Rolling Stone, the magazine: No longer relevant.

by Angela K. Durden


To be fair, I was never a subscriber to Rolling Stone magazine. See, I grew up in an out-of-control family situation where drugs, drink, sex, crime, and Chopin readily mixed with violence. (Rock-and-roll was sinful as it endorsed drugs, drink, sex, and crime but did not endorse Chopin, so it was not allowed in our house.) 

Reading about more out-of-control people was not my thing. But every now and then on the newsstand a headline in the magazine would catch my attention. I enjoyed the writing. Visually I was entertained. 

Still, after a while, each issue looked and sounded the same, that is they sure did a lot of liberal-ass whining that, in my world at least, sounded too much like a pity party and I was never into pity parties. 

Rolling Stone became no longer relevant and I stopped picking it up — even if it was laying in an office and I could read it without paying. I was not alone in this. Palash Ghosh wrote a great article about their woes in 2012. Those woes have not abated. Why? Because they are...

Boring. 

Then this week the August issue of Rolling Stone hit the stands. What's on the cover but a dreamy Canadian Prime Minister who I am sure, though he would deny it, gets offers of **ssy all damn day.

Whether or not Justin Bieber... errrr... Baby... I mean Trudeau accepts those offers I shall not offer on opinion on, but one can surmise privately about that. They say power is the best aphrodisiac ever, and you can imagine, what with all the power the Liberals have, just how much sex is going on in those meetings.

Back to the problem of the Rolling Stone magazine. 

Wow. It sure would be nice if the publication actually wrote about, oh...I don't know...let me think about it now. What could they write about that might make me care to pay for their magazine? It's coming to me-e-e-e-e-e. Oh, that's right:

MUSIC.

But, no. This issue has the whining-Liberal pity party all over it again. I mean, look, Foo Fighters are in small type at the very bottom. What's up with that? This is the magazine's 50th Anniversary Year and this is the best they can do?

I'm sure circulation is down. No, they won't admit it, but I know how these companies play with circulation numbers even if they have to print them and throw them in driveways to technically not be lying. 

I know of what I speak . I canceled the Atlanta Journal Constitution in 1996 and continued to receive it in my driveway until 2003 even though I called them every time they sent me a bill and said, "I've cancelled it." But they had to keep those circulation numbers up, see?

Here's what Rolling Stone could write about.

The music business and how all these great artists, songwriters, and Indie labels and publishers are getting screwed out of royalties by The Bigs and The Majors and the Tech Giants who are using the force of law to steal intellectual property. I wrote about that on Linkedin. Read it here. 

They won't do that because it is obvious they don't care about the music business. They just love Justin and the EPA but not quite as much as they hate Trump and freedom.