RollingStone - Politically Cool Again?

The mighty world of music journalism has fallen to its broken knees in recent years, at least in the realm of mainstream print publications. Rolling Stone leaves much to be desired, of course, while Spin sputters hopefully along and Blender hides its sometimes-sharp music coverage between copious pages of bikinis, engorged bosoms, and bad lad-mag humor. The only thing really going for these pubs at all is their name-brands and corporate backing -- they can be found on any newsstand, they're supported by scads of advertising dollars, and full subscriptions can be picked up for under six bucks a year. Still, they suck.

The best options available are the excellent British imports Q , NME (New Musical Express), Uncut, and Mojo, all of which are horribly overpriced once they reach the States. To satisfy their music jones, American readers are left with only a handful of expensive, hard to find, and sometimes-amateurish zines and specialty mags (indie, rap, alternative, hip-hop, country...). So the most powerful melody criticism today, perhaps, is free: Namely, Pitchfork Media and a smattering of indie websites have become reliable and innovative in a way the print mags have not.

And yet something is missing. The overarching vision of Rolling Stone provided not just rock coverage, or even mere music coverage -- RS, in its prime, plugged into the energy of rawk and the youth culture while also keeping a smart, watchful eye on fashion, politics, films, and international affairs. Groundbreaking writers of fact and fiction crawled from the pits of RS and ran amok in the mainstream media. The world of music flavored every story, every theme, every liberal bias and investigative article, but there was still more to this mag than just one topic, genre, or specialty. Pitchfork, Magnet, Under the Radar, the Brit mags -- they can't touch this. The legend of the Stone is too great.

On the one hand, even the best of the new breed of music publications wrongly ignore lifestyle trends, general-interest topics, and politics while locking themselves into genre boxes and writing with erudite fervor that's magnanimous to none but the chosen few. On the other hand, mags like RS, Spin, and Billboard are under the complete command of the corporate music empire. And while the music and movie reviews found in weeklies The Village Voice and Time Out New York are usually superior than those found in the latter, as local NY event-listing pubs they're severely limited in their national influence.

Former RS writer Lester Bangs once said, "I think a lot of the music that's out right now and a lot of the writers who are out right now, they both deserve one another. Because they both have no personality and no real style of their own and no soul.... They're just... a lot of them are academics. I mean, do you like to read them?"

Well, Lester, what other choice do we have?

When you're in the market for a monthly music lifestyle magazine, it all comes back to the Stone. Thankfully, they're slightly more palatable these days.

Besides bringing the groovy slash-and-burn comic "Get Your War On" to the public's attention, Rolling Stone has gotten a wee bit more of a rock edge ever since their kinda slow and low-key relaunch a couple years ago, but they're still hopelessly not as relevant or edgy as they think they are (or once were). However, as with much of the music industry, the election season has really poured some hot sauce on their testicles, and the simmering dislike they've had for Bush and the war has finally hit a fever pitch of Montezuma’s revenge-like explosions.

An October 2004 RS story by Matt Taibbi, "Bush Like Me: Ten weeks undercover in the grass roots of the Republican Party," isn't as long, sordid, or engaging as one might hope (kinda like that date I had last night), but it's full of biting humor and piquant insights.... its only failing, really, is that it leaves the reader wanting more, because what's provided is so well done... to go undercover with Republican Campaigners in Orlando, FL ... well, I've spent a lot of time in Orlando, and let me assure you, other than the nearby Fat Lands (the myriad Theme Parks), it is indeed a wasteland of the half-dead and the half-insane. Florida never gets the full Redneck credit it deserves, in my opinion (unless you count the dead-on portrayal found in the James Spader camp classic, "The New Kids".)

Still, Rolling Stone has dominated the market for too long. This is our grandparents' magazine, and just as it's sad watching our grandparents go to seed, it's unnerving to watch a legend like RS ungracefully approach death, nearing the Reaper with each passing decade. But that doesn't mean we can't live our own lives. When will the new breed at last grow into the guitar straps of its ancestors; or will the current generation be remembered only for coy, smug non-nudity, non-informative girlie books like FHM, Maxim, Stuff, and Blender?

***

[Speaking of Florida, the DailyKosmonaut's Tom Schaller recently asked, "The President is swinging through Florida. Wonder if he's gonna chastise his brother for mishandling of the felon voter list -- again. Democracy on the march, or in retreat?" The answers on this open thread are intriguing.]

***

Post election update:

We'll have to wait and see how Rolling Stone reacts to another four years with Bush in office -- will the rebellious age of rock reign again, or will tepid pop keep puttering along? Currently, things are not looking so good.

And how ironic is it that the only consistently good thing about a youth-oriented music magazine is the movie criticism written by an older fella (I don't know his exact age, but Peter Travers was a film critic for People magazine 20 years ago, so he's been around.)

Traver's movie reviews are easily the best part of Rolling Stone these days.... With every issue I find myself skipping to the back of the mag to read his coverage -- I never agree with him 100%, but he's a sharp writer with grand taste. On the other hand, the music reviews are spotty and RS is lacking critics with strong, individual voices (well, the editorial vision of the paper keeps them neutered, anyway), the music news and gossip is usually tepid, and the top-drawer investigative and cultural pieces are infrequent.

Every time Rolling Stone wants to seem legitimate again, they do a well-researched retrospective of rock or pop from 20, 30, 50 years ago. Then, a month or two later, they’re back to sticking an overly airbrushed Britney Spears or a flash-in-the-pan American Idol winner on their cover. It’s as if they’re saying we have to look into the past, or we have to gaze into the soul of the corporation. There is nothing in between.


***

Related article:

In "The Bad Boy On the Bus," Mother Jones interviews Matt Taibbi regarding his new book, writing for Rolling Stone, being the new Hunter S. Thompson, and the not-so-funny New York Press Pope story that got him and his boss unfairly canned.

Oh, well, speaking of lesbians...

That last debate was like a love fest -- I thought Kerry and Bush were going to start tongue kissing the moderator in the ears. He was spoon-feeding to both of them, and at the end they all had a nice laugh about their wives and I swear it looked like Bush was going to hug/punch Kerry at the end of the debate, right after the final handshake (it was an odd little moment).

Kerry won the oral contest, but not hands down -- I mean, he only won it, in my opinion, because Bush is a giggling, grinning numbskull, and not because Kerry is a great debater, despite the pundits' post-debate spin. True, Kerry has been more concise, dynamic, and leader-like in the debating arena than in his half-wit stumping on talk shows or meandering, boilerplate campaign speeches. But I know 10-year-olds that could've gotten more jabs in against Bush's faulty policy reasoning and factual distortions, so why do analysts keep repeating a mantra about Kerry being a super-skilled debater that could make mince out of the best in the biz?

To paraphrase 200 different mainstream media types: "Kerry is one of the greatest debaters in the world, but Bush could still win it with his down-home, good-ole-boy style." Yeah, of the two bible-quoting, smirking millionaires running for president, Bush gets down-home/regular-guy status because he talks with a slight southern twang and has the vocabulary of a guy who never had to attend class because his parents could buy his way out of trouble (hot damn, he's one of us, Duke!) while Kerry must be the Great Debater because he's boring as shit drying on pavement, and boring means "smart."

Now, I've heard a couple of these so-called swing voters say dumb things like "Well, Kerry does seem smarter, but Bush is going to protect our right to marriage!" Dumb mutherf***ers.... Yeah, that's right, even though Kerry is also anti-gay-marriage (the wuss) and is instead for some vague civil-union equal-rights thing, what he's actually going to do is ban all hetero marriage if you elect him, so you better vote for Bush... good grief. HOW DUMB ARE THESE PEOPLE?!

And I did like how Kerry stomped on Bush involving the "Global Test" thing and his senate record -- really put him in his place and just straight-out told it like it is. It was interesting how Bush couldn't follow up after that, and instead could only repeat the same trite phrases again and again. But maybe it's the repetition of these hackneyed catchphrases that actually gets into the thick skulls of the swing voters and the Repubs.

Two things I didn't understand:

1) Why Kerry let Bush dominate the discussion on education. Kerry barely even touched on it, but it's always been a Democratic platform, so I was surprised that he mostly handed it to Bush.

2) How any working-class American can still support Bush after he said that the way he'd handle unemployment and outsourcing was by giving people more education and job training (has the government ever offered you job training? 'Cause they've never offered me job training. And if the jobs are outsourced, what jobs will be left to train for?).

Didn't he actually say something like, "My 'No CHILD Left Behind Act' is kinda like a 'No JOB Left Behind Act' if you actually think about it. If you lose your job at the manufacturing plant, that's okay -- 'cause I'll write you a $200 Pell Grant check -- money in your pocket! -- and send you to Community College, where that Pell Grant will pay for at least two of your text books while your family starves and you can't afford to buy gas, you dumb redneck! Money in your Pocket! Education! Whooo-ha!" Was it just my magic ears -- OR DID BUSH BASICALLY SAY JUST THAT?!??

THE DEBATE TRANSCRIPT:

BOB SCHIEFFER: "Mr. President, what do you say to someone in this country who has lost his job to someone overseas who's being paid a fraction of what that job paid here in the United States?"

PREZO GB II: "... here's some trade adjustment assistance money for you to go a community college in your neighborhood, a community college which is providing the skills necessary to fill the jobs of the 21st century. "

Now, wait a second, I thought the Republicans were opposed to federally funded education -- kinda like socialized health care, isn't it? Kinda... Canadian? Hmmmmm...

And when computer jobs are being outsourced to India and all manufacturing jobs are disappearing and Bush is cutting welfare .... how useful, really, will a $300 Federal Pell Grant be to a guy who's just been laid off? That'll buy a few textbooks, but it won't get him a new job or put food on the table for the kids... Don't get me wrong, I'm all for free college, but Bush is NOT paying for everyone's college. He just isn't. Who's falling for this, anyway?

Oh, I remember, it's the people listening to this guy:

RUSH LIMBAUGH.

For a laugh, check out his "Truth Detector", where Rush gets to play the underdog and the triumphant king at the same time: "Smart People Know Kerry Has Never Led This Race," he says, and even blames the Dems for trying to steal the Florida election through the mighty power of Bill Clinton or some such Alice in Wonderland logic.