The Stone that Stopped Rolling

Rolling Stone magazine. The very title conjures up images of some of the greatest musicians ever. We esteem its pages and hold it to be the authority in music today. I've been told that in a time long ago, Rolling Stone was a publication an artist really strived to impress. Getting on the cover of Rolling Stone meant that you had made it.

"Was" being the operative word there. These days, they'll let anyone on the cover; with a few pre-requisites, of course: You must be a flashy singer or singing group, you must have one or more mildly catchy pop songs with an absolute void of artistic merit and, above all else, you must be cute.

This is wrong, plain and simple. It's a shame that the youth of today has only the Backstreet Boys and their ilk to look up to and lust after. It's not that I loathe the Backstreet Boys, that's not the case at all. I sing along to their songs when I'm in my car. That's what they are -- car music. Artists they are not.

Rolling Stone recently had the Backstreet Boys on their hallowed cover, pants down no less because I think we all needed to see that; and before that it was Brittney Spears, in all her kiddie porn glory. The most  recent upset has prompted these cries of injustice on my part. That upset would be the addition of N'Sync to the tradition that Rolling Stone has started in pandering to the Tiger Beat crowd.

Others might have a difference of opinion, but I am of the belief that
there are a plethora of real artists out there to choose from. Must we keep plastering these over-produced, smooth-voiced, pretty boy puppets on the cover of an allegedly insightful magazine?

I'll give you an example: Susan Tedeschi is one of the greatest female vocalists around at the moment. With her powerhouse blues, she's highly reminiscent of Janis Joplin, Big Mama Thornton and even Aretha Franklin. Where is she? Why isn't she on the cover of Rolling Stone? Sure, she was nominated for a Grammy, but does anyone know who the hell she is? No. Because the media is too busy promoting crap that a monkey would clap to.

Macy Gray is another Grammy nominated performer that has brought a unique, honest and creative voice to popular music and, unfortunately, most people will never know who she is--even after the Grammy nomination and some coverage on Vh1.

So the inevitable question arises: Do I want Hanson to be on the cover of Rolling Stone? Yes, but not for the reasons you think. In all honestly, I don't think Hanson deserves to be on that cover, not yet anyway. Their time will come when they've paid their dues a bit longer. However, they certainly deserve to be featured before the likes of Backstreet Boys, N'Sync and Brittney Spears. For a magazine that claims to be all about the music, they don't seem to want to promote the good stuff, only the material that will bring in the most cash.

Call me young and idealistic (much like the first writers of Rolling Stone), but is that all that music is about now? It's not about the heart, soul, emotion and pain that went into the creation of it? It's not about the life stories behind the lyrics? When did it become solely about the money? When exactly did that transformation take place? I'd like to go back and witness the music being made when it was still in its purest form. I think it's a shame that most young people today don't know what music used to be, and what music used to mean. Or rather, when music meant something at all.

Guest editorial by April