The size reduction is in direct relation to the reduction of quality music articles the magazine produces these days.
Back then it was beautiful
The boys were sweet and musical
The laser lights looked mystical
Messed up stuff felt magical
Girls didn't seem so difficult
Boys didn't seem so typical
It was warm and white and wonderful
We were all invincible
I'm mid-thirties now, so I'm really starting to 'not get' so much of the music that is out today....but I wonder how much of some of our lament isn't the exact sort of thing people used to lament in the 70's, the 80's, the 90's....
I think Rolling Stone is in some trouble. I've been getting that magazine free for going on 3 years now and I barely read much of it other than music CD previews and the occasional story. Obviously, if they are giving that many free subscriptions away via CD's I've purchased online they must really be in need of more subscribers. It's tried to turn itself into a music/entertainment/politics magazine and it really doesn't work. I wish they would just stick to music and provide more in depth stories about musicians and music industry trends.
Would Dr. Hook be as passionate today as they were in 1972?
It's always been a music/politics magazine, becoming a entertainment lifestyle magazine detracts from the the backbone of the business and makes them have to take on more competition in more avenues.Quote:
It's tried to turn itself into a music/entertainment/politics magazine and it really doesn't work. I wish they would just stick to music and provide more in depth stories about musicians and music industry trends.
But politics and music is why most went to the magazine in the first place, not for stories on movie stars or current teenny bopper sensations.
I worked as a cash register guy/delivery guy in a small town pharmacy in the mid 1970's. I loved RS back then, always reading it at work cover to cover.
I ordered this issue of this magazine Saturday. If I like it I'll subscribe.