PJ #23 on Rolling Stone 50 Greatest Live Acts Right Now

Merkin Baller

DR. HOOK AND THE MEDICINE SHOW
"Cover Of The Rolling Stone":

Well we're big rock singers
We got golden fingers
And we're loved everywhere we go
We sing about beauty and we sing about truth
At ten thousand dollars a show
We take all kinda pills
That give us all kinda thrills
But the thrill we've never known
Is the thrill that'll getcha
When you get your picture
On the cover of the Rollin' Stone

Wanna see my picture on the cover
Wanna buy five copies for my mother
Wanna see my smilin' face
On the cover the cover of the Rollin' Stone

I got a freaky old lady
Name a Cocaine Katie
Who embroideries on my jeans
I got my poor ol' grey haired Daddy
Drivin' my limousine
Now it's all designed
To blow our minds
But our minds won't really be blown
Like the blow that'll getcha
When you get your picture
On the cover of the Rollin' Stone

Wanna see my pictures on the cover
Wanna buy five copies for my mother
Wanna see my smiling face
On the cover the cover of the Rollin' Stone

We gotta lotta little teenage blue-eyed groupies
Who'll do anything we say
We got a genuine Indian guru
Who's teachin' us a better way
We got all the friends that money can buy
So we never have to be alone
And we keep gettin' richer, but we can't get our picture
On the cover of the Rollin' Stone

Wanna see my picture on the cover
Wanna buy five copies for my mother
Wanna see my smilin' face
On the cover of the Rollin' Stone
On the cover of the Rollin' Stone
Gonna see my picture on the cover
Gonna buy five copies for my mother
Gonna see my smiling face
On the cover of the Rollin' Stone

This song was written (or at least released) in 1973.

Whether or not people on this forum believe it, there has been, or at least used to be something special, something COVETED about being on the cover of RS. ("Almost Famous" anyone?) This isn't something people suddenly imagined when the August issue came out.

People never wrote songs glorifying the cover or Newsweek or Time, because no-ones gave a $hit.

Clearly some people here disagree with me, but a lot of people share my point of view, too.

Rolling Stone was faced with a decision. They did not have to dedicate the cover to a Jim Morrison-esque photo of the guy. They decided to run the picture that they did, and that decision, in my opinion was in very poor taste. Has he been found guilty of anything yet? No, no he has not. The fact is there are a lot of people still hurting very much over this attack, and this guy is the number one living suspect in said attack. RS could have taken the high road and not given him this cover. They did not.

Most responses to my statements have been fair valid points, one was a little out there("arguing that this article is inappropriate or shouldn't be published is a short step away from censorship?" The f*ck is that all about? My opinion and the expression of it are free speech in action! What are you smoking? [and FWIW I never said the article shouldn't have been published, please re-read my posts])

Rolling Stone can do whatever they want, and so can I. I choose to never spend a dime on that magazine again. F*ck Rolling Stone, I hope they go out of business.

(I don't intend to be hostile, I hope that's not inferred, I have nothing but love for my fellow 10 clubbers and try to respect their opinions, ESPECIALLY after that insane Wrigley experience. I just feel this strongly about this situation)

Backspacer_Backer

What a stupid fucking list.

Backspacer_Backer

Kanye fucking West? Oh my word. Oh my fucking word that's just dumb.

electronblue

.

theJawas

I know what I was getting into looking at this list, yet I was still disappointed/angry. I won't dispute Bruce, but I don't see it with Prince, and the Stones should be disqualified for their ridiculous prices off the bat. Petty's good, but not as good as PJ (seen Petty three times). No problem with Uncle Neil. Love the Peppers on record, but c'mon. A lot of these are the typical RS-look how cool and hip we are choices (Arcade Fire so high, Alabama Shakes). I just saw Bad Religion, and they had a festival crowd eating out of their hands. All of us here know better.

slightofjeff

Arguing about lists is stupid. Also, I didn't really take this "list" to be a "ranking." It's a list of a bunch of great live acts working today. Pearl Jam is on it, as they should be. So, nice.

goldrush

"Greatest Live Acts Right Now"...

RATM's last show was 3 years ago (their only show in almost 4 years) and they are still ranked 9th. I love RATM but are they even still a band these days?

There's so much to hate about lists like these.

vant0037

BF25394 wrote:

Though we agree on the larger point (I am the one who posted the defense of Rolling Stone at the top of this page), I want to point out that this isn't really a "freedom of the press" or "freedom of speech" issue, at least not in the constitutional sense. Speech and the press are protected against infringement by the government, not by private citizens. If people want to express their displeasure with Rolling Stone in an attempt to get the magazine taken off newsstands, the articles removed from the Internet-- whatever-- that does not implicate the constitutional right to free speech. Having said that, I think those campaigns are counterproductive, because this kind of journalism is valuable (albeit slightly irresponsible since the language on the cover contributes to the suspect's conviction in the press and undermines his ability to receive a fair trial), and, at least in some instances, hypocritical.

Well sure, but I think the spirit of it is the same. Tyranny of government or tyranny of popular opinion, they can both be just as scary.

Freedom of the press, whether from government censorship or popular pressure, the issue's the same. Good points though.

TH127229

Being 23 on the list is bad enough but the mobile version of the article is just piss poor journalism that differs from the same article on the main Rolling Stone site. It actually uses the original Wrigley set list as an example listing a run of Better Man, Black, Alive, Baba O'Riley, Rockin' in the Free World, and Yellow Ledbetter which never happened.

http://m.rollingstone.com/entry/view/id ... ebabb4fa97

vant0037

Merkin Baller wrote:

Most responses to my statements have been fair valid points, one was a little out there("arguing that this article is inappropriate or shouldn't be published is a short step away from censorship?" The f*ck is that all about? My opinion and the expression of it are free speech in action! What are you smoking? [and FWIW I never said the article shouldn't have been published, please re-read my posts])

Sure, you didn't say the article should be censored, but you did say you want to magazine to go out of business because of this article. For all intents and purposes, its the same damn thing.

And I completely stand by that statement quoted above. If the magazine should, as you say, go out of business because they may a controversial journalistic decision, one you acknowledge they made, then that's tantamount to saying that anyone who publishes something controversial should go out of business. Of course you didn't say these things specifically, but your argument here implies that end.

If Rolling Stone should be forced out of business because this article was published with this photo, where does it end?

A song from 1973 doesn't prove that this kid wanted to be on the cover of RS or that putting him there somehow furthered his ends. Trust me, fanatical terrorists aren't gunning to be on the cover of a very Western magazine. If you believe that, then I'll politely return the question: what are you smoking?

Think about it.

krentistthedentist

Seen 38 acts on the list a combined 94 times so I am comfortable enough in saying that this is a pretty bad list.

I could go into greater detail on what's wrong with this thing but I'm concerned that I'll hit the character limit for a post.

krentistthedentist

Kurto26 wrote:

but I don't see it with Prince

He's inconsistent but when he's on he's better than basically anyone else on the list.

Merkin Baller

vant0037 wrote:

Merkin Baller wrote:

Most responses to my statements have been fair valid points, one was a little out there("arguing that this article is inappropriate or shouldn't be published is a short step away from censorship?" The f*ck is that all about? My opinion and the expression of it are free speech in action! What are you smoking? [and FWIW I never said the article shouldn't have been published, please re-read my posts])

Sure, you didn't say the article should be censored, but you did say you want to magazine to go out of business because of this article. For all intents and purposes, its the same damn thing.

And I completely stand by that statement quoted above. If the magazine should, as you say, go out of business because they may a controversial journalistic decision, one you acknowledge they made, then that's tantamount to saying that anyone who publishes something controversial should go out of business. Of course you didn't say these things specifically, but your argument here implies that end.

If Rolling Stone should be forced out of business because this article was published with this photo, where does it end?

A song from 1973 doesn't prove that this kid wanted to be on the cover of RS or that putting him there somehow furthered his ends. Trust me, fanatical terrorists aren't gunning to be on the cover of a very Western magazine. If you believe that, then I'll politely return the question: what are you smoking?

Think about it.

People are boycotting Chik-fil-a because the owners are against gay marriage. By boycotting them, and attempting to force them out of business, is that people endorsing censorship, or people standing up for what they think is decent and upright in our society?

There's a difference.

Think about it.

Eraserhead

frisbiec wrote:

Rolling Stone magazine's most recent ridiculous list, discuss:

45. Lady Gaga
46. Tool

Lady Gaga ontop of Tool? Chortle.

terrym08

I feel cheated now knowing I missed "Alive" and "Baba O'Riley" at Wrigley, where was I at during these songs? :nono: great reporting.

Pingfah

Nice to see Janelle Monae on there, I saw her on the Archandroid UK tour, and it was just absolutely phenomenal.

She's the most exciting musician out there right now IMO.

not4u10

frisbiec wrote:

Rolling Stone magazine's most recent ridiculous list, discuss:

1. Bruce
2. Prince
3. Rollings Stones
4. Arcade Fire
5. Neil Young
6. Jay Z
7. Radiohead
8. Jack White
9. Rage
10. MMJ
11. U2
12. Wilco
13. Tom Petty
14. Black Keys
15. Paul McCartney
16. Alabama Shakes
17. NIN
18. Metallica
19. The Roots
20. Kanye West
21. RHCP
22. Tom Waits
23. Pearl Jam
24. DMB
25. Phish
26. Leonard Cohen
27. Nick Cave & the Bad Seeds
28. Patti Smith
29. Muse
30. Madonna
31. David Byrne
32. Sleigh Bells
33. Beyonce
34. Foo Fighters
35.Bruno Mars
36. Florence & the Machine
37. The National
38. QOTSA
39. Rush
40. Eric Church
41. Tame Impala
42. Skrillex
43. Mumford & Sons
44. Janelle Monae
45. Lady Gaga
46. Tool
47. Sigur Ros
48. Green Day
49. Taylor Swift
50. Fiona Apple

I've been fortunate enough to see MMJ, Tom Petty, Metallica, RHCP, Pearl Jam, Foo Fighters, QOTSA, and Tool. All I have to say is that Pearl Jam are the best. MMJ, Tom Petty, Foo Fighters, and Tool are right up there with PJ. Metallica and RHCP were good, definitely not great. QOTSA sucked. I just saw the Eagles last week. They really should be on this list. I wasn't a fan before, but they were really good.

danny

crap

JTH

PJ at #23? Fine. Whatever.

Iron Maiden nowhere in the top 50? That's a complete joke.

And RNDM is a better live band than some of the acts that made this list.

It_Wasnt_My_Surface

The fact that Prince is #2 on this list only further solidifies my belief that Pearl Jam needs to cover Purple Rain!!!