Who's On The Cover Of Rolling Stone?
The kids at Rock Daily released this mini-square of mystery yesterday, and for some reason we found ourselves stumped and scrolling through our mental rolodexes for voluminous, graying headmops. Jeff Beck (with Jimmy Page)? Phil Spector (before the courtroom cut)? Yahoo Serious?
Best suggestion from their comments: "All The Bob Dylan people (Cate Blanchett, richard Gere, Heath Ledger, Chrisitian Bale)." Either way, props to RS for making us care about the cover star for the first time since Aniston's ass.
UPDATE: A second pictorial hint awaits after the jump...
Balls! Think that keeps everyone in the running except 'avril lavigne's bush' (sorry broken razor).
Posted at 9:31 AM
Robert Smith (Cure) or Spector?
Score = 0
Aniston's ass...damn that was hot, wasn't it?
Score = 0
I predict it's some old band no one really cares about anymore.
Score = 0
Jerry Garcia?
Score = 0
i'm pretty sure its the police
Score = 0
The Police was last month!
The Cure would be cool. Have they ever been on the cover of RS before? Must've, right?
Score = 0
I was going to suggest some sort of 'Summer of Love' cover (with old hippies pictured), but it looks like RS did that already this summer...
http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/15289667/summer_of_love_1967
Score = 0
Buzz from the Melvins??
(imagine that!!)
Score = 0
Paul MacCartney and Chief from South Park?
( I heard they're mates )
Score = 0
It's Bob Pollard!
Score = 0
it's guns n roses for the anniversary of appetite.
Score = 0
Phil Spector's crazy hair???
Score = 0
HALL AND MOTHERFUCKIN OATES
Score = 0
ahhh... Melvins... that was my thought...
Score = 0
the cure has never been on the cover of rolling stone.
Score = 0
Christopher Lloyd from Back to the Future - 22 years later special reunion edition special special!!! With an in depth essay on We Built This City.
Score = 0
It's avril lavigne's bush.
Score = 0
bob geldof and craig david!!
Score = 0
Buzz!
Score = 0
Michael Jackson's childhood's priest
Score = 0
Smashing... Pumpkins
Score = 0
Bon Jovi and Sambora?
Jon's hair's lookin' like a bird nest these days.
Score = 0
Albert Einstein with a giant oreo cookie.
Score = 0
That's it!!
Score = 0
guns & roses. mark my words.
Score = 0
DEBBY HAIRRIE???
Score = 0
Yeah I'm going with G'N'R too. That's totally Slash's hat.
Score = 0
why on earth would the cure be on the cover of rolling stone this month?
Score = 0
It's Spinal Tap.
Score = 0
Jann Wenner and his companion
Score = 0
Lindsey lohan post coke binge
Score = 0
http://www.rollingstone.com/rockdaily/index.php/2007/07/25/the-next-rolling-stone-cover-revealed/
Does this answer your question?
Score = 0
who gives a rat's ass about GNR nowadays?
Score = 0
Seriously...I'm not up on my Rolling Stone layout strategy for the year...is there a specific REASON they are putting old acts on the cover, as opposed, to say, Spoon or The Hold Steady or The National or fucking Wilco or I don't care just someone besides the shit I was forced to listen to when there was no satellite radio or CD burners in the world?????
I mean, if the demographic for RS nowadays is 40 year olds, burn that fucking mag, and burn it now.
Score = 0
Mick Jagger?
Score = 0
no, it's stupid motherfucking GnR. I mean, whatever, they were cool for about 1 month and now maybe it's cool to like them in a vintage way, but still, i mean, the COVER of motherfucking RS? What? Have the editors stopped listening to music? I mean I'm listening to Spiderman of the Rings right fucking now for the first time and I'm blown the fuck away and I don't have the privelige (sic) of writing for one of the world's foremost known music pubs, but I know Dan Deacon on the fucking cover would be more interesting and at least more in line with, say, fucking MUSIC than fucking the 20th fucking anniversary of fucking Appetite for fucking Destruction. I mean, jesus fucking christ. I hate people. that is all.
Score = 0
mrs is awesome.
Score = 0
Cate Blanchett as Bob Dylan.
So?
Score = 0
It's GnR, for Christ's sake.
That's Axl's bandana, or maybe Izzy's, but it's not Slash's hat. That mop is probably Adler's hair. I think Slash is wearing the leather gloves.
Score = 0
I'm not sure why anybody would think that Rolling Stone magazine would have anything to do with music, as it really hasn't in, oh, 30 years at least, or whenever Wenner decided that he preferred doing blow with Belushi over smoking pot with Neil Young. Not that that makes this cover any less relevant--'Appetite' remains a great record ( for all y'all punks doubtin' it, well, you had to be there...I'd still take it any day over most of the whimpering Freudian analysis that seems to float so many 'indie' boats these days ) but this is idiotic. Who gives a hoot?
However, the day Dan Deacon is on the cover of the Rolling Stone is the day when we know that the terrorists have won.
Score = 0
Actually, I *was* there. In fact, I may be older than you. And I was like, whatever.
I'd say the same thing about R.E.M. on the cover -- because R.E.M. put out some fantastic records, hell this year is the 25th anniversary of Murmur.
That's fine for a blurb, or even a feature. A fucking cover? Please.
Score = 0
Typical.
Score = 0
Huh? "the day Dan Deacon is on the cover of the Rolling Stone is the day when we know that the terrorists have won." How about something a little more confusing? At least it would be absurd and not just confusing.
Score = 0
If when the terrorists win we get to have Dan Deacon on the cover of RS, then I'm rooting for the terrorists from now on.
Rolling Stone is the magazine equivalent of your friend's annoying dad who lets you drink beer in the living room and tries way too hard to impress you by telling stories about Woodstock. I was born in 1987. I don't care. Shut the hell up, Rolling Stone, you self-righteous pricks.
Score = 0
I'm seeing a petition to RS to put Dan Deacon on the cover in the offing....
that would be hilarious.
Score = 0
Hey, to show there's no hard feelings, I'll sign that petition...my point is, as Liam has sort-of pointed out, Rolling Stone has been so irrelevant for so long, I don't even think they know, or care, who their readership is. Fact of the matter is, they were late to the party on Guns n' Roses back then ( and R.E.M, too ), and if one looks at the time period objectively, the resulting 'influence' of 'Appetite' was dreadful, bloated 'LA Rawk' records which prominently featured beer-bellied men in bandanas and aviator shades which, in some ways, led the way for the Nirvana-fication of rock a few years later as an 'alternative'. Now, whether that was a good thing, either, is up for debate, but not today, I'm afraid.
What the terrorists' views are on Dan Deacon is unclear to me at this time...I spoke out of turn, I'm afraid. Sorry for any 'confusion'.
Score = 0
"I predict it's some old band no one really cares about anymore."
Good call! Its GnR!
Score = 0
Look, if Rolling Stone put cool artists like Dan Deacon on the cover they might actually stay in business another year.
It's unbelievable, they never even put the Arctic Monkeys on the cover before they got uncool, or Cold War Kids before we found out about the whole christian thing.
It's not too late to hop on the Deacon train sad old Rolling Stone! Guarantee you that will outsell all those old Appetite for Whatever crap (btw, I was born in 1988 and I'm pretty sure i never heard a song by Guns n whateverthehellolddudeslike.
Score = 0
Oh, wait, are you saying that RS is selling to its demo?
No, really? Cause I'm sure no one probably figured that out. Course, Sleepless in Seattle sold a lot of movie tickets, but that doesn't necessarily mean it wasn't a total piece of shit....
Oh, and for those keeping score at home, I was born in good old 1971.
Score = 0
mrs, now that we know your a/, how 'bout your s/l.
Score = 0
I'll don my Sleaveless in Seattle Tank Top when I read that issue.
Score = 0
hillary and barack.
Score = 0
hillary and barack.
Score = 0
i have NEVER knowingly heard a Guns n roses song... who's with me?
Score = 0
yo I swear i also have never heard a song by this band... FUCK OLD MUSIC AND FUCK OLD PEOPLE...
Rolling Stone is baby boomer crap... FUCK THE 60S and old hippie crap like Guns AND WHATEVER!!!
FUCK OLD PEOPLE! FUCK OLD MUSIC!
Dan Deacon, Justice even old school Daft Punk.. that's whats hot now...
Rolling Stone should put DP DD and justie togetjer on the cover and then finally go out of business
sad ass old dying magazine.. fucking print mags suck and are dead anyway
FUCK OLD HIPPIE MUSIC
Score = -1
best.thread.ever.
Score = 0
Doesn't this band sing that old-ass song "Pour SUgar on Me" or whatever its called??
That song sucks. Old-ass bands suck.
Let the past die... the eighties or the seventies or whenever this bands from is dead... time for new shit to take over...
Score = 1
DIE ROLLING STONE DIE DIE DIE DIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Score = 0
aside from their horrible covers - including the cringe-worthy (and embarrassing to subscribers like myself) of Fall out Boy and Panic at the fucking Disco, RS does have some amazing editors and their articles are still great. Now this is also aside from that horrible reality show crap they are trying to front. Too bad none of the actual music editors are taking iniative and haev the balls to expose new relevant GOOD music. i'm waiting for interpol to at least be on the cover. or muse. it's true, who cares about GNR now? they haven't even made a good comeback like Pearl Jam did.
Score = 0
GO AWAY ROLLING STONE I HATE YOU I HATE YUPPIE HIPPIE OLD SIXTIES MUSIC LIKE GUNS N ROSES YER BOOMER NOSTALGIA SUX... DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE
Score = 0
OMG RS SUCKS LOL!
Score = 0
What an insanely stupid argument. Rolling Stone wants to be relevant, I'm sure, but do you think they're going to stay in business if they put Dan Deacon on the cover? Who the fuck is going to buy that? A bunch of indie kids, thats who. And there aren't that many.
I don't understand this whining about who ROLLING STONE put on the cover of their magazine and whether or not they're relevant or not. If you don't like it, don't fucking buy it. It's nobodies loss. If you're looking to Rolling Stone for your music news, you probably aren't really that interested in music anyway. People buying that magazine want to see Guns n Roses, so they get Guns n Roses.
And for the record, I think Appetite for Destruction is a great album. This newfound indie backlash against liking anything popular other than for irony is annoying.
Score = 0
TO BE HONEST WHEN I SAW THE HAIR AND THE WOMANS JEANS THE 1ST PERSON TO COME TO MIND WAS....
PHIL SPECTOR.... REALLY.... LOOK @ THE HAIR...LMAO
Score = 0
I'm not sure if it's the problem with reading comprehension or the desire to disagree for the sake of disagreeing, but no one actually said Appetite for Destruction was a bad album. What was said is that it, nor GnR, is worthy of the cover of a major "music" pub when neither is truly of any import in music *today*. The Dan Deacon suggestion was in reference to the idea of putting a movement or genre that was *different* and growing in interest to those with any *real* interest in music. I agree that if you want to listen to the same shit from 20 years ago, RS is your mag. I also agree that RS is selling to their current demo, because about 20 other mags have realized that other people besides 50 year old upper middle class soccer dads read music publications, thus RS sticks with the people who think Everyone Loves Raymond is a comedy classic.
There's no real "indie backlash" here -- just a statement of the obvious -- RS doesn't really give a shit about music anymore. Sad, cause when they started, that's all they were ever about. And they actually put people on the cover that were, say, either good or still putting out albums.
Score = 0