Rob Sheffield isn't funny

Rolling Stone is all sorts of fail. I don’t know when it happened, but sometime over the past few years, Rolling Stone went from being relevant, to just sort of there, to finally taking the death plunge into obscurity for today’s music fans.* But to their credit, they did see this death gasp coming and tried to do something about it. They tried going the snarky hipster route for a while, having Rob Sheffield spout off about celebrities and “pop” culture every month. Except none of it was very funny. “40 things he hates more than Paris Hilton?” Railing on Blowhan? Too easy, not to mention that every other celebrity blogger in existence does the same thing. Besides high school girls (and yes, that includes people with the mentality of high schoolers), who really cares what’s going on with these people? They like to party and make shitty movies. Nothing to see here people, move along. A major reason for Rolling Stone’s downfall is that is has lost track of its target audience.

For as long as I can remember, RS has had a Viagra educed hard on about it’s glory days, when it was indeed a cultural force and helped define what cool was. But since that time has passed, the magazine has had a hard time finding it’s voice. It still longs for the nostalgia of days old, which is evident anytime you open up one of their commemorative issues, where it’s a who’s-who list of Jann’s celebrity friends. I wouldn’t have a problem with this if they were getting contemporary music right. They just don’t get it. But they think they do. While they’re putting Kid Rock on the cover of their Hot issue (was he ever relavent?), the kids are running over to places such as Pitchfork to find out about artists that actually matter. I get it though, to an extent. Who’s going to sell more magazines, Kid Rock and a bunch of half naked women, or Of Montreal? Maroon 5 or the Roots? Rolling Stone is a business and do what they need to do to make money. Unfortunately that means giving us interviews with Perez Hilton instead of, I don’t know, anyone else on the fucking planet (seriously, my 16 year old brother is more significant than that quack). But while trying to appeal to today’s fans, they’re actually doing two things. First, they’re driving away the real young music fans who will go and seek out great new music and art in exciting and unexpected new places. Which, ironically, is how Rolling Stone built it’=s name to begin with, by providing a place to find the cool new music of the time. Secondly, they’re driving away their original readers as well. These guys see through the bullshit just as much as we do, and you can only praise the Beatles so much before you just get sick of the other 95% of the content and move on. And when you alienate the young hip crowd and the original (now older) hip crowd, what does that leave you with? Tweens. And morons. I guess that’s what happens when you get in bed with MTV.

This all leads up to the fact that they’ve just lost touch. I still laugh every time I read a review of a rap record in that magazine. Sure, crap is crap, whatever genre it is, and those they get right. But 50 Cent vs Kanye, for the title of the greatest emcee at the moment? As much as I enjoy Kanye’s music, it doesn’t exactly take a discerning listener to realize that his flow isn’t exactly up to par and that his rhymes are very hit and miss. I’d like to see either one of them try to keep up with guys like Aesop Rock or MF Doom. Can you see Ye keeping up with Blockhead’s beat on “None Shall Pass?” And I know I’m not the only one who’s noticed their influx of “safe” reviews. You know, when a big star puts out a mediocre to sub par record, you can count on it getting 3 stars, which they label as “good.” Don’t want to piss them off, or they might not agree to do a cover shoot! Whatever happened to being honest? If a record blows, and I don’t care if Jesus TF Christ himself put it out, you should call it out. Don’t be afraid of the wrath of artists with pull, if they put out crap, odds are they’ll eventually admit it.

This is not to say that Rolling Stone is all bad. There are glimmers of hope still shimmering within its pages. Peter Travers remains the most reliable film critic in the business, and is spot on with his observations more often than not. New political correspondent Matt Taibbi has become the sole reason for me not canceling my subscription. He cuts through the political bullshit with an “are you fucking kidding me?” sense of humor and perspective that’s very refreshing. Unlike others who write for the rag (no names, Mr. Sheffield), he doesn’t seem to be forcing his humor, it comes in naturally and doesn’t detract from nor take over the piece.

What can they do to get back in good favor with the music loving public? First and foremost, it has to decide what it wants to be, whether it’s a pop rag aimed at the Youtube kids, or a magazine that covers serious musicians and cuts out the bubblegum crap. It seems to be taking small steps toward the later, with a new, stripped down redesign, that or they’re just trying to cut costs. Second, pay more attention to the up and coming music scenes. By the time they break a “new” artist, most of us have already made our minds up about them and moved on. Review more indie records. Don’t call someone a hot new artist when they’re on their third full length. And please, PLEASE, get back to making more interesting covers. They used to be a work of art. Now they’re as forgettable as a lot of the people that adorn them. Because as much as you’ve been doing wrong Rolling Stone, we don’t want you to leave. Really.


* When I say music fans, I don’t mean people who gobble up Nickelback records like McDonalds cheeseburgers. This is not for you.