I mean nothing against the girl she's hot and all that and she really doesn't bug the hell out of me like say (the cast of Friends) but why the hell is she on the cover? Obviously one hell of a publicist. Ok. I know she has a new record out and a movie with Jackie Chan but still it just seems odd...I heard her single by the way and it sucks more bland pop. Maybe because she's dating that guy...what's his name...he sings that awful song..."something, something Wonderland"



Now I know that we will never see Prince on the cover of RS...not even if he released a critically acclaimed record if he doesn't pay for a PR man it ain't never gonna happen...


but whatevs...

TheResistor said:

he's been on the cover about 3 times, methinx...

Cuz chicks with big tits sell magazines.

mrchristian said:

big tits and big foreheads too apparently

she is a great artist in her field,i give her that,& she is really fine,& i like her music...
BUT...i so understand what ur saying,well did ALi G deserve 2 be on the Aussie cover a few months back?? HEEELLL NO!!! but with 2 chicks' ass cheeks on there,or Jennifer Love Hewitt,they will sell mags,so thats what they do.
they care about $,not or any other WORTHY artist.

we all know radio,tv,whatever is all the same
record companies,it goes on & on & always will,unless there are more poeple like prince Nelson in this world

oh yes & her tits,she has nice tits

PlastikLuvAffair said:

at a record fair a month ago i picked up that issue with lisa & wendy on the cover from 1986,very cool article & interview with L&W in there.

Joshy84au said:

i count 5 RS covers he's been on

Joshy84au said:

Yes. Yes, She certainly does.

TheResistor said:

I'm tryin' to figger why she was on LATIN GRAMMYS lat nite. She passin'? S'ok a white chick in the mix is always cool , but Justin Timberlake? Pure wonderbread whiteboy right there

PFunkjazz said:

Chritina Aguilera was whitebread too until some A&R guy told her she needed another angle to set herself apart from Britney, Mandy Moore, Jessica Simpson and the rest.

Beast said:

Naw Cristina's legit, she's Ecuadorian

PFunkjazz said:

she may be legit, but she didn't know it until somebody told her to throw in some latin flavor. and tell people at every chance she got that she was latina.

Beast said:

LOL U know that ain't right! She just gotta look at her mama. I guess you mean cuz she did a Spanish pop LP without really knowing much Spanish, until after her pop breakthrough.

BTW that is a dye job, y'know!

What "mrchristian" said is the 100% absolute truth. Nothing more, nothing less. Sad isn't it???

PFunkjazz said:

you mean all that junk on her face? yeah, i know

The real question, I think, is "why are you still reading Rolling Stone" and/or "what has that rag had to with music in 20 years?"
[This message was edited Thu Sep 19 10:43:47 PDT 2002 by herbthe4]

kisscamille said:

Sad that RS has stopped trying to be a real music mag, too.

mrchristian said:

is it? look at the state of music. what exactly would they have to write about if they remained solely a music mag?


it's like MTV. people bitch and moan that they don't play enough videos anymore, but the fact is, when they do play videos, people complain that the videos suck and their non-music programs always draw higher ratings. same goes for RS.

Beast said:

I dunno...write about musicians? Trust me. they're out there, wondering why nobody pays any attention or seems to care.




"Music" and "art" are not about "ratings" and "popularity". They never have been. That's confusing cause and effect - the difference between the suits and ponytails with the expense accounts and the connections, and the guys that can actually play a guitar or write a song. The difference betwen the gallery owners with old money and an education in wine and cheese, and the individuals who can actually move a paintbrush on canvas and realize a vision.

It's important to notice that only one of the three letters in MTV stands for "music".

herbthe4 said:

right, but now you're trying to say that Rolling Stone and MTV are supposed to be about art, when that has never been their primary purposes. they are media about culture. and the media is a business. so why shouldn't they do what will maximize their ratings/popularity? it's not exactly hard news we're talking about here.




yes, that's my point. what are we talking about again?

Beast said:

You're right, the state of music sucks...but do you think MTV and RS have anything to do with that?
If they were genuinely interested in promoting good music and real bands--we wouldn't be stuck with 5 Britney sound-a-likes and 5 variations on N'sync-who are about as different from eachother as Coke and Pepsi.
The good music's out there, always has been--but we, MTV and RS included, have to find it.

Rolling Stone has never been solely a music publication. They've always had political articles, and later on articles that featured athletes and actors. But now it seems that the actors grace the cover as much as a recording artists. That's one of the biggest differences I see over the last...ohh, 15 20 years of the 35 year old magazine.

It was MAINLY about music before, now it's mainly about all things entertainment-wise; movies, athletes, technology, tv shows...that may be the complaint some have.

Personally I don't pay as much attention to the magazine anymore. What's popular has superceded what's more relevant (and that's not always the same thing) for them. Capturing the zeitgeist should include more than just featuring what's most popular.

She Looks Good on the Cover,but lets be Real She is only mainly known as a babe that Carson Daily got with.ain't nobody buying Her Records outside of Her Family.nobody will go See Her as a Main Actress in a Film.they had the Nerve to say She was J-Lo before J-Lo: I can't stand J-Lo but She got More going for through Her Behind that Jennifer Love Hewitt has going for Her whole Being IMHO.She looks Good on the Cover but I'd rather have the Playboy Spread or even the Penthouse Spread.She is like alot of Hot Babes out on Hollywood nowadays: Badd as Hell on Mute.

mrchristian said:

in that case, put me on the cover!!

mistermaxxx said:

:LOL: Good one!

Beast said:[quote]

herbthe4 said:

It used to be. In it's early days, it was one of the most artistically drive, counterculture, anti-mainstream "artistic" (and political) publications of its time. They began as a publication devoted to hard news that others were afraid to print, bands that the radio didn't want to play and artists (meaning "musicians") who were considered threating and subversive.

It was ANTI top 40. I doubt that back then they'd have put The Monkees on the cover, other than to talk about what bullshit that was (Does anyone know? WERE the Monkees on the coveer of RS in the late 60's or early 70's?). Soon, I expect to see the godamned American Idol finalists on the fucking thing. Go to their website and bear through all of the pop up ads for "Join the Army" - revel in the irony and in the sad metamorphasis of another voice that's been bought and sold.

They can do whatever they want as far as I'm concerned. I really don't care if they choose to "maximize their popularity"/advertising revenues or not. It's not my rag - to publish nor to purchase.

Horrible, horrible "music" publication.

Even MTV, in it's earliest inception, WAS, to some degree about art. For a short while, they were cutting edge, offering up totally non-mainstream music that no one had ever heard of, and creative, experimental animation and comedy shows. Now, it's one big Gap ad and music is nowhere to be found, let alone "art". Like I said before, I really don't care, but don't expect me to watch it.

Really, I was just answering the question of the thread.
[This message was edited Fri Sep 20 9:40:08 PDT 2002 by herbthe4]

How do I deal with Jennifer Love Hewitt?