Oh God how and why does Rolling Stone still exist

Honestly i am convinced that this magazine is run by a bunch of 9 year olds at this point. Now i know this magazine sold its soul about 20 years ago, but what bugs me is that they on occasion have articles about industry and how its run, and then they come out with this months issue. The cover.....Zac Efron...the new hear throb is the title. Pardon my french, but who the fuck cares about this goofy looking white boy that will be gone in about a year or two. Wheres his relevance? he's part of High School High? thats relevant musically? or is that relevant in rolling stones bank account. If Rolling Stone wants to prove their relevance how about putting images of dead bodies in Iraq on the cover every month, Im sure that would have happend back in the Vietnam days.

but have u seen the cover?

sosgemini said:

but have u seen the cover?

lastdecember said:

lastdecember said:

sosgemini said:

but have u seen the cover?

Hes horrible, hes that typical bad haircut, wanna be rebel, but would get his ass kicked in a second, he's like a teen Justin all over again, with more hair.

TonyVanDam said:

lastdecember said:

Honestly i am convinced that this magazine is run by a bunch of 9 year olds at this point. Now i know this magazine sold its soul about 20 years ago, but what bugs me is that they on occasion have articles about industry and how its run, and then they come out with this months issue. The cover.....Zac Efron...the new hear throb is the title. Pardon my french, but who the fuck cares about this goofy looking white boy that will be gone in about a year or two. Wheres his relevance? he's part of High School High? thats relevant musically? or is that relevant in rolling stones bank account. If Rolling Stone wants to prove their relevance how about putting images of dead bodies in Iraq on the cover every month, Im sure that would have happend back in the Vietnam days.

We can't talk about artists that we grew up listening to as before. But yet, it's cool to have a thread about so freaking Zac Efron?!?

Whatever!

sosgemini said:

TonyVanDam said:

We can't talk about artists that we grew up listening to as before. But yet, it's cool to have a thread about so freaking Zac Efron?!?

Whatever!

who said you can't talk about an artist? and there are always going to be teen sensations...heck, some of the artist with the most threads started off as teen sensations...

Part of my is because of this: http://prince.org/msg/8/239401

Also, who the hell is Zac Efron anywhere? By now everyone knows that artists with connections to Disney Corporation are the only people making any impact in American pop culture.

TonyVanDam said:

sosgemini said:

who said you can't talk about an artist? and there are always going to be teen sensations...heck, some of the artist with the most threads started off as teen sensations...

Part of my is because of this: http://prince.org/msg/8/239401

Also, who the hell is Zac Efron anywhere? By now everyone knows that artists with connections to Disney Corporation are the only people making any impact in American pop culture.

Boy am I disappointed - I thought this was going to be a bitchfest on the content of RS - I wasn't expecting it to be issues with the cover subject.
Thats been going on since almost the beginning of RS. Someone always got sand in their vagina about who is on the cover.

Is this really so different from their annual HOT issue
which always has a picture of a nearly naked bimbo on the cover?

thedoorkeeper said:

Another RS cover, another overrated celebrity with only vague connections to music. I never saw High School Musical, and I found Efron kind of annoying as Link in Hairspray. (he was a definite low point in the flick for me)

On the other hand, as vaguely unsettling as it is to have a 17 (?) year old posed on the cover like that, it's refreshing as hell to have the cheesecake shot be a sexed-up male for a change instead of a sexed-up female. I can't see the yum factor with this kid, but isn't that whole trend of overly-sexy Barbie doll girls kind of tired by now? What the hell ever happened to just taking a picture of somebody? I don't like her, but I know I'd love seeing a candid or casual looking pic of Rihanna instead of the pin-up shots we're usually handed. To me that's much more sexy than something that's actively trying to be.

sosgemini said:

but have u seen the cover?

christ he looks gay...
Rolling Stone hasn't been relevent since the 70's

sosgemini said:

EmbattledWarrior said:

sosgemini said:

EmbattledWarrior said:

sosgemini said:

you say that like its a bad thing...is it a bad thing? do you have a problem with someone looking gay?

Only if he's not gay.

sosgemini said:

EmbattledWarrior said:

Only if he's not gay.

do you realize your comments wreak of homophobia....not laughing on this end.

thedoorkeeper said:

I don't see the problem with the cover. Didn't the Rolling Stone mag once put a 12 year old Michael Jackson on it's front cover and a 16 year old Britney clutching a teddy bear

sosgemini said:

whatsgoingon said:

I don't see the problem with the cover. Didn't the Rolling Stone mag once put a 12 year old Michael Jackson on it's front cover and a 16 year old Britney clutching a teddy bear

Down hill from there i think

georgeguitar said:

Down hill from there i think

I think jim was just a bit out there, Alice Cooper said he was one of the most self destructive people he'd ever met

These assholes are the same swill merchants who trashed Nevermind by Nirvana, because they thought the seatle grunge scene was a fluke,
They later had to retract their review with a multitude of rereviews , but the damage was done,
Blasted nearly every album Led Zeppelin had done
Refused to feature Rush on the cover, when they were t he most requested band, because they were "Uncool"
They have been extensively trashed by former writers like Lester Bangs, Cameron Crowe, Hunter S. Thompson
C'mon they were never relevant, and they arent now

whatsgoingon said:

I don't see the problem with the cover. Didn't the Rolling Stone mag once put a 12 year old Michael Jackson on it's front cover and a 16 year old Britney clutching a teddy bear

georgeguitar said:

whatsgoingon said:

I don't see the problem with the cover. Didn't the Rolling Stone mag once put a 12 year old Michael Jackson on it's front cover and a 16 year old Britney clutching a teddy bear