When Rolling Stone founder Jann Wenner started planning the cover of the iconic rock magazine’s 1,000th issue, knowing it would salute pop culture luminaries who have graced its pages since 1967, The Beatles’ famous Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band album cover immediately came to mind.
As a lark — and for the extra $1 million it cost — he also had the cover of the May 18 issue, which hits newsstands Friday, printed in 3-D. “In the back of my mind, 3-D was always in a bag of tricks that somehow I wanted to pull out one day.”
The cover features more than 150 pop icons of our times, from Bob Dylan and Janis Joplin to Britney Spears and Eminem. George Clooney is there, and so are Angelina Jolie and Tom Cruise and Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan. “There are plenty of famous people who are not in there. There just wasn’t room for everybody,” Wenner says.
But even if there had been room, President Bush, whom the May 4 issue of RS called the “worst president in history,” would not have made it, Wenner says, citing a “combination of incompetence, laziness and ineptitude for the job.” Meanwhile, Clinton — whom Wenner ranks as his favorite president — is in the second row, between Joni Mitchell and Justin Timberlake.
Some might argue that the magazine’s best years ended with the turbulence of the ’60s and ’70s, but not Wenner, now 60. He says its profiles are among the best in the business: “I don’t think it’s lost its clout culturally. If you look around at all the media and think about the most impactful place you can be, if you’re a musician or a movie star, Rolling Stone still carries more weight and prestige, I dare say, than Time, which used to have a lock.
Rock on!
Why, matt, what a wonderful example of the difference between opinion [yours] and reality.
RS audited circulation is ab’t 1.4 million. Almost the same as US News — a little more than a third of the kingpin, Time. More than Atlantic, New Yorker, etc..
That’s a lot of non-clout. Unless, you live in a world where none of those magazines have any “clout”.
Moss,
I don’t think you understand. All of those magazines you listed, Time, US News, Atlantic (can’t remember when I saw one), New Yorker (being in CA I almost never see them) and yes Rolling Stone are an era gone by. The *only* time I see anyone reading them is at the dentist office or when I get my haircut and they are generally at the bottom. That’s where the circulation is derived.
People are tired of agenda over journalism from either side of the aisle.
Personally, I think they should have Roy Orbinson standing next to Elvis!
Wow they put Reagan on there. He was as hated back then by liberals as Bush is now. Maybe in 20-30 years they’ll praise Bush as a way of making fun of the current Republican President(Bush was a bright and impressive guy, but this guy is just retarded).
“Younger people haven’t read it in years.”
I never understood why anyone would read about music. As Elvis Costello once said, “Writing about music is like dancing about architecture.”
Is that John Lennon there WITHOUT the other Beatles? Can’t be sure…but, looks like it.
Hmmm… My 50 year old dad is the only person I know who reads rolling stone…
Rolling Stone never had any relevance to anything that mattered. It was the flagship magazine of of a bunch of drugg addled war protesters. Complete waste of paper.
And it introduced us to hunter s thompson. they will burn for that.
I’ve been getting a free subscription for a couple months now and I think it’s pretty good.
There are a bunch of longer stories in each issue, ala Vanity Fair.
Two recent good ones were on Scientology and Infantry training at Fort Benning (“how to make a killer” to paraphrase), written by freelance journalists that spent many months researching and interviewing their subjects.
They struck me as excellent pieces of investigative journalism. Even if they have an agenda, original and thorough investigative reporting is so rare these days, I’ll take what I can get and filter out the bias.
As for “music writing’, I glance at it for the same reason I watch Ebert & Roeper, even though I rarely make it to the movies: when I actually do go to a movie or buy a CD, I don’t want to waste my time and money on crap. (And combining
expertseasoned opinion with your own preferences isn’t “being fed by the elite,” or corporations, or the counter-culture, or whatever. )A 4 or 5 star rating from Rolling Stone still means something.
“Rolling Stone never had any relevance to anything that mattered. It was the flagship magazine of of a bunch of drugg addled war protesters. Complete waste of paper.”
Archie Bunker! You’re alive! How’s Meathead?!
(Bush was a bright and impressive guy, but this guy is just retarded).
Comment by AB CD — 5/5/2006 @ 8:08 am
You are correct for once. I have a lot of respect for Bush Sr., but this current guy is just plain short a few bricks of a full load. Sorta like 23 cents shy of a quarter. Or his elevator doesn’t make it out of the basement let alone go to the top floor.
But RS? Hey, a good magazine. I bet all those who poo poo it have never even read it.
12Archie Bunker! You’re alive! How’s Meathead?!
Easy SN, I think he is hoping for a Bush Cabinet appointment. Intelligence not required, only unbridled party line indoctrinated.
…I just think he’s hundreds of times better than Gore or Kerry would have been. Better for all life on Earth to be extinguisehd than live in a Gore/Kerry type of world. …I’d love to burn every issue of RS ever published, especially as that fire would contribute to Global Warming.
Gee, Mister Rustic, it sure sounds like you have issues. Did you take your medication today? How did you get that bruise on your head, it looks pretty nasty. Your fists must be cut up badly; with what all that punching the wall does to them. I understand how frustrating it gets when they take away your gun license and make you wear that bracelet on your ankle. It won’t be long now, the spacemen are coming to take you with them to that happy place.
Damn Mr. Fusion….you manage to be politically incorrect about 2 or 3 things there. You SURE your a liberal?
My parents read RS…..not sure why, they claim they weren’t anti-war, druggies, or radicals…..so it must have been the sex angle. It’s ok…..I didn’t find it relevant to my world, but maybe it is to someone else’s.
was just looking at the cover again. Not only is Reagan on it(next to Carter), but so is Nixon(next to Kissinger).
I’m looking forward to seeing the 3-D effect that they spent an extra million on. They’ve had some great covers, but nobody has had the nerve to do Elvis covers. That man could sing!
I read a great piece of journalism in issue 999; “Thank You, Tom DeLay”, by Matt Taibbi. That alone is worth the 50 cents an issue that I pay.