Monday, September 18, 2017

sayonara "Rolling Stone"

As a boy child, being discreetly told "your fly is open" was like an electric cattle prod: Quick, find a corner in which to secretly (sort of) zip up! It was e-m-b-a-r-r-a-s-s-i-n-g.

With age advancing, having an unzipped fly is pretty ho-hum: What did you expect to see, after all, and how embarrassing could it be? A pecker-peek or two never hurt anyone. With female genitalia on frequent view on television these days, I'm inclined to start a lottery as to when full-frontal males will make their television debut.

I'm not sure why it did, but a passed-along article about the potential sale of "Rolling Stone" set this train of thought off in my head. I never was a reader, but I was aware of the clout the tabloid wielded in its heyday. Liberal, counter-culture, with insistent doses of the likes of Bob Dylan, John Lennon, Barack Obama and other heavy-hitters from politics and entertainment. Those days seemed to be filled with people of stature and imagination. These days, the stars seem to be pip squeaks by comparison ... but of course that is just my aging mind: Actors and actresses are like latter-day cars: They all look the same to me. The naked-er they get, the more hidden they become.

Your fly's open? Once that sent shivers down the spine. Now ... who gives a damn about your pecker and why should they? There are no more secrets and what secrets there are are so banal and are crafted by such mediocre magicians that ...

Well, you tell me: Is there a reason to zip up? Or even un-zip for that matter?

Is there a raison d'ĂȘtre for "Rolling Stone?"


  1. It's the people involved in something that makes it a thing of note. And people being subject to death, how can a thing last forever? How can it not change?

  2. I think there is a reason for the continuing existence of The Rolling Stone as periodical that covers Contemporary American Culture mainly aimed at the current batch of young adults. I saw "Rebel in the Rye" the other day and one of the things that struck me was the longevity of New Yorker Magazine. The movie even mentioned in passing The Atlantic, another long lived magazine. The Rolling Stone can live on past its founder's involvement or life. It may not be easy however.

    The magazine covers News & Politics, Music, Film & Video, and Video Games. Art was covered only from time to time and often only in passing.

    While I never found The Rolling Stone's news coverage of any importance, it's political coverage has consistently been progressive and reasonable. I find this true even as an older baby-boomer / middle aged person. While progressive It never seemed out-of-your-mind-anti-establishment to me. Of it’s current writers, I wonder what will become of Matt Taibbi.

    In someways its cultural coverage is more important now than ever. One big example from its beginning was the magazine's music coverage. Finding new contemporary music worthwhile listening to is more difficult than ever. Playlists on local radio seem to be becoming increasingly insipid. Progressive music stations have almost completely disappeared around the country. So where does one go to get a heads up? Rely on Spotify's and /or Apple Music's "curated" new music playlists?

    The situation with learning about worthwhile TV and Film is similar but, honestly, has never been as bad as with music.

    Not being a video gamer, I've no ways of knowing if Hardcore Video Gamers ever have considered the Rolling Stone as a primary source of info about new games or great games.

    It would be great if the Wenners find new blood for the Rolling Stone. Time will reveal whether they sell to the right purchaser.

    I thank Jann Wenner & his team for years of good work.

    I wish him well in his sunset years.

  3. Note:

    "Rebel in the Rye" is the new movie out that is a biography of J.D. Salinger.