Rolling Stone, Once a Counterculture Bible, Will Be Put Up for Sale

[blue-wave]

Source: New York Times

From a loft in San Francisco in 1967, a 21-year-old named Jann S. Wenner started a magazine that would become the counterculture bible for baby boomers. Rolling Stone defined cool, cultivated literary icons and produced star-making covers that were such coveted real estate they inspired a song.

But the headwinds buffeting the publishing industry, and some costly strategic missteps, have steadily taken a financial toll on Rolling Stone, and a botched story three years ago about an unproven gang rape at the University of Virginia badly bruised the magazine’s journalistic reputation.

And so, after a half-century reign that propelled him into the realm of the rock stars and celebrities who graced his covers, Mr. Wenner is putting his company’s controlling stake in Rolling Stone up for sale, relinquishing his hold on a publication he has led since its founding.

Read more: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/17/business/rolling-stone-magazine-sale.html

---

How about we all form a group and buy it!

[YOHABLO]

1. Nah, that's got nothing to do with it. The Music industry just got very UNCOOL!

[Sunlei]

2. what an amazing life story, Jann S. Wenner!

[BigmanPigman]

3. NO, this can't be true!

[CentralMass]

6. That brings back some memories.

[madokie]

14. Yeah it do

Silvia's mother, when you're in love with a beautiful woman. Oh man what a start of a day

[SunSeeker]

4. Seems like music just doesn't mean as much to people as it did in the late 60s/early 70s.

I remember a very different time years ago when people cared about new rock music and who was on the cover of Rolling Stone:

Not so much any more. Good new rock and roll songs are few and far between. There's not as much to write about other than typical celebrity gossip stuff. The new owner will probably try to make money by talking more about who's sleeping with who.

[BigmanPigman]

5. Ha ha, great minds I guess...

[Bernardo de La Paz]

10. Actually, ... music means as much, just not means the same

Look at how many people walk around with ear buds glued to their ears or proper headphones on. Sure, some are listening to podcasts but the great majority are listening to music. I dare say that more people are listening to more music more often these days.

The thing is that though some of it has a rebellious nature, much of it doesn't have the same meaning in people's lives as it did 50 and 40 years ago. I think a greater percentage of it could be called "pop".

I don't watch or listen to many video essays (preferring reading), but this one was calm, detailed and gives an excellent explanation of "Why is modern pop music so terrible": http://www.learnreason.com/why-is-modern-pop-music-so-terrible/ going into technical, business, and sociological aspects.

Here's the embedded video https://www.facebook.com/thoughty2/videos/1531012313622140/ but the above link accesses it without taking you to facebook.

[CanSocDem]

16. Great video /essay.

But your point about individuals and 'ear buds' could be saying something other than 'more people are listening to music'...

Something like: "Don't bother me."

.

[Dave Starsky]

17. Thanks for posting that video. It is dead on.

I know that popular absolutely SUCKS today, and it's not just because I'm an old fart who wishes that the little Bruno Mars fans would get off his lawn. This is not a "generation gap" thing.

When I was a teen, I discovered the music of Pink Floyd, which was almost never played on the radio in my little shithole farm town. I remember playing Dark Side of the Moon for my mom the very first time, thinking that she was probably going to hate it. She absolutely LOVED it. To this day, my elderly mother is a bigger Pink Floyd fan than I am and still buys anything and everything those guys come out with.

[SunSeeker]

21. Yep. Rock peaked in 1967.

God I feel old.

[kwassa]

18. Music was the chief expression of revolt in the '60s ....

It was more than just entertainment, and the subject matter was wider than love songs. Music had a much greater social role than it does now. It was about the counterculture and the resistance to the Vietnam War, and was the chief expression of the youth of that era. It was artistically much more experimental as well.

Currently, it has reverted to it's former role of entertainment only. This makes popular music less important than it was, and Rolling Stone less important than it was.

Aside from the woes of the publishing industry, rock 'n roll hasn't seen any major innovations in decades. Unlike jazz, where major stylistic changes would take place every decade or so, the basic styles of rock laid down in the '60s and '70s are still with us today. This makes the new music feel very recycled, with little impetus to buy the new stuff when it sounds like a weak version of the old stuff.

[xxqqqzme]

29. I always liked the

political reporting. I still remember the article about Tom Delay. That profile was scary. As it turned out, it was spot on.

[mac56]

7. Rupert Murdoch is salivating.

[yuiyoshida]

8. Watch right wingers buy it...

Nugent, Kid Rock, one of them perhaps. Hoping to ruin a good thing just like TRUMP DOES.

[Optical.Catalyst]

9. Harvard School of Business

Take a successful format for a simple magazine that communicated what people were thinking to other like minded people, and jam that round peg into a square hole for the sake of a profit. They came in and obscured the core attractiveness of the magazine (telling interesting stories) by having accountants selling advertisements, marketing people dictating image, and production people forcing a schedule. When the financial wizards with MBAs started approving stories that would 'sell' over stories that were informative, the magazine was doomed.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

11. Actually, ... all paper publications have been DISRUPTED by the internet.

Rolling Stone has had accountants, sold ads, molded its image to markets, and schedules for decades. Your complaints are about things that happened decades ago but are not what has caused the recent financial troubles.

[Zoonart]

12. Village Voice is folding...

Counterculture icons are falling because the counteruclture no longer exsists. Time for a new revolution.

[melm00se]

13. actually it's more

due to the failing of printed media.

this is partially driven by the fact that they charge for the print copy but release(d) the same content on the internet for free. so why pay for it?

[Codeine]

22. Oh baloney.

Counterculturalism is alive and well, it's just not as dependent on print media as it was years ago.

Shit changes, people. Just because it's not being done the same way a bunch of graybeards did it back in the "good old days" doesn't mean it isn't being done at all. You guys all sound like the generation your protest music railed against.

[CousinIT]

15. Good God. Don't let Murdoch or Mercer get a hold of this. n/t

[BumRushDaShow]

19. "a botched story three years ago"

THAT is what really took them down.

They have had some excellent long-form articles over the decades and it's a shame that they were so rattled of late to throw in the towel. They just have to make sure that some RW douchebag doesn't buy it just to NPR it.

[Javaman]

20. First the Daily News, now Rolling Stone.

the icons of the Liberal voice are going away one by one.

[LiberalLovinLug]

24. The Village Voice

[Javaman]

25. yes and the voice. :(

I can't believe I forgot to mention that.

losing that one was like a stab to my heart.

[bettyellen]

26. The Daily News?!!!

[Javaman]

30. yeah, it was recently sold. I believe last week. nt

[bettyellen]

31. Ahh, shit! My Dad taught me to read with the TDN. Headlines about politics and cartoons

[TexasBushwhacker]

23. Maybe Bezos will buy it

Can't say I blame Jann for selling it. He's 71 and has 6 kids, plus his partner and an ex-wife who's still VP of Wenner Media. Too many heirs to keep things from getting messy. Best to cash out.

[Kaleva]

27. Obsolete format

[johnp3907]

28. Counterculture?

[Eliot Rosewater]

32. Baaaaaaaaaaad news.

One of the few sources for truth, and who knows who will take over.