Comments on: MAG HAG: Britney Does Rolling Stone

By: Cerry

Cerry — Sun, 30 Nov 2008 01:08:58 +0000

Data, there’s actually a whole heap of anti-establishment music around now. It’s just that the bands that sell magazines are usually fairly mainstream (The Offspring and Green Day, for example, are relitively anti-establishment, and have pretty much no credibility among the hardcore anti-establishment-ists [that's so not a word, is it?] any more, because they get top 20 albums and singles). As a result, people scream sell-out everytime they see them, which means that Rolling Stone’s credibility goes down when they’re a cover story. The remainder of anti-establishment bands aren’t going to sell any magazines, because lots of people won’t buy a magazine with a band they don’t know on the cover, many of the people who would actually recognise them would be disinclined to buy Rolling Stone on principle (they’re more inclined to pay less for magazines with more music content, and more musicians they’re actually interested in), and the rest of us are too broke to regularly fork out for it.
So basically, they’re screwed either way, and they figure they may as well go for lack of credibility and money, rather than credibility and no money.
I’m sure there was initially some sort of point to this comment, but I can’t remember what it actually was now.

By: JLo

JLo — Sat, 29 Nov 2008 08:38:00 +0000

Gig, if there was ever a post to get you talking again, it would have to be this one or something related to music. (Nice work Mia)
Good to see the after 5.00am rule is kicking in for you! ha hahaha.

By: Dataceptionist

Dataceptionist — Fri, 28 Nov 2008 00:58:59 +0000

hahahah was that YOU gig that left that comment?!?! I remember that and I think I might have been a defender of “show and tell” LOL
Thanks for “showing” this Mia, I had no idea she’d been on so many times. I suppose that shows how long she’s been on the scene (didn’t One More Time have its tenth birthday recently?)
I’m not a fan of this cover though I have to say. I think she looks great on the one in white undies, and awkward on the “Don’t treat me like a little girl” one.
And as for RS’s “street cred”, what should they be featuring to remain cutting edge? What “anti-establishment” music is around now? Hindsight is always 20-20.

By: gigdiary

gigdiary — Thu, 27 Nov 2008 03:22:25 +0000

Ouch, I didn’t realise that so many people even remember that Rollingstone was once a cutting edge anti-establishment banner of the 60s zeitgeist. Of course it’s now mainstream, even I must have known that. Like Woman’s Day or New Idea.
It was just a comment, a reflection on how things change.
Maybe I should just go back to bed….

By: gigdiary

gigdiary — Thu, 27 Nov 2008 03:14:06 +0000

Mia, I do remember fondly my initial comment to you about ‘show and tell’. It was horribly caustic and I was, pun intended, taken to the cleaners for it by your other commenters at the time. Of course I know that you don’t write about everything you ‘show’. I meant no malice, but was merely making a reference back to that situation that I still regard as being humorous.
Ouch, I feel I’m walking on eggshells here….

By: jd

jd — Thu, 27 Nov 2008 02:50:08 +0000

Why would she tell about her 3 year old saying the F word? And then blaming her ex that has her kids full time? Is she trying to deflect the attention from the fact that she only sees her kids once a week ?
very strange person..quite like some of her music, especially at the gym on my i pod but as a person I just dont get her!

By: melanie

melanie — Thu, 27 Nov 2008 00:29:48 +0000

I think Rolling Stone is supposed to PRIMARILY be a music magazine, but the articles lately are definatley starting to fall into the gossipy, tabloidy drivel catagory. There are just so many mags out there and I really don’t want Rolling Stone to lose its identity…it is an icon!
As for the cover, I’m not into Britney’s music but I really think her latest cover is the best. She looks natural and happy, with a bit of grit.
To be fair Temmy (although I think Twilight may definately be a crappy teen chick flick too) they did have the Melrose Place crew on the cover in 1994…I think there has always been an element of “iconic” tv shows represented.
Elme, I agree that music has changed, always has and always will, but I have to say that the proliferation of one hit wonders today is mind boggling! It is a sign of the times, I suppose, what with You Tube etc, and producing music is more easily accessable but, apart from a lot of singers and bands not even writing their own songs anymore, there seems to be a new star every week, maybe in the tabloids more than they actually create music, and doing things like creating their own fragrances…it kind of reeks of opportunism and makes the music far less meaningful. As far as I know Amy Winehouse has a great voice, and she’s made 1 memorable song, but all I really know about her is that she is trashed most of the time and looks like a bag lady.
So credibility is truely tossed out the window in terms of good music these days. I really am waiting to see the next RHCP or Pearl Jam, or even Pink Floyd, who are still making amazing music today. I really don’t see anyone today creating that much of an impact.

By: elme

elme — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 23:29:43 +0000

I think we should be careful to dismiss aspects of popular culture that we don’t necessarily appreciate or understand ; because they make as sound as old as we really are…
I was having a conversation about the ‘good old days’ while I was at the Big Day Out a couple of years ago. The discussion was centered around the ‘fact’ that the music was so much better when we were younger and how the Big Day Out used to bring out Nirvana, Sonic Youth and The Ramones and now music just doesn’t compare. One of my friends pointed out that we were showing our age and he said that music continues to grow and change but we get old and stuck in this illusion that things were better ‘in our time’. He pointed out that Elvis and Shakespeare were once considered pop / trash – but we’re still being influenced by them.
Temmy; have you read Twilight? Or watched the movie? (I was under the impression that the movie didn’t come out for another fortnight). With regards to it being called a chick flick – I was at a boys highschool recently and I saw heaps of kids reading the book (reminded me of the Harry Potter phenomenon of a few years back).
Rolling Stone isn’t my cup of tea – but that doesn’t mean that it’s rubbish. This whole idea of mainstream being evil and Rolling Stone ‘selling out’ I think is silly. Weren’t Rolling Stones and Fleetwood Mac some of the biggest selling artists that have existed? I’m sure they started somewhere and were accused of ‘selling out’ by some of their fans – but at the end of the day they made some great music and I’m sure they appeared in Rolling Stone.
Ultimately, Rolling Stone is a magazine and they have to make money to continue to put out more issues. They have journalists and photographers and editors to pay and I doubt that anyone ever starts a magazine to be hip and in the ‘underground’ – especially not a publication like Rolling Stone.

By: Cerry

Cerry — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 22:44:51 +0000

HSC stress dreams, Mia? That’s a regression and a half, even I’m not having those any more, and I finished less than a month ago
As for the Rolling Stone thing…it hasn’t been a purely music magazine for quite a while now. But they have some really interesting articles at times, and as a general rule, it is mostly music, even if there aren’t always musicians on the cover. That being said, I only read Rolling Stone on long bus/plane trips – I usually get Blunt and sometimes Kerrang or AP, because the music content is much, much higher.

By: TheRealSydney

TheRealSydney — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 22:35:41 +0000

Brit looks FANTASTIC – I love her – nothing else to say!