I don't usually review magazines, but I was pretty psyched to see Barack Obama on the cover of the new issue of Rolling Stone. I like the clean look of the cover. I know it runs counter to marketing but I just think a clean cover looks cooler than an image with copy all over it telling you every single thing that's going to be in an issue. I wish that the subscriber issues looked like this one. I'm looking forward to reading Jann Wenner's interview with the man.I hate the spin that the press is taking on "what's on Barack's iPod" though. I've seen a few headlines that say "Bruce Springsteen, Jay-Z, Bob Dylan and ... Sheryl Crow?" Stop with the hatin'! Then again, her body of work will outlast most or all of the indie artists that these "journalists" probably adore. And also she's been a hardcore supporter of the Democratic party. When was the last time the Firey Furnaces tried to make the world a better place?
Another great thing about the issue, which I was surprised to find (since I didn't read about it on the cover) was a huge feature on Rush. They've been one of the bands that Rolling Stone has ragged on forever, and unlike former targets Led Zeppelin and Black Sabbath they've never done a 180 on their stance. I haven't read the feature yet, but I'm looking forward to it. Of course, Rush don't need Rolling Stone or any other magazine, but it's still nice to see them getting a feature. I wonder if there's an equation to figure out the ratio of how many concert tickets Rush has sold compared to the amount of coverage they've gotten in corporate media. I'd love to compare their ratio to that of, say, Pavement. I think it would make Pavement look like a fairly unsuccessful (*ahem*) corporate rock band.
No comments:
Post a Comment