About the cover of the new Rolling Stone issue. In light of DavidEye's thread, I pose these questions; Who do ya'll feel should have been included on the cover that wasn't and who was included that didn't have any business being on there?Of course, everybody has their picks and of course, there are going to be folks who are going to get left out. BUT, ya'll know that there are certain folks that are a MUST PICK, ala Hendrix and Elvis. One of the drags I had about the cover are the folks that are on there, taking up space over someone who is FAR more deserving. 50 Cent but no Carlos Santana?! And the "WTF were they thinking about" artists ala Justin Timberlake AND Billy Joe from Green Day. Right in the front no less. Here's a few of my thoughts;

Should Have Been On There

Carlos Santana
KISS
Bruce Lee
George Clinton
Iggy Pop
Robert Johnson
Cher
Lenny Bruce
Lenny Kravitz
The Blues Brothers (not Belushi by himself)
N.W.A.
Biggie Smalls
Outkast
Tim Curry from Rocky Horror Picture Show

These Folks Are On There But Should Be WAAAY More Prominent

Richard Pryor
Prince
Ray Charles
Sam Cooke
Martin Luther King
JFK
Malcom X

Definately Should Have Been In The Front Row

Michael Jackson
Little Richard

Scatch My Head

John Lennon...twice?! One with Yoko even?
Justin Timberlake?!
50 Cent?! And his shot is damn near the clearest out of everyone. And his position is primo too.

O.K....ya'll turn.

andy warhol should have been way more prominent. without the way he redefined celebrity, most of those people would never have happened.

Oh yeah, on the More Prominent List;

Definately Al Pacino

On the "Should Have Been On There and Prominent"

Jimmy Page w/Robert Plant

blackguitaristz said:

Add Sly on that list...

sly's not on the cover?!?!?

funkpill said:

There it is, Pill! Man, how in the hell did I forget about Sly?! Sly is definately second row material, if not front row. And that's real. Hell, take Madonna's ass out of the front row and put Sly in her spot. Madonna definately should not be in the front. Second row at best, but in the front?! Before Elvis even?! Hell super nah!

Another "Should Be Prominent" Artist that's not even on the cover;

Donna Summer

blackguitaristz said:

Ahhhhh...

Should Have Been On There

Carlos Santana
KISS
Bruce Lee
George Clinton
Iggy Pop
Robert Johnson
Cher
Lenny Bruce
Lenny Kravitz
The Blues Brothers (not Belushi by himself)
N.W.A.
Biggie Smalls
Outkast
Tim Curry from Rocky Horror Picture Show
Not to diminish others on list, but some of these were just "expected" in my eyes and weren't inlcuded. See above. That's just criminal. But if you're going on how much "press" some of these artists got by Rolling Stone over the years, well, they maybe, they are accurate. By their standards, i.e., coverage, not by other standards such as importance,influence and impact.

Carlos Santana
Donna Summer
Earth Wind & Fire (maybe Maurice White and Phil Bailey)


btw,I just picked up a copy of this mag and it is GREAT! I didn't realize that the cover was in 3-D!

funkpill said:

I agree,Donna really should have been included.She was the "Queen of Disco",arguably the most popular female artist of the late 70s.She took dance music to a whole new level.Without Donna,there would be no Madonna.Oh well,at least she appeared on the cover during her heyday:

I don't think they should have included "newer" artists at all.50 Cent and Justin Timberlake should not be here.Let's focus only on the classic artists who actually made some kind of impact.

DavidEye said:

i can understand that they wanted to include recent icons that appeal to younger readers, but they could have kept eminem and maybe even britney (ugh, i know) nearer the middle/front, and put 50 cent and justin farther back...they've only really done ONE successful album apiece, then they kinda retreated. and 50 did that crummy movie. whoopee.

Anx said:

Agreed.

blackguitaristz said:

Rick James?

DavidEye said:

I purposely didn't mention Rick to save him for someone else to check. DEFINATELY Rick.

Another "Should Have Definately Been On There And Prominent".

Miles Davis

Another "Should Have Definately Been On The Cover"

Billy Idol

DavidEye said:

There it is.

Bfunkthe1 said:

My point exactly. It is criminal. How in the world are you going to put Justin and not put Lenny Kravitz?!

Anx said:

There's no doubt that was Rolling Stones's thought process, so I pose this question; Going along with THAT premise, including newer artists for the kids on the cover, where in the hell is Alicia Keys?

funkpill said:

Hell yeah. To all of them. But Robert is on there isn't he? Way the hell in the back though.

DavidEye said:

yup...

Anx said:

I may be the only one, but I think 50 Cent really should be where he is. Both his solo albums have topped five million and he's the biggest rapper around today--bigger than Eminem, Nelly, etc. I mean, this isn't Mojo magazine, it's Rolling Stone and RS is supposed to be a current periodical. This cover is not about the greatest musicians in the history of rock 'n' roll. It's more about pop culture and where the magazine has been and where there are now. 50 Cent is where there are now (unfortunately).

I do agree that Justin should NOT be there. *NSYNC made more of an impact with the boy band craze than Justin solo ever did.

sextonseven said:

thirty years from now, our kids might pull that magazine our of one of our boxes of old crap, and they'll point to 50 cent and say "who's THAT?!". i guarantee you they'll recognize madonna and the beatles and janis and...well, even prince, if they'd used a more iconic picture than that little richard mock-up. if they'd put RUN DMC or Chuck D. in 50's place and scooted him nearer the back, I think it would have been more proportional.

Anx said:

Ya know what? If that cover was made thirty years from now and 50 never made another record then I'd agree with you, he's about as important as Peter Frampton. But it's all about now and you have to cover the present somehow. Nobody's bigger than 50 right now so he gets front row.

sextonseven said:

nobody's bigger than 50 RIGHT NOW? if it were last summer or, better yet, the summer before, i'd agree with you. but right NOW? i'd say he's scarsely more relevant than justin timberlake right now. maybe i'm missing out on some big 50 cent 2006 revival, i'm not always up on such things...

sextonseven said:

Everybody on here knows that the cover isn't just for the greatest rock and roll legends. That's obvious when you see cats like John Travolta and Johnny Depp. But, if musical legends weren't important, then why is the whole front row nothing but musical legends? Since it's more about pop culture and where it is NOW, then why not put Fiddy in the front row, along side Stefani. You know, so the magazine is all about TODAY and shit, replace Chuck Berry with Fiddy and replace Madonna with Gwen.

The picture of Prince was fucked up!

minneapolisgenius said:

Yeah, Plant is on there but we're talking about Zepp, definately one of the greatest rock bands to ever breathe. It's asking too much to have all 4 members from Zepp, although they did it with The Beatles, of course. They should have at least had the two most visual Zepp members, Plant and Page. Just like them having Axl. IF you're going to even have him, you gotta have Slash. Hell, I would have picked Slash over Axl anyways. Least Slash is STILL valid and CURRENT with Velvet Revolver. Like Pete from The Who. He's waaay over in the corner someplace. Nah..He's done way too much for rock. He's second row material. Him and Roger Daltrey, who's not even on there, should have been more prominent. Instead of having TWO pics of Lennon, give one to someone else. Lennon wasn't the only cat to have made an impact.

blackguitaristz said:

i understand that it's supposed to appeal to all generations from the baby boom on up to the post-TRL kiddies, but i also get the vibe that this illustration is meant to appeal to posterity, and not just the here and now (maybe an impossible feat). stefani and fiddy near the front would indeed be like putting frampton and juice newton near the front if this had come out in the '70s.