The Death of "Rolling Stone Magazine"

Long ago there was a time when it actually meant something to be on the cover of "Rolling Stone". There was even a rock song by Dr. Hook dedicated to the honor of gracing the front of the magazine. These days the song "The Cover of the Rolling Stone" doesn't even hold any weight unless you're over the age of 40. One of the main plot points of the wonderful movie Almost Famous was the trials and tribulations of a struggling rock band in the 70's trying to gain respect and recognition by being awarded the elusive cover. Back then the magazine actually put legitimate bands on display (i.e. The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, Led Zeppelin, etc.). Now all it takes to get this once time-honored tradition is to star in the next teeny-bopper movie. It makes one wonder what the people that work there think about going from the greatest bands in the world representing their magazine to the stars of the next Twilight movie. Apparently in the last 40 years it has gone from a respectable source for all things rock to a warped version of "People Magazine". Do you think the type of people that bought the magazine to see what was happening backstage at a Led Zeppelin concert 40 years ago would buy it now to see who Taylor Lautner is currently dating? I highly doubt it. There are plenty of magazines geared towards questions like that, and most of them are purchased by parents for their teenage daughters who are currently obsessed with whatever new Disney artist is currently topping the charts.

One way the magazine has tried to win back the credibility they've lost in the past years is by rewarding older artists with rave reviews for mediocre/borderline horrible albums. Yes, Bob Dylan and Bruce Springsteen, I'm looking at you. However, one album that immediately comes to mind is the new one from Yoko Ono. did anyone on the staff at "Rolling Stone" even listen to this album?? It's just a bunch of random noises with a horrible singer trying to make horrible lyrics sound deep and meaningful. Well, they're not. Surely this disaster of an album got 1 star out of 5, right? Wrong. It was given 4 stars out of 5. If Yoko Ono hadn't married John Lennon her album would have been given great reviews for a different reason. It would have been the most popular video on YouTube with thousands of views because everyone would be talking about the awful song they saw/heard online the other day while they were wasting away the time at work. It would be one of those videos you forward to your friends in order to get a good laugh. I think John Lennon would even be wondering what the hell is going on with her album review. Apparently his wife's embarrassingly bad album is only 1 star away from being on par with the greatest Beatles albums produced during their career. Talk about a joke in the most twisted sense.

There used to be a time when the validity of music was based on actual artistry and talent. The great bands of yesteryear had great drummers, great guitarists/bassists, and great singers. Today, none of those elements are required. Yes, there are some bands out there that still have some or all of these components, but for some reason they aren't the ones that being recognized by the mainstream media. Instead it is the artists whose albums have been so doctored in the studio you wouldn't even recognize the songs if you were to see them performed live. Then there are the bands that might actually play their own instruments, but they're so far from rock that it's scary when they're even mentioned in the same sentence as legitimate groups. I'll give some examples of popular singers/groups and some that should be.

-Brittney Spears: Attractive. Does not have a single song that has any depth whatsoever. However, she does have plenty of songs that contain one word that is repeated so often it somehow tricks the less intelligent into thinking it's an actual song with lyrics instead of three words repeated to a beat.

-Lady GaGa: She has some catchy songs and plenty of hits. Apparently no one notices that they all sound similar and it is pretty easy to have multiple hits when they all sound like the first one. I like to call this the Nickelback Syndrome. Also, she tries so hard to be weird and different that it has lost all of its initial quirkiness. We get it, you dress in stupid clothes and you're different from everybody else. You can stop now.

-Jonas Brothers: I'm not for sure if they're actually human. I think before Walt Disney died he created an evil machine that produces teen groups and singers that, against all odds, make it onto the radio for everyone to hear. Bastard. No band or singer should ever be on the cover of "Rolling Stone" if they could also perform at a 3rd grader's birthday party without offending any of the parents. It's just that simple.

There are some legitimate bands out there, but most of them are not allowed to make it big like their incompetent musical brethren. Here are some examples (one has made it somewhat big, but I'll explain why they're on the list):

-Kings of Leon: Great band, and a good example of a band making it big after lots of hard work. Bad part is, most people don't even realize they have put out 3 or 4 albums before this newest one. Many people think that they are this "great new band" that has just busted onto the scene. People with good taste in music know they've been around for awhile.

-Imogen Heap: A female singer/songwriter who plays all her own instruments AND writes lyrics that are deeper than a soup bowl. She has recently begun to get some recognition; the sad part is that this happened because some rapper sampled a great song of hers. Now that rap song is played repeatedly on Top 40 radio stations.

-Arcade Fire: One of the most musically gifted bands playing today. Their two albums are held in high regard in many musical circles, but apparently not any that help with record sales or provide an introduction to the mainstream media.

-Sufjan Stevens: Another artist who is a gifted singer/songwriter, but is not widely known. The best way to explain him to the average person is to think of Jason Mraz, but actually good.

These are only a few examples. I could go on and on about bands that get too much attention and bands that get too little.

It has always been a confusing idea when one sits down and tries to figure out why some things are popular while you know there are many more worthwhile things that aren't. It is one of the great mysteries of the world. "Rolling Stone" has obviously decided to go with the mainstream and just report and reward what the media thinks is good. Back in the day it was the other way around. Bands would get a huge boost in popularity when they appeared on or in the magazine. Now you can only appear in the magazine if you've already had a huge boost in popularity. To restore their once prestigious reputation, the need to ONLY put bands and singers on the cover (good ones at that). No more movie stars. No more casts from television shows. This is "Rolling Stone" magazine we're talking about, not Tiger Beat. I know money is the great motivator, but that does not mean you have to sacrifice your credibility in order to make some.