in my 
estimation.

Someone at Rolling Stone had to give the final go-ahead on putting Hendrix in 
the #1 spot and 10:1 that idiot knows he'll *NEVER* get an angry letter 
protesting how Hendrix is unworthy of the spot (what, you think I'm going to 
send them a letter and risk them publishing my name and/or address in their POS 
letter column?  No thanks, I don't need any mail bombs).

Putting Hendrix atop a BS list like that is actually a lot like buying a 
Clapton CD; nobody will ever criticize you for it because he's yet another safe 
choice that couldn't be any more overrated if he tried.

Jimi Hendrix, Eric Clapton and the writing/editing staff at Rolling Stone?  
They can all piss off as far as I'm concerned.  And yes, I would put Page at 
the #1 slot on that list.  In terms of performance, improv, general 
songwriting, "studio" production, innovation, memorable riffs, hectic touring 
schedules, blah blah blah, Page handily and easily nabs up top honors in all of 
the categories I'm concerned about.

And just to give this some kind of Zeppelin content, anybody know when 
03.11.1975 will be up on tapecity?

- t