Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site spar.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcs!lsuc!pesnta!amdcad!decwrl!spar!ellis
From: ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis)
Newsgroups: net.music
Subject: Rolling Stone & Stupid Pop
Message-ID: <108@spar.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 26-Feb-85 05:03:30 EST
Article-I.D.: spar.108
Posted: Tue Feb 26 05:03:30 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 27-Feb-85 10:26:36 EST
References: <1855@pucc-h> <.UUCP>UUCP>@.UUCP> <30800038@uiucuxc.UUCP>
Reply-To: ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis)
Organization: Schlumberger Palo Alto Research, CA
Lines: 24

>Well, you probably like Cindy Lauper, Loverboy, etc.
>If you like Rock 'n' Roll, you buy Rolling Stone.
>If you like stupid pop- (which many people think is Rock 'n' Roll),
>then stay away from Rolling Stone magazine.  Its that simple.

    If any publication has fallen into disrepute since its inception,
    the `Rolling Stone' surely heads the list. 

    They consistently push big-name, money-oriented, creative has-beens
    while ignoring the major sources of musical revolution in our time.  If
    you doubt this, check out their reviews of such legends as Fred Frith,
    Tuxedomoon, the Residents, Cabaret Voltaire, Throbbing Gristle, Black
    Flag, &c., when indeed, they have even bothered to listen.

    These artists may not have sold many records compared to Bruce
    Springsteen or Billy Idol, but their influence among the leading edge in
    new music far surpasses that of musicians who prefer to produce a
    predefined format for a well established audience, such as the Rolling
    Stone seems to favor.

    Usually, I think the `Rolling Stone' belongs somewhere between 
    `Billboard' and `Tiger Beat'. Too bad `OP' has passed away!

-michael