The Irrelevance of Rolling Stone

unbelievable. rolling stone magazine is no longer a barometer for what's cool. the first hint should have been when they put the backstreet boys on the cover(May 27, 1999). the last straw was when they put the chicks from the hills on it. i've never seen the hills, but i'm pretty confident it's a piece of shit show.

back in the heyday of rolling stone, it was a publication that actually meant something. now, it's a crock of horseshit. all you got are a bunch of ivy-league uber-nerd editors who are too elitist and musically snobby to look up from their iPods when taking the subway to their swanky new york offices. they sit there listening to their german deep underground trance hardcore ska infused speed metal instrumentals thinking they've found the most brilliant thing since the last brilliant thing found two weeks ago. they don't have any street cred, which, by the way, is where all the cool things are coming from. the streets.

i did a little research and found rolling stone had the audacity to put the backstreet boys on their cover one issue, then completely badmouth 98 degrees in another. like there's any fucking difference?? last time i checked, you could interchange any one of those goddamn members and still get the same sound. 98 degrees, 'nsync, and the backstreet boys were the epitome of uncoolness as soon as their first singles dropped. it didn't take an ivy-league education to know that.

who knows, maybe there was some kind of ivy-league brilliance behind the decision to put jc, lance, joey, nick, shlomo, and whatever the fuck else the backstreet boys' names are on their cover. or maybe... there wasn't. times has a-changed.