# Rolling Stone has jumped the shark



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

Has to be something going on in the Music Industry that could trump this cover.









Sinead O'Conner Tweeted this out. Censored word by me

What is this c%$# ("I don't smile much because it causes wrinkles") doing on the cover of Rolling Stone? Music has officially died. Who knew it would be Rolling Stone that murdered it? Simon Cowell and Louis Walsh can no longer be expected to take all the blame. Bob Dylan must be fucking horrified.


----------



## keto (May 23, 2006)

Aww, RS jumped that long ago - late 70's/early 80's according to many, not being a subscriber and only occasional purchaser I don't really have an opinion on when exactly. I did used to buy it off the newsstand fairly regularly but its evolution caused me to become disinterested far in the past.


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

keto said:


> Aww, RS jumped that long ago - late 70's/early 80's according to many, not being a subscriber and only occasional purchaser I don't really have an opinion on when exactly. I did used to buy it off the newsstand fairly regularly but its evolution caused me to become disinterested far in the past.


I only ever purchased it when Hunter Thompson wrote an article


----------



## davetcan (Feb 27, 2006)

They lost me back in the early 70's

[video=youtube;fJu6Up9w2Hc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJu6Up9w2Hc[/video]


----------



## bagpipe (Sep 19, 2006)

I think those chesticles are the only reason she's on the front cover of anything.


----------



## davetcan (Feb 27, 2006)

Thank God they didn't show her massive butt.



bagpipe said:


> I think those chesticles are the only reason she's on the front cover of anything.


----------



## bluzfish (Mar 12, 2011)

The one liners immediately started streaming through my brain but I'd rather just shake my head and say... nothing.


----------



## Guest (Jul 15, 2015)

davetcan said:


> Thank God they didn't show her massive butt.


not enough cover space. lol.


----------



## vadsy (Dec 2, 2010)

Rolling Stone might not be what it once was but boobs are great.


----------



## Mooh (Mar 7, 2007)

She's a very attractive young lady (in this photo anyway), but I'm unaware of her contributions to the arts, culture, society, or charity. Totally not on my radar so I don't know what I'm missing.

Anyone?

Peace, Mooh.


----------



## davetcan (Feb 27, 2006)

I'm going to go with "none of the above" but that's just me 



Mooh said:


> She's a very attractive young lady (in this photo anyway), but I'm unaware of her contributions to the arts, culture, society, or charity. Totally not on my radar so I don't know what I'm missing.
> 
> Anyone?
> 
> Peace, Mooh.


----------



## Xelebes (Mar 9, 2015)

She married Kanye West. That has to count for something. Right? Hello? Anyone? Anyone?


----------



## bluzfish (Mar 12, 2011)

She hooked up with Kanye West. 'Nuff said.


----------



## vadsy (Dec 2, 2010)

Mooh said:


> She's a very attractive young lady (in this photo anyway), but I'm unaware of her contributions to the arts, culture, society, or charity. Totally not on my radar so I don't know what I'm missing.
> 
> Anyone?
> 
> Peace, Mooh.


She's a social figure. 

Huge butt, big boobs, raccoon amount of eye shadow, sex tape and very motivated to be rich and famous. 

boobs


----------



## vadsy (Dec 2, 2010)

Xelebes said:


> She married Kanye West. That has to count for something. Right? Hello? Anyone? Anyone?


I hope they are very happy and grow old together.


----------



## sulphur (Jun 2, 2011)

Beyonce should've had that cover!

She had the best video out this year, Beyonce!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## vadsy (Dec 2, 2010)

sulphur said:


> Beyonce should've had that cover!
> 
> She had the best video out this year, Beyonce!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## ronmac (Sep 22, 2006)

It's the era of being famous for being famous. No talent required.


----------



## Adcandour (Apr 21, 2013)

Ah, we can bitch and moan, but at the end of the day it's about money.

I bet you this mag did better than last month's. 

Isn't rock n roll dead any way? I'd probably shake my head at anything on that cover.


----------



## Mooh (Mar 7, 2007)

Oh.

Peace, Mooh.


----------



## Budda (May 29, 2007)

If you're worried about the cover of rolling stone, then you'd be upset.

But... why are you worried about the cover of rolling stone?


----------



## bagpipe (Sep 19, 2006)

vadsy said:


> She's a social figure.
> 
> Huge butt, big boobs, raccoon amount of eye shadow, sex tape and very motivated to be rich and famous.
> 
> boobs


I had a chuckle at how the front cover "headlines" gently wrap around her generous chestmeat. Shameless stuff from Rolling Stone. That cover is befitting of Playboy.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Another mistaken thumbs down when trying to hit Reply on a small screen.

Folks with misgivings about cover might want to consider the Janet Jackson cover many years earlier. There's been worse.

I'm more miffed by how many pages of ads one his to flip through to get to the table of contents.

I still have my Woodstck issue from Aug 1969.


----------



## zontar (Oct 25, 2007)

mhammer said:


> I'm more miffed by how many pages of ads one his to flip through to get to the table of contents.


Even Guitar Player is like that.

But I gave up on Rolling Stone many years ago.


----------



## Electraglide (Jan 24, 2010)

bagpipe said:


> I had a chuckle at how the front cover "headlines" gently wrap around her generous chestmeat. Shameless stuff from Rolling Stone. That cover is befitting of Playboy.


Nope, the pic is befitting a before pic at a body shaping clinic.


----------



## Electraglide (Jan 24, 2010)

GuitarsCanada said:


> Has to be something going on in the Music Industry that could trump this cover.
> 
> View attachment 14595
> 
> ...


http://i1000.photobucket.com/albums/af129/Electraglide49/kan_zpskyi3ugiz.jpg


----------



## bluzfish (Mar 12, 2011)

Electraglide said:


> http://i1000.photobucket.com/albums/af129/Electraglide49/kan_zpskyi3ugiz.jpg



Demonstrates quite nicely what a shallow thinker he is.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

I am gratefully out of the loop when it comes to this kind of celebrity. I had to google it to find her last name.

Rolling Stone has never had much interest for me. I put them in the same category as the RRHOF. They share a similar sense of quality and priority which I do not understand.


----------



## leftysg (Mar 29, 2008)

Oh ... she's wearing a hat.


----------



## Guest (Jul 16, 2015)

this is the only RS mag I ever bought.


----------



## bluzfish (Mar 12, 2011)

leftysg said:


> Oh ... she's wearing a hat.



Lookin' for a good time, sailor? $5 for...


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

Milkman said:


> I am gratefully out of the loop when it comes to this kind of celebrity. I had to google it to find her last name.
> 
> Rolling Stone has never had much interest for me. I put them in the same category as the RRHOF. They share a similar sense of quality and priority which I do not understand.


and the winner is, milkman for instinctively seeing behind the facade. some of the people at rrhof, (who are self-appointed, btw) are from rolling stone. that mag has been a rag from day one. don't forget, these are the same people who said led zeppelin sucked and would never amount to anything. kim is perfect for them. great to look at, but not alot of content. describes them both


----------



## Guest (Jul 16, 2015)

They have moments. They did a great article exposing all the bank badness from the highest levels on down that created and then caused the subprime mortgage collapse in the USA. It was a stellar article and really drove home how aware senior banking chiefs were of the whole scam.


----------



## Lola (Nov 16, 2014)

I think this is just sick and twisted. What really does Kim do? NOTHING! She has no talent! She is famous because she is a Kardashian and nothing but! 
?
She's being given a run for her money by "Kaitlyn" her ex stepfather turned ? Kim sucks! I don't think she is that gorgeous and her big boobs and butt! Gross! But hey, that's just me.


----------



## vadsy (Dec 2, 2010)




----------



## bagpipe (Sep 19, 2006)

Lola said:


> I don't think she is that gorgeous and *her big boobs and butt! Gross!* But hey, that's just me.


Yeah Lola! Guys hate those! :smile-new:


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Lola said:


> I think this is just sick and twisted. What really does Kim do? NOTHING! She has no talent! She is famous because she is a Kardashian and nothing but!
> ?


I think the expression (and I wish I could remember who coined it) was "Well-known for being well-known". Or was it "Famous for being famous"?

Once again, I will reintroduce "Hammer's Law": _As__ the means for disseminating information becomes cheaper and easier, humans become less discriminating about what they consider to BE "information".

_Folks like Ms. K., and a great many "popular" performers are celebrities only by virtue of how easy and inexpensive it is for their publicists to let the world know of their existence.


----------



## davetcan (Feb 27, 2006)

Well this one sees absolutely nothing appealing about a big, and might I say way out of proportion, butt.The rest is OK until you factor in personality.



bagpipe said:


> Yeah Lola! Guys hate those! :smile-new:


----------



## Guest (Jul 17, 2015)

Lola said:


> .. she is a Kardashian and nothing but!


but butt.


----------

