Why I hate Rolling Stone (the magazine)

Okay, I don't really hate Rolling Stone.  What I hate is a mentality that the magazine seems to promote.  What is that mentality?  I think it is most easily illustrated using the current Kurt Cobain avatar in Guitar Hero 5 controversy.

For those who aren't following or don't care, Kurt Cobain is a playable avatar in Guitar Hero 5 - your character can basically become Kurt, and you can play the game with him.  Some people have expressed dismay as it has occurred to them that this means video-Kurt will sing all the songs in the game, including (gasp) Bon Jovi, Billy Idol, and Bush.  Some of those expressing dismay and anger are Dave Grohl and Courtney Love - people who had to sign on to his image and music being used in the game in the first place.

This is a ridiculous controversy, and a number of people have said so.  But I think it's deeper than the holy image of Kurt singing music Kurt himself was probably not a fan of.  I think the real fact, and the real point of anger from Grohl and Love (who, it's kind of amazing agree on anything these days) is the idea that there exist people who both like Nirvana, and like Bon Jovi.  To them, it's impossible that this crossover exists.

This is where Rolling Stone fits in.  When I read Rolling Stone, over and over, in subtle drops in album reviews and interviews, there is the idea that punk = honesty= real rock and roll, vs. progressive music = pretentious = overblown stadium bad rock and roll.  To them, there is a correct and incorrect kind of rock music, and a correct and incorrect kind of fan.

If it isn't clear, I reject this completely.  I love the Rolling Stones.  I love Jethro Tull.  I like the White Stripes, Queens of the Stone Age, Yes, Foo Fighters, AC/DC, Aerosmith, and Iron and Wine.  My Rick Wakeman record is next to my Ramones record - both are on vinyl.  I don't see any contradiction there, but I've been told that the Ramones made Yes and Rick Wakemen seem ridiculous and pretentious.

No one has yet been able to explain this coherently to me, just like no one can really explain why Bush is different from the Foo Fighters.  Listen to "Machinehead" and "Monkeywrench" back to back, and tell me why one band gets to be good alternative, and the other is bad grunge.

This is a music blog.  It won't be like other music blogs.  I'm not interested in reviewing albums, and it definitely won't be chronological - if you come here for a review of a new record, sorry.  I'll talk about whatever music I'm listening to and thinking about, and I don't care if Rolling Stone or Pitchfork Media think it's cool.

Most recently listened to: Grey Album, Jay-z and the Beatles, "Change Clothes" with "Piggies".