Rolling Stone Magazine has been an icon of musical supremacy for generations; A magazine held in high regard by musicians and fans alike, throughout the decades its contents could be found plastered across the bedroom walls of teenagers from London to LA.
Having grown up in the music industry, the offspring of a long line of musicians, Rolling Stone in many ways depicted a way of life. It was a point of cultural reference, bound paper that contained stories of legend, lessons learned, and musical skills that I one day aspired to replicate. It was the rebellious big sister I never had.
So when July’s issue landed on my desk with a thump, nothing quite prepared me for the sinking feeling I experienced when my eyes settled upon its glossy cover. It’s a feeling comparable only to that coming of age moment when your parents crack out the “I’m not angry, I’m just disappointed.” lecture.
I’d heard word through the grapevine a few months back about Kim K’s link to the magazine, but common sense batted the absurd speculation away, primarily because it was just that – absurd speculation. Kim Kardashian? The cover of Rolling Stone? Give me strength.
 |
| Kim Kardashian’s Rolling Stone cover and feature shoot |
Sadly, this was no April fool – despite convincing myself otherwise when Sinead O’Connor stepped into the ring screaming “Music has officially died,” at the top of her lungs.
Kardashian certainly isn’t the first non-musician to be emblazoned across it’s cover in a provocative female flesh show. Even back in 1978 during the magazine’s heyday, Jane Fonda could be seen gracing the cover topless whilst gazing seductively into the camera. It was a cover shot modestly, and she may have been an icon of the big screen, but she certainly wasn’t a musician or an advocate of rebellion. The same can be said for Natassja Kinski’s 1982 cover which sees her lying topless on a bed of white sheets. A model, an actress, an individual that demanded the attention of the masses – not too dissimilar to Kim Kardashian if you think about it.
In all fairness, O’Connor does raise a valid point – despite it being a rather over-dramatic one. Rolling Stone magazine has switched it’s attention from rock music and it’s surrounding cultures, to mainstream celebrities that are famous for being famous. The July cover featuring Kim Kardashian in itself doesn’t symbolise the death of music, it simply acts as a cultural marker that depicts the changing tastes and attitudes of the masses – all be it a few years too late.
The question I keep finding myself asking is, At what point did a rock’n’roll authority such as Rolling Stone become a publication left chasing tidbits of pop culture, all in a bid to catch up with other mainstream magazines?
As a publication that held it’s own in America during the 60s and 70s, it’s audience was comprised of hippies, rockers and free-thinkers alike; stars like Hendrix, McCartney, Bowie and The Rolling Stones became the poster children of a generation.
Fast forward to the millennium and you’ll find U2 and what’s left of The Beatles hogging every other cover, alongside President Obama and a series of reality TV stars whose names I can’t actually remember anymore.
 |
| The cast of the US scripted reality show The Hills even managed to land a Rolling Stone cover |
In many respects, the publication has been experiencing groundhog day for the past two decades, attempting to relive it’s heyday by covering classic acts again and again, whilst occasionally throwing in an artist from the alien world of pop culture for good measure. Its readership no longer demands Bowie and Blondie, because despite being renowned and respected artists, they are the products of a bygone era that need to be sampled in moderation.
Rolling Stone is a magazine that has lost its way. It has one foot in the past, a couple of flailing arms in the present, and a head that can’t seem to locate the future. What sits in front of us is no longer a cohesive publication that embodies the ideals of a generation. It wants to be the classic rock magazine, it wants to be the political informant, it wants to be culturally relevant, and yet it’s none of these things.
The decision to place Kim Kardashian on July’s cover is an understandable one in terms of the magazine’s global reach. With 33.9 million twitter followers, 40.8 Instagram fans and enough selfies to wallpaper a third-world country ten times over, the woman is a brand of her own. But in a digital generation where news travels at unparalleled speeds and anything is accessible at the click of a button, is the world of mainstream celebrity where Rolling Stone wants to position itself?
What made the magazine unique was it’s edge. It had an ability to attract diverse audiences without becoming a mainstream cliché; a music magazine that didn’t aim to please the masses, but in doing so attracted their attention.
It’s a magazine in need of an extensive overhaul, one that’s by no means an impossible task. The starting point? Focus on the publication’s core values and the contemporary artists relevant to generation Y. We need to see more artists like Foo Fighters and Jennifer Lawrence, creatives who aren’t afraid to say it how it is. Artists that stay true to Rolling Stone’s rock ’n’ roll identity.
O’Connor, there’s no need to mock Kardashian for her cover, nor attempt to start a rather small twitter rebellion using the hashtag #BoycottRollingStone. Instead of kicking a man while he’s down, maybe it’s time someone came to his aid?
