Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/17/84; site opus.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!godot!harvard!seismo!hao!nbires!opus!rcd
From: rcd@opus.UUCP (Dick Dunn)
Newsgroups: net.music
Subject: Re: Rolling Stone & Stupid Pop
Message-ID: <1116@opus.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 28-Feb-85 00:24:51 EST
Article-I.D.: opus.1116
Posted: Thu Feb 28 00:24:51 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 7-Mar-85 05:26:48 EST
References: <30800038@uiucuxc.UUCP> <108@spar.UUCP>
Organization: NBI,Inc, Boulder CO
Lines: 27

> >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...

Agree wholeheartedly with ">"--in fact, it's more specific than that:  They
consistently push "recording stars" rather than "musicians".

Yeah, I've got a specific example in mind.  (I thought you'd never ask!)
Consider the Grateful Dead.  (I thought you'd never guess!)  The animosity
of Rolling Stone toward the Dead is legendary.  The Dead are simply too
creative and extemporaneous for them to handle, and mainly THEY DON'T DO A
LOT OF ALBUMS.  (Sure, they've got a couple dozen albums, but they haven't
had one for several years.)  Instead, the Dead have thrown themselves into
the mediumd where they work best, and which is most rewarding for performer
and listener alike:  live performance.  But that's not the way it's
SUPPOSED to be done, son, so we're not interested...

This is hardly the only example, but it's a good one.
-- 
Dick Dunn	{hao,ucbvax,allegra}!nbires!rcd		(303)444-5710 x3086
   ...Lately it occurs to me what a long, strange trip it's been.