Great price on the subscription but the magazine seems to be lacking so far. First I got three issues in the first few weeks, nothing like sending you a few unwanted past issues to speed up your expiration date. Next the articles lack substance. On the plus side the reviews are good.
Now I know why I never purchased before.
Too much sex. Not enough music
A formerly great magazine that meant something to me has evolved into a decent magazine that is not quite as in tune with the zeitgeist. Of course, everything was better in the cultural department when I was 17 than in the present, as I am 48. One cannot devote the time that we dedicated to Rock and Roll and the lifestyle back then when one is middle aged. It's less important because we do not have the time for it. Maybe Rolling Stone is still a great mag; I just don't rock like I used to. "Too old to rock and roll, but too young to die." Rock on Rolling Stone. It is certainly worth the couple of bucks it cost me.
rolling stone is pretty good if you like to read about current bands and stuff. i only got it because i got a code to get a year of rolling stone for only 1 dollar. i get it every week. it's a good magazine but not my favorite.
RS seems to offer more advertising than good articles. It's been 15 years since I last subscribed- and I stopped at that time for the same reason I want to possibly stop now: MORE ads and not enough articles.
Esquire also has a ton of ads but there are so many well written articles that they more than makeup for the ads. RS can't say that.
I've probably subscribed to RS 4 or 5 different times in my 40-year life, but I've never once renewed my subscription. Amid the occasional gems are just too many pieces written by "Almost Famous" authors who are WAY too full of themselves and hung up on pointing out how cool they are to be sipping lattes with this singer or just hanging in so-and-so's loft. Here's a clue: It's not about you! Okay, with that off my chest I suppose it's time to subscribe again.
all of my life i've read rolling stone magazine.at the time in the 70's and early 80's i held it up there with other great magazines of the time,creem,hit parader and circus.of course that was when i was a kid and thought that van halen was the greatest band,and during their time they were.but like us all we grow older,as do our favorite artists,and unfortunately we all change in one way or another,either for the better or for the worse.in my case i've gotten smarter and can see how certain music that i thought sucked as a kid is now great,and some of those who i thought rocked today really don't.i was lucky though to have had cool parents who passed on their record collection to me when i was 5 years old.such greats as led zeppelin's II,the jimi hendrix experience's are you experienced,the who's tommy,pink floyd's umagumma(spl chk.),the beatles' let it be and so on.so rock and roll and great music is in my blood.for having passed their record collection on to me though it was if to say,"our music tastes have changed." boy i'll say.having been tortured,my thought at that time,with the likes of crystal gayle,kenny rogers,willie nelson,melissa manchester,linda ronstadt and kenny rogers,it would make me retreat to my room and blast my classics and rock out.than i started to get into the mags and learn about newer bands that my parents would dispise and yell at me to,"TURN IT DOWN!" such acts as judas priest,iron maiden and most especially,van halen.rolling stone helped me to discover these bands and i would proceed,much to the dismay of my mother,to cover my walls with their images.throughout the years i've gone to used book stores and pick-up the older copies of stone and saw how great this magazine was.i guess it all started to change in the '80's with new wave and all.rolling stone also helped me to find my favorite writer,the late great hunter s. thompson,the greatest character of writers ever.last christmas a friend bought me a subscription to stone and knew what i was in for,having kept up with the mag in bookstores skimming through it.now i don't know if rolling stone is really to blame for the way the mag is today.the more i think about it,rolling stone has always kept up with the music of the moment as well as pop culture,even if it is more so today.stone also still has some great writers working and still have some great political stories,but still has yet to turn republican itself.i don't think it's the magazine that has changed as much as the times have changed.i remember when 'grunge' was the biggest thing around and during it's time stone was a good magazine all over again.and even today there are still some good issues,especially good articles.their dedication issue to hunter s. thompson was a great suprise and a much treasured keeper.the mag also continues to provide some great pictures as well and make for some good collages.unfortunately it seems as though they don't try as hard as they should to push better bands out there and those who need to be heard.sure they have their moments in each issue,but they need to be more supportive of rock instead of being supporters of crap like pop and hip-hop.but i suppose the last 2 are what's bigger at the moment.another problem that i have is in their promotion of using women as sex objects and helping to push the dreadful paris hiltons and tara reids of the world.but as when i was a kid i liked such things and used such images for personal reasons and maybe that is what rolling stone is helping to do,to get the youngins off.also i tend to mostly go through all of the latest issues,passing many of the ad's of hal-naked men and women,and go right to the review section.they still have one of the best reviewers,if not the best in the business,david fricke,even if his section is small,it's still there and i always look forward to it.the same with peter travers and his movie reviews.so all and all the mag still has it's moments and like i said they are not all to blame for the state of the music industry today,nor are they to blame for us all growing older and changing in intelligence and tastes.
No other magazine more closely parallels the history of rock and roll. It's own history like the music it covers has gone through numerous transitions over the years. Rolling Stone has grown from a gritty cutting-edge journal that covered the rock and roll revolution from a run-down loft office in San Francisco to a slick, corporate, money-making machine. That said, Rolling Stone has in-depth articles on the latest and greatest in rock and roll as well as historical pieces, some political articles, and lots of great photos. If you're into rock and roll for the rebellion, don't buy Rolling Stone, you'll need to save all your money to buy a time machine. But if you want to know what's going on in the infotainment industry, this is a great place to start.
I DID NOT REVIEW IT OR ORDER IT AGAIN. I HOPE YOU FIX THIS ERROR OR I WILL DISPUTE IT AGAIN AS I ALREADY DID ONCE
Sorry Mr Wenner but when I first read your magazine (early seventies) it was so much better in that it was just music. Not the entire entertainment industry.
Now I will concede that the music industry is not what it used to be,I just wish you had maintained your focus.