What's this board's consensus on the Rolling Stone magazine?

Trash

A fucking joke

meh

Their entire staff still thinks it's 1976.

Baby boomer shitrag

they think led zeppelin is the hardest band out there

>>74985766
outdated out of touch

Important thing to remember--RSM has always been a political magazine that just happens to also cover music.

what dadrockers read on the toilet

These guys are funny because on the one hand, it's a necessity for them to cover current artists (usually some shitty rapper or pop star) to get young readers, yet they also need to retain the 60 year old guys who've read them for decades so one issue will have Kendrick Lamar on the cover and the next one will have Fleetwood Mac or something.

How to fix RSM:

1. Euthanize Jan Wenner
2. Hire some people in their 20s-30s to write for the thing
3. Cover current artists, not artists from the 70s
4. Can the obnoxious politics

>>74986848
I mean, really. The OP pic shows a 2010 (I think) issue.

Now why would you run a cover with Mick Jagger in 2010? Really, wouldn't it have made more sense to show Kanye or Lady Gaga or just about anyone else who was currently relevant at that time? I mean, just what relevance did Mick Jagger have to anything happening in the music world in 2010?

That shows how embarrassingly faggy and trapped in the amber of the Nixon years that RSM is.

>>74987106
Sad.

It was always shit. The idea that Rolling Stone was ever relevant like it was some "Boomer Pitchfork" is inaccurate and needs to stop.

>>74986848
>1. Euthanize Jan Wenner
Maybe this will finally kill the Rock Hall

Rolling Stone has been always shit and never had any impact on music whatsoever.

>>74986848
>Cover current artists, not artists from the 70s
That's literally all they do now. If they dickride dadrockers it's for lists and editorials. In terms of poptimism they're probably the most blatant offenders right now.

occasionally they enjoy a genuinely great album

leftist garbage