Have been an RS fan/customer since middle school in the mid-90s...not too impressed with where it's gone in the last few years...while i know it was done to save money, definitely NOT a fan of changing their size/format
Good, when it's actually focusing on music
I used to think Rolling Stone was the best music magazine out there. Then I started reading magazines like MOJO and I realized that was not the case. Rolling Stone does a good job at talking about music, however, it is quite rarely doing this. There are frequently lengthy stories, and sometimes even cover stories, which have nothing to do with music, and this is really the reason I ever buy Rolling Stone, for the music articles. So, I reccomend trying something like MOJO instead and if you don't like it, go back to Rolling Stone, but I personally want my money's worth of music facts and reviews.
I was just disappointed because there eas only music i the first issue. I have been checking out Rolling Stone from the library and buying on the newsstand because of the political articles. I hope that the future issues will continue the "in depth" reporting that you had before.
Not as good as it used to be
I was a fan of Rolling Stone for a long time. The magazine has detoriated and has become the things that it always bashes.
The magazine has become way to liberal for me. I buy the magazine to read about music. I expect to see articles about music and maybe some article about musicians in polotics. You don't see that though. It's a Bush bashing magazine and it disgusts me. They don't tell you anything that the man has down right, just all of his flaws. It's a total turn off to a conservative. If your liberal and want to read there one sided opinion then subscribe to rolling stone.
Rolling Stone only really covers whats hot. I realize they have to do that to sell magazines but they continually bash Bush and capitalizim so I find this to be a little hypocritical. They tend to write about whats hot on MTV which is sickening. They do some specialty issues every couple of weeks which aren't bad, but they are usually to predictable.
Rolling Stone does do weekly reviews of CDs, Movies, and DVDs. Those to have become polotical outlets. They are very hard in there reviews and tend to not like a lot of movies. It's a shame to blast a movie because the lead guy might be a conservative. You can read the reviews off there website so I wouldn't subscribe to the magazine to just read those.
I just can't stand to read the magazine anymore. If it weren't for the pictures that are normally pretty good I would have given this 1 star. The magazine has become way to liberal for a conservative to want to read. If your liberal you might like it some, but you will get tired of all its MTV artists. It's no where what it used to be.
Rolling Stone mag
I was underwhelmed. I haven't read the magazine in years, and maybe it hasn't changed, but I just found the "news" irrelevant.
More and more, all the industry wants to do is tell you what it is you are supposed to like, and ridicule anything we might consider to be a guilty pleasure, and if you indulge in such a thing, you are 'shallow'.
Music has evolved past this attitude, and no one believes in this naked emperor anymore. And oh yeah, their politics is so mixed up, they don't even know what they believe anymore. I was a subscriber for eleven years, my renewal notice came, and I couldn't come up with one good reason to send it in.
Politics or Music ??
To much emphasis on their "left wing" agenda. They miss the Clinton administration.
love their music hate their politics
You just cannot beat the musical reviews and selections of the Rolling Stone, but at one point, (I don't even remember details, but it was a fact/a few years ago), they refused to print something that mentioned the Name "Jesus" or something Biblical just because it was Christian in some way. That is just wrong.
Is This Playboy?!?
I hate to sound like the old guy who's a Puritan (I'm not really either), but what's with all the skin? I have young children at home who bring in the mail, and I was shocked to see a nearly nude Katy Perry on the cover (#1111, 8/19) and the next issue featuring three "blood"-splattered nude people on the cover (#1112, 9/2). It seemed like I was receiving Playboy, or at least Maxim.
Once I got past that and into the articles, I was equally disappointed. Granted, I have not really read Rolling Stone in something like 12-15 years, but what happened to your collective writing skills? These have been very disappointing issues and I will not renew.
On a positive note, there have been a couple of good articles. Also, it's great fun to catch up on musicians' happenings via magazine rather than online. All is not lost, but I really expected much more of Rolling Stone magazine. I question their ability to survive if this is the best they can do - and how sad to see Rolling Stone disappear.
Judge this book by it's cover!
I am not a prude, but the magazine covers are risque. One cover had two men and one woman standing nude with paint smeared to look like blood all over their bodies. I imagine some would consider this art, but some forms of art are not appropriate for all ages. I have had to hide these from my three teenage boys and my young daughter. I would be embarrassed to have someone see these in my home. The magazines do not contain articles that engage or entertain me. In fact I have run through the entire magazine in 20 minutes. I am very disappointed in this magazine.