Have any of the people criticizing Rolling Stone for putting a picture of Dzkokhar Tsarnaev on the cover actually read the text that accompanies the picture, let alone the article? Rolling Stone branded Mr. Tsarnaev "THE BOMBER" on the cover-- not the bombing suspect, or the alleged bomber, which is what he is since, like every criminal suspect, he is entitled to a presumption of innocence until proven guilty.* We have a criminal justice system that works very well in cases like this, so let's let it run its course and give Mr. Tsarnaev the fair trial he is constitutionally entitled to.
In addition, the premise of the article, as spelled out on the cover, is that it is an examination of how a seemingly socially adept, well-adjusted teenager turned into "a monster." How anyone could determine that branding Mr. Tsarnaev as "a monster" and "THE BOMBER" is glamorization is beyond me.
The controversy over this cover is one of the dumber ones in recent memory, and that's saying something. Charles Manson has been on the cover of Rolling Stone. Rolling Stone regularly offers lengthy works of investigative journalism on topics ranging from politics to the drug war to campaign finance to climate change, etc. None of this is new, and it shouldn't be controversial.
* Please don't bother responding to this by arguing about his guilt. I have very little doubt that he's guilty. That's not the point. And anyone who thinks they know for certain should remember that all of the evidence they think they know is either what has been selectively communicated to them by law enforcement sources through the press, or what was contained in the indictment, which is, by definition, unproven.
I'm aware of the text written on the cover. I'm aware of what the story is about. I'm also aware that a lot of these animals aspire to be martyrs, and there's no better way to help them achieve martyrdom by featuring them on the covers of pop culture magazines.
EDIT: the text underneath the picture is completely irrelevant, the fact that he 'made' the cover is the biggest insult in and of itself (they couldn't run the story without running a different cover?)
I stand by my original sentiment; F*ck Rolling Stone. I hope they go out of business.
As far as the RS cover goes, they were making the point that he looked and acted like every other kid his age and turned out to be a monster. Time had Hitler on the cover and people weren't so upset.
This show, another show, a show here and a show there.
Have any of the people criticizing Rolling Stone for putting a picture of Dzkokhar Tsarnaev on the cover actually read the text that accompanies the picture, let alone the article? Rolling Stone branded Mr. Tsarnaev "THE BOMBER" on the cover-- not the bombing suspect, or the alleged bomber, which is what he is since, like every criminal suspect, he is entitled to a presumption of innocence until proven guilty.* We have a criminal justice system that works very well in cases like this, so let's let it run its course and give Mr. Tsarnaev the fair trial he is constitutionally entitled to.
In addition, the premise of the article, as spelled out on the cover, is that it is an examination of how a seemingly socially adept, well-adjusted teenager turned into "a monster." How anyone could determine that branding Mr. Tsarnaev as "a monster" and "THE BOMBER" is glamorization is beyond me.
The controversy over this cover is one of the dumber ones in recent memory, and that's saying something. Charles Manson has been on the cover of Rolling Stone. Rolling Stone regularly offers lengthy works of investigative journalism on topics ranging from politics to the drug war to campaign finance to climate change, etc. None of this is new, and it shouldn't be controversial.
* Please don't bother responding to this by arguing about his guilt. I have very little doubt that he's guilty. That's not the point. And anyone who thinks they know for certain should remember that all of the evidence they think they know is either what has been selectively communicated to them by law enforcement sources through the press, or what was contained in the indictment, which is, by definition, unproven.
I'm aware of the text written on the cover. I'm aware of what the story is about. I'm also aware that a lot of these animals aspire to be martyrs, and there's no better way to help them achieve martyrdom by featuring them on the covers of pop culture magazines.
For what it's worth, I don't think most terrorists aspire to have their faces on Rolling Stone, especially given what we in the West claim to know about radical and fanatical terrorism.
His picture is on the cover of the magazine. So have the photos of many other people. If publicity of this guy equals fame in your eyes, then perhaps the issue lies more with you than anything. I didn't bat an eye when I saw the cover. If you thought it was glamorous or "rock-star-ish," that's on you more than anything. Knowing that the article does anything but celebrate what he did, the photo itself should mean little. If, despite knowing what the article is about, the photo still appears to you as glorifying, then again, perhaps it has more to do with you the viewer than it does with Rolling Stone.
At the end of the day, whatever this photo/story can be described as, I thought we liked freedom of the press (which, incidentally, will include, from time to time, sensitive, controversial, unpopular or outrageous reporting).
I'm not claiming that's what RS is or is not doing with this piece, but let's face it: arguing this article is inappropriate or not to be published is a short step away from censoring anything that's controversial.
1998-06-30 Minneapolis
2003-06-16 St. Paul
2006-06-26 St. Paul
2007-08-05 Chicago
2009-08-23 Chicago
2009-08-28 San Francisco
2010-05-01 NOLA (Jazz Fest)
2011-07-02 EV Minneapolis
2011-09-03 PJ20
2011-09-04 PJ20
2011-09-17 Winnipeg
2012-06-26 Amsterdam
2012-06-27 Amsterdam
2013-07-19 Wrigley
2013-11-21 San Diego
2013-11-23 Los Angeles
2013-11-24 Los Angeles
2014-07-08 Leeds, UK
2014-07-11 Milton Keynes, UK
2014-10-09 Lincoln
2014-10-19 St. Paul
2014-10-20 Milwaukee
2016-08-20 Wrigley 1
2016-08-22 Wrigley 2 2018-06-18 London 1 2018-08-18 Wrigley 1 2018-08-20 Wrigley 2 2022-09-16 Nashville 2023-08-31 St. Paul 2023-09-02 St. Paul 2023-09-05 Chicago 1 2024-08-31 Wrigley 2 2024-09-15 Fenway 1 2024-09-27 Ohana 1 2024-09-29 Ohana 2 2025-05-03 NOLA (Jazz Fest)
People love to bash RS these days and I agree their musical coverage is lacking. However, their political coverage and writings on social issues is top notch.
This show, another show, a show here and a show there.
Rolling Stone is a joke. In their list of the top live acts, they commented on the set list at Wrigley and included the songs that weren't played. Must have read it off a t-shirt.
Rolling Stone is a joke. In their list of the top live acts, they commented on the set list at Wrigley and included the songs that weren't played. Must have read it off a t-shirt.
Strange. They had a good write up the day after the show
This show, another show, a show here and a show there.
For what it's worth, I don't think most terrorists aspire to have their faces on Rolling Stone, especially given what we in the West claim to know about radical and fanatical terrorism.
His picture is on the cover of the magazine. So have the photos of many other people. If publicity of this guy equals fame in your eyes, then perhaps the issue lies more with you than anything. I didn't bat an eye when I saw the cover. If you thought it was glamorous or "rock-star-ish," that's on you more than anything. Knowing that the article does anything but celebrate what he did, the photo itself should mean little. If, despite knowing what the article is about, the photo still appears to you as glorifying, then again, perhaps it has more to do with you the viewer than it does with Rolling Stone.
At the end of the day, whatever this photo/story can be described as, I thought we liked freedom of the press (which, incidentally, will include, from time to time, sensitive, controversial, unpopular or outrageous reporting).
I'm not claiming that's what RS is or is not doing with this piece, but let's face it: arguing this article is inappropriate or not to be published is a short step away from censoring anything that's controversial.
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.
Shows you how much RS really knows about music...... :nono: :thumbdown: :fp:
Edit: I just reread the list and tool at 46???? Really??? I've seen tool 27X live and they are def NOT 46! My live tool experience would be even higher if they toured more then once every 6 years.....that list really sux
Rolling Stones #3
This kills all credibility to this article.
Boston II 94 Boston II 06 Mansfield I 08 Mansfield II 08 Seattle I 09 Seattle II 09
Hartford 10 Boston 10 Wrigley 13 Worcester I 13 Worcester II 13 Hartford 13
NYC I 16 NYC II 16 Fenway I 16 Fenway II 16 Fenway 1 18 Fenway II 18
E.V. Boston II 08 E.V. Albany II 09 E.V. Providence 11, E.V. Boston 11
Troubled Souls Unite
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)
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.
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.
everybody wants the most they can possibly get
for the least they could possibly do
0
goldrush
everybody knows this is nowhere Posts: 7,776
"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.
“Do not postpone happiness”
(Jeff Tweedy, Sydney 2007)
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.
1998-06-30 Minneapolis
2003-06-16 St. Paul
2006-06-26 St. Paul
2007-08-05 Chicago
2009-08-23 Chicago
2009-08-28 San Francisco
2010-05-01 NOLA (Jazz Fest)
2011-07-02 EV Minneapolis
2011-09-03 PJ20
2011-09-04 PJ20
2011-09-17 Winnipeg
2012-06-26 Amsterdam
2012-06-27 Amsterdam
2013-07-19 Wrigley
2013-11-21 San Diego
2013-11-23 Los Angeles
2013-11-24 Los Angeles
2014-07-08 Leeds, UK
2014-07-11 Milton Keynes, UK
2014-10-09 Lincoln
2014-10-19 St. Paul
2014-10-20 Milwaukee
2016-08-20 Wrigley 1
2016-08-22 Wrigley 2 2018-06-18 London 1 2018-08-18 Wrigley 1 2018-08-20 Wrigley 2 2022-09-16 Nashville 2023-08-31 St. Paul 2023-09-02 St. Paul 2023-09-05 Chicago 1 2024-08-31 Wrigley 2 2024-09-15 Fenway 1 2024-09-27 Ohana 1 2024-09-29 Ohana 2 2025-05-03 NOLA (Jazz Fest)
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.
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.
1998-06-30 Minneapolis
2003-06-16 St. Paul
2006-06-26 St. Paul
2007-08-05 Chicago
2009-08-23 Chicago
2009-08-28 San Francisco
2010-05-01 NOLA (Jazz Fest)
2011-07-02 EV Minneapolis
2011-09-03 PJ20
2011-09-04 PJ20
2011-09-17 Winnipeg
2012-06-26 Amsterdam
2012-06-27 Amsterdam
2013-07-19 Wrigley
2013-11-21 San Diego
2013-11-23 Los Angeles
2013-11-24 Los Angeles
2014-07-08 Leeds, UK
2014-07-11 Milton Keynes, UK
2014-10-09 Lincoln
2014-10-19 St. Paul
2014-10-20 Milwaukee
2016-08-20 Wrigley 1
2016-08-22 Wrigley 2 2018-06-18 London 1 2018-08-18 Wrigley 1 2018-08-20 Wrigley 2 2022-09-16 Nashville 2023-08-31 St. Paul 2023-09-02 St. Paul 2023-09-05 Chicago 1 2024-08-31 Wrigley 2 2024-09-15 Fenway 1 2024-09-27 Ohana 1 2024-09-29 Ohana 2 2025-05-03 NOLA (Jazz Fest)
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?
Rolling Stone magazine's most recent ridiculous list, discuss:
45. Lady Gaga
46. Tool
Lady Gaga ontop of Tool? Chortle.
Manchester 04.06.00, Leeds 25.08.06, Wembley 18.06.07, Dusseldorf 21.06.07, Shepherds Bush 11.08.09, Manchester 17.08.09, Adelaide 17.11.09, Melbourne 20.11.09, Sydney 22.11.09, Brisbane 25.11.09, MSG1 20.05.10, MSG2 21.05.10, Dublin 22.06.10, Belfast 23.06.10, London 25.06.10, Long Beach 06.07.11 (EV), Los Angeles 08.07.11 (EV), Toronto 11.09.11, Toronto 12.09.11, Ottawa 14.09.11, Hamilton 14.09.11, Manchester 20.06.12, Manchester 21.06.12, Amsterdam 26.06.2012, Amsterdam 27.06.2012, Berlin 04.07.12, Berlin 05.07.12, Stockholm 07.07.12, Oslo 09.07.12, Copenhagen 10.07.12, Manchester 28.07.12 (EV), Brooklyn 18.10.13, Brooklyn 19.10.13, Philly 21.10.13, Philly 22.10.13, San Diego 21.11.13, LA 23.11.13, LA 24.11.13, Oakland 26.11.13, Portland 29.11.13, Spokane 30.11.13, Calgary 02.12.13, Vancouver 04.12.13, Seattle 06.12.13, Trieste 22.06.14, Vienna 25.06.14, Berlin 26.06.14, Stockholm 28.06.14, Leeds 08.07.14, Philly 28.04.16, Philly 28.04.16, MSG1 01.05.16, MSG2 02.05.16
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.
Comments
I'm aware of the text written on the cover. I'm aware of what the story is about. I'm also aware that a lot of these animals aspire to be martyrs, and there's no better way to help them achieve martyrdom by featuring them on the covers of pop culture magazines.
EDIT: the text underneath the picture is completely irrelevant, the fact that he 'made' the cover is the biggest insult in and of itself (they couldn't run the story without running a different cover?)
I stand by my original sentiment; F*ck Rolling Stone. I hope they go out of business.
As far as the RS cover goes, they were making the point that he looked and acted like every other kid his age and turned out to be a monster. Time had Hitler on the cover and people weren't so upset.
For what it's worth, I don't think most terrorists aspire to have their faces on Rolling Stone, especially given what we in the West claim to know about radical and fanatical terrorism.
His picture is on the cover of the magazine. So have the photos of many other people. If publicity of this guy equals fame in your eyes, then perhaps the issue lies more with you than anything. I didn't bat an eye when I saw the cover. If you thought it was glamorous or "rock-star-ish," that's on you more than anything. Knowing that the article does anything but celebrate what he did, the photo itself should mean little. If, despite knowing what the article is about, the photo still appears to you as glorifying, then again, perhaps it has more to do with you the viewer than it does with Rolling Stone.
At the end of the day, whatever this photo/story can be described as, I thought we liked freedom of the press (which, incidentally, will include, from time to time, sensitive, controversial, unpopular or outrageous reporting).
I'm not claiming that's what RS is or is not doing with this piece, but let's face it: arguing this article is inappropriate or not to be published is a short step away from censoring anything that's controversial.
2003-06-16 St. Paul
2006-06-26 St. Paul
2007-08-05 Chicago
2009-08-23 Chicago
2009-08-28 San Francisco
2010-05-01 NOLA (Jazz Fest)
2011-07-02 EV Minneapolis
2011-09-03 PJ20
2011-09-04 PJ20
2011-09-17 Winnipeg
2012-06-26 Amsterdam
2012-06-27 Amsterdam
2013-07-19 Wrigley
2013-11-21 San Diego
2013-11-23 Los Angeles
2013-11-24 Los Angeles
2014-07-08 Leeds, UK
2014-07-11 Milton Keynes, UK
2014-10-09 Lincoln
2014-10-19 St. Paul
2014-10-20 Milwaukee
2016-08-20 Wrigley 1
2016-08-22 Wrigley 2
2018-06-18 London 1
2018-08-18 Wrigley 1
2018-08-20 Wrigley 2
2022-09-16 Nashville
2023-08-31 St. Paul
2023-09-02 St. Paul
2023-09-05 Chicago 1
2024-08-31 Wrigley 2
2024-09-15 Fenway 1
2024-09-27 Ohana 1
2024-09-29 Ohana 2
2025-05-03 NOLA (Jazz Fest)
Strange. They had a good write up the day after the show
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.
Edit: I just reread the list and tool at 46???? Really??? I've seen tool 27X live and they are def NOT 46! My live tool experience would be even higher if they toured more then once every 6 years.....that list really sux
This kills all credibility to this article.
Hartford 10 Boston 10 Wrigley 13 Worcester I 13 Worcester II 13 Hartford 13
NYC I 16 NYC II 16 Fenway I 16 Fenway II 16 Fenway 1 18 Fenway II 18
E.V. Boston II 08 E.V. Albany II 09 E.V. Providence 11, E.V. Boston 11
Troubled Souls Unite
"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)
"Forgive every being,
the bad feelings
it's just me"
for the least they could possibly do
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.
(Jeff Tweedy, Sydney 2007)
“Put yer good money on the sunrise”
(Tim Rogers)
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.
2003-06-16 St. Paul
2006-06-26 St. Paul
2007-08-05 Chicago
2009-08-23 Chicago
2009-08-28 San Francisco
2010-05-01 NOLA (Jazz Fest)
2011-07-02 EV Minneapolis
2011-09-03 PJ20
2011-09-04 PJ20
2011-09-17 Winnipeg
2012-06-26 Amsterdam
2012-06-27 Amsterdam
2013-07-19 Wrigley
2013-11-21 San Diego
2013-11-23 Los Angeles
2013-11-24 Los Angeles
2014-07-08 Leeds, UK
2014-07-11 Milton Keynes, UK
2014-10-09 Lincoln
2014-10-19 St. Paul
2014-10-20 Milwaukee
2016-08-20 Wrigley 1
2016-08-22 Wrigley 2
2018-06-18 London 1
2018-08-18 Wrigley 1
2018-08-20 Wrigley 2
2022-09-16 Nashville
2023-08-31 St. Paul
2023-09-02 St. Paul
2023-09-05 Chicago 1
2024-08-31 Wrigley 2
2024-09-15 Fenway 1
2024-09-27 Ohana 1
2024-09-29 Ohana 2
2025-05-03 NOLA (Jazz Fest)
http://m.rollingstone.com/entry/view/id ... ebabb4fa97
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.
2003-06-16 St. Paul
2006-06-26 St. Paul
2007-08-05 Chicago
2009-08-23 Chicago
2009-08-28 San Francisco
2010-05-01 NOLA (Jazz Fest)
2011-07-02 EV Minneapolis
2011-09-03 PJ20
2011-09-04 PJ20
2011-09-17 Winnipeg
2012-06-26 Amsterdam
2012-06-27 Amsterdam
2013-07-19 Wrigley
2013-11-21 San Diego
2013-11-23 Los Angeles
2013-11-24 Los Angeles
2014-07-08 Leeds, UK
2014-07-11 Milton Keynes, UK
2014-10-09 Lincoln
2014-10-19 St. Paul
2014-10-20 Milwaukee
2016-08-20 Wrigley 1
2016-08-22 Wrigley 2
2018-06-18 London 1
2018-08-18 Wrigley 1
2018-08-20 Wrigley 2
2022-09-16 Nashville
2023-08-31 St. Paul
2023-09-02 St. Paul
2023-09-05 Chicago 1
2024-08-31 Wrigley 2
2024-09-15 Fenway 1
2024-09-27 Ohana 1
2024-09-29 Ohana 2
2025-05-03 NOLA (Jazz Fest)
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.
He's inconsistent but when he's on he's better than basically anyone else on the list.
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.
Lady Gaga ontop of Tool? Chortle.
She's the most exciting musician out there right now IMO.
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.
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.