·Editorial·

How Does it Feel...To Be On Your Own (Like a Rolling Stone)?


Rolling Stone. The very title conjures up images of some of the greatest musicians ever. Musicians that people revere. Singers who have millions of fans and have created many priceless and unforgettable memories. Getting on the cover of Rolling Stone means something. That you've *made* it.

Think that's changed over the years? Highly unlikely. Rolling Stone, like any magazine, changes with the big trends in music. Who's going to buy a magazine that showcases eighties hair bands when it's the year 2000? Look at the past. In the early ninties, the "hallowed" covers were not plastered with faces of artists anymore respectable than those of today. They were of grunge artists like Kurt Cobain and the like. Certainly not musical geniuses or the instrumentally and vocally spectacular, but rather the newest musical phase hitting the nation. In fact, despite the previous editorial, Rolling Stone does not choose, decide, or make or break new artists. It merely showcases them and does a wonderful job, at that. No flashy dancer or mediocrely talented singer gets on Rolling Stone. The powerhouses, the movers, the shakers, the incredibly popular. Those are the artists. Rolling Stone brings us the faces of those who we *want.*

It's no shocker that young people rule the media. By far, statistics have proven time and again that they are the real money spenders in today's market. What do teenagers want? They want the Backstreet Boys, 'N Sync, Britney Spears. Teenagers want many other things, but these are merely a few. To say that these performers are devoid of any artistic talent is the song of a bitter fan who regrets that her golden boys are no longer the top of the pops. It's not that the teenagers only have these performers to look up to. No, not that at all. Rather, it's who the young people *choose* to look up to.

We apologize deeply that you don't enjoy the music of these amazing gifted young stars, but unfortunately Rolling Stone can't swing to your demands. Majority rules, and as bratty as that may sound, take a look at the overwhelming effort of pop fans across the world who played a major impact in getting their idols on the cover. We also apologize that you're in the minority of the rest of the world, and suggest you continue buying adult contemporary CDs until the next musical phase has hit. For example, Susan Tedeschi is highlighted as an amazing artist for her "powerhouse blues." The three of us have never heard of her, and if she was on the cover of Rolling Stone, we wouldn't be so interested in buying it. So what if she was nominated for a Grammy? That honor has also been given to the Backstreet Boys, Britney Spears, and--oh shocker of shockers--'N Sync, as well.

Now Macy Gray? We know who she is! We like her. She's highly popular on Top 40 Stations across America, and if she appears on Rolling Stone, it'd be no surprise. That example came out of the blue and has no real factual backing, so we find it silly and wish to move on.

Hanson on the cover of Rolling Stone. Ah yes, the real issue that everything else revolves around. Had Hanson appeared on the cover two years ago, we'd hear no arguments from you, whatsoever. Hansons lyrics during those days weren't anything incredible, either. Musically and instrumentally, the band is decent, but hardly anything to brag about. Admitted, they're talented at a young age, but the artists you appear disgusted by were all artistic bombshells by Age 10. The real reason we've been drug into Hanson fanship in the first place is not the intellecuality of MMMBop, but rather the hypnotism of Taylor Hanson's baby blues. Sure, we've stayed in it, and you can debate that "This Time Around" shows a major improvement, but the initial response is just as shallow. "Above all . . . you must be cute." Relative. Highly relative.

We'd like to know when a certain snooty representation of music-lovers chose to think of themselves as the defining group for what was quality music and what fell short. We'd like to know when loving music and artists for everything they do became a sin, since they weren't writing every lyric they produced. The Temptations, The Jackson Five, The Four Tops . . . the majority of their music was written by professional songwriters. Dancing was a major part of their routines. Four and five part harmonies. Tale as old as time, but why are they called "The Sound of Young America" and inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, when today, these factors completely discredit performers?

Call us young and idealistic, but isn't it the pure emotion and enjoyment you feel from being a part of the music? Above all, we feel it's a shame that the intelligence of young people is insulted if they happen to be 'N Sync, Backstreet, or Britney fans. Fans of all ages like all kinds of music. We tend to see past the logistics of music to find the pure enjoyment and excitement of it all. And for God's sake, learn how to spell "Britney." You'd think if you were that sick of hearing from her, you'd have taken the journalistic time to get a simple fact straight.

A suggestion? Try buying some old back copies of Rolling Stone until the pop wave fades. The rest of us will be riding high.

Editorial by Jenn, Kristen, & Karen