Rolling Stone = predictable

I stopped reading Rolling Stone for music recommendations a long time ago, but I still like some of the feature stories from time to time. For all its faults, RS gives its writers a lot of freedom in profiles, and the longer word lengths allows them to really sink their teeth into the stories. I don't get the feeling the writers are over-edited, either, which I appreciate; too many publications strip writers' of their voices.

Of course there are plenty of faults with a music magazine that has no qualms about putting Zac Efron on its cover, but what's been getting under my skin the past few years is how utterly predictable the magazine has become. Every single issue starts with a story or two on how the major labels or the touring industry is tanking, and these stories don't say anything that wasn't said the previous month. Then there's the departments, a feature or two and a gigantic political story about how [insert well-known Republican here] eats children and skins baby leopards to fund his campaign. It's fine to have a political bent to your magazine, I guess, but sensationalism gets old very quickly. Speaking of sensationalism, RS also has a spread with People-style paparazzi photos of celebrities with oh-so-witty captions in each issue.

I can always count on the reviews section to give me dry descriptions of whatever Clear Channel has deemed the top 15 artists for that month (the exception being Fricke's Picks, the only RS reviewer who hasn't become obsessed with the Extra! culture and can speak quite intelligently about recent releases).

The decline of Rolling Stone as a credible music journal has been apparent for years now, but I never thought it would become quite as formulaic as it is in its current form.