Rolling Stone Cover? This is why it is wrong....warning Graphic Photo.

[MADem]

186. The editor-publisher of RS is an old guy, that's why.

The magazine reflects HIS tastes, HIS interests, and HIS worldview--it's a very personal effort--albeit a corporate one--in that regard.

He's a geezer (and before you think I am insulting him, I am one too), he thinks that popular music begins and ends with the stuff HE likes, he gives short shrift to minority and "pop" artists (except when his hand is forced--e.g. they make more money than Elvis or the Beatles), and his grip on the whole "Voice of the Music Industry" thing is gone, what with the arrival of magazines geared to today's music, like VIBE and HIP HOP and BLENDER, that actually put black people on the cover without them having to die tragically and too young (Tupac) or insult teenagers at music award ceremonies (Kanye).

He's wanting to branch out, I think, because he's lost the bubble on what is fresh in the music industry. The magazine's musical focus is pretty much about what someone who was one of the "Don't Trust Anyone Over 30" crowd in the late sixties likes. That's great for older readers, not so great for the kids. He has the disdain of his generation for what was termed "Top Forty Crap" back in the day, stuff that has only become "acceptable listening" forty years on. I think his readership has flattened, too--young people who are music fans (and most young people are) just don't look to RS the way previous generations did for music industry-centric business.

It wants to become more of an "omnibus" magazine, but there are so many flavors of that kind of publication already that it could end up in worse shape than it is now. I think the editor - publisher is at a bit of a crossroads right now, even if he doesn't quite realize it yet.