Rolling Stone Up For Sale and Any Bidders?

[Stryder1978]

Maybe Rolling Stone will be bought by Proctor & Gamble...you know, the owners of Charmin toilet paper?

[redrum]

From 1970.

[SteveAJones]

^^^

Yep. Manson was also named Man of the Year for 1969 by the Los Angeles Free Press. 

[redrum]

On 11/18/2017 at 4:20 PM, SteveAJones said:

^^^

Yep. Manson was also named Man of the Year for 1969 by the Los Angeles Free Press. 

How bizarre.

[cryingbluerain]

On 11/18/2017 at 6:46 PM, redrum said:

From 1970.

From 2013.

 

So "edgy" doncha know.. 

[Strider]

On 11/18/2017 at 3:46 PM, redrum said:

From 1970.

 

2 hours ago, cryingbluerain said:

From 2013.

 

So "edgy" doncha know.. 

With all due respect gentlemen, the two have nothing in common with each other.

The Manson cover was a straight up news cover story. This was a story that could not be ignored by Rolling Stone, as it entailed the Beatles, Beach Boys, and the souring of the 1960s hippie-generation (exclamation point supplied by Altamont a few months later). The Manson murders and the whole idea of a murderous hippie cult freaked out the country. This was a new thing...years before the SLA, Jim Jones, Branch Davidians and all the other weirdness of the 1970s and beyond.

The idea of Charlie Manson was a national nightmare for most of the population. How could/did this happen?  How did the Beatles music get caught up in this? That's what Rolling Stone was addressing...and fairly straight-forward for the most part.

The Boston Bomber cover was a bad idea gone wrong. A bunch of clueless millennials and/or aging clueless elders that should have known better than to present a mass murderer as a boy band icon.

Two entirely different contexts.

And it illustrates succinctly the decline of Rolling Stone magazine from its cultural peak back in 1969-70 to the nadir of present times.

[redrum]

1 hour ago, Strider said:

 

With all due respect gentlemen, the two have nothing in common with each other.

The Manson cover was a straight up news cover story. This was a story that could not be ignored by Rolling Stone, as it entailed the Beatles, Beach Boys, and the souring of the 1960s hippie-generation (exclamation point supplied by Altamont a few months later). The Manson murders and the whole idea of a murderous hippie cult freaked out the country. This was a new thing...years before the SLA, Jim Jones, Branch Davidians and all the other weirdness of the 1970s and beyond.

The idea of Charlie Manson was a national nightmare for most of the population. How could/did this happen?  How did the Beatles music get caught up in this? That's what Rolling Stone was addressing...and fairly straight-forward for the most part.

The Boston Bomber cover was a bad idea gone wrong. A bunch of clueless millennials and/or aging clueless elders that should have known better than to present a mass murderer as a boy band icon.

Two entirely different contexts.

And it illustrates succinctly the decline of Rolling Stone magazine from its cultural peak back in 1969-70 to the nadir of present times.

I just thought it was bizarre that Manson dies the day after I posted the RS cover of him. Of course this will sell another million copies for them when they post his pic again, no doubt. I also remember the Zebra killers in SF in the mid 70's. Total fuckin' whack jobs.

[Strider]

12 minutes ago, redrum said:

I just thought it was bizarre that Manson dies the day after I posted the RS cover of him. Of course this will sell another million copies for them when they post his pic again, no doubt. I also remember the Zebra killers in SF in the mid 70's. Total fuckin' whack jobs.

I doubt Rolling Stone sells a million. I think that's the reason behind the sale...nobody buys the magazine any more.

[redrum]

2 hours ago, Strider said:

I doubt Rolling Stone sells a million. I think that's the reason behind the sale...nobody buys the magazine any more.

They should bring back Dr. Hook.

[cryingbluerain]

4 hours ago, Strider said:

 

With all due respect gentlemen, the two have nothing in common with each other.

The Manson cover was a straight up news cover story. This was a story that could not be ignored by Rolling Stone, as it entailed the Beatles, Beach Boys, and the souring of the 1960s hippie-generation (exclamation point supplied by Altamont a few months later). The Manson murders and the whole idea of a murderous hippie cult freaked out the country. This was a new thing...years before the SLA, Jim Jones, Branch Davidians and all the other weirdness of the 1970s and beyond.

The idea of Charlie Manson was a national nightmare for most of the population. How could/did this happen?  How did the Beatles music get caught up in this? That's what Rolling Stone was addressing...and fairly straight-forward for the most part.

The Boston Bomber cover was a bad idea gone wrong. A bunch of clueless millennials and/or aging clueless elders that should have known better than to present a mass murderer as a boy band icon.

Two entirely different contexts.

And it illustrates succinctly the decline of Rolling Stone magazine from its cultural peak back in 1969-70 to the nadir of present times.

I don't mind them writing about these monsters but just think it's wrong to give them celebrity (and martyr) status by putting them on the covers looking like rock stars.  There's a difference between being edgy and crossing a line of decency.

[redrum]

8 hours ago, cryingbluerain said:

I don't mind them writing about these monsters but just think it's wrong to give them celebrity (and martyr) status by putting them on the covers looking like rock stars.  There's a difference between being edgy and crossing a line of decency.

If it bleeds it leads. If it burns it earns.

[IpMan]

On 11/20/2017 at 5:20 PM, cryingbluerain said:

I don't mind them writing about these monsters but just think it's wrong to give them celebrity (and martyr) status by putting them on the covers looking like rock stars.  There's a difference between being edgy and crossing a line of decency.

Well, they did look like rock stars of their respective times. Manson was a singer-songwriter who was trying to get a record contract and was hanging out with many rock stars, not just Dennis Wilson. The Boston Bomber looked like some jackass boy-band wanabe. 

I do not know the intention on the part of the editors regarding these covers, but a strong possibility exists (especially for the Boston Bomber) that the whole purpose was to show that monsters seldom look like monsters. Manson in particular was 5'2" and about as intimidating as Billy Barty in Skatetown USA.

I think RS sucks as much as the next guy but IMO there was nothing wrong with either cover.

[redrum]

I would like to get the copy of RS that featured the Altamont concert. Saw one going for $90.

[Bong-Man]

http://www.psaresearch.com/images/TOPMAGAZINES.pdf

 

 #57 Rolling Stone 1,453,158..... 1967

I wonder how many of those AARP subscribers used to get Rolling Stone.

[Strider]

On 11/22/2017 at 12:34 AM, redrum said:

I would like to get the copy of RS that featured the Altamont concert. Saw one going for $90.

I have that issue...definitely one of the best issues in RS history.

[redrum]

17 hours ago, Bong-Man said:

http://www.psaresearch.com/images/TOPMAGAZINES.pdf

 

 #57 Rolling Stone 1,453,158..... 1967

I wonder how many of those AARP subscribers used to get Rolling Stone.

No AARP for me.

[redrum]

13 hours ago, Strider said:

I have that issue...definitely one of the best issues in RS history.

Did you buy it originally?

[kipper]

[redrum]

23 hours ago, kipper said:

Recycle.

[Zepfan2001]

On 09/18/2017 at 6:57 PM, SuperDave said:

This is certainly interesting and being better as posted on the official Led Zeppelin site considering the flack (I'm being mild) this so called mag or rag has put to Zeppelin over the years with  horrible and unsupported reviews of their albums especially during their tenure!  Not sure how to say this better.  Although, various writers did try to correct the poor reviews they received earlier by those who had no conception what so ever what good music was or is and Led Zeppelin always exemplified that to such a high level than almost all artists.  Only The Beatles are up there IMHO!

Anyway, this crap rag is up for sale and anyone with the dough here can buy it as we would welcome it and give Zeppelin a much positive attitude in this rag with a hard core Led Zeppelin fan who is now hence it's owner and publisher and how can you beat that?  We can only dream about this!

So will Mike Taibbi be out of a job with his anti-Trump pieces each day.  Don't want to go political but it's the same thing each day with him and Steven Colbert.  Lot of wrong with the political situation, but tired of the bashing from both sides and all I will say!

 

http://ultimateclassicrock.com/rolling-stone-magazine-for-sale/?utm_source=sailthru&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=newsletter_4572276

 

So do we have any bids?  Strider and Steve I expect you to be the first bidders?

 

This may be interesting!

 

Off to watch the eps of Twin Peaks I have missed!                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     

Nah, I would rather buy a beer, laugh at them journalists and their uncertain careers and get on with life without them.