Bon Jovi v Rolling Stone magazine
 

Does anybody know what's the problem between bj and that magazine, it seems like they hated the band since the begining. They never are on the cover, no news about the band, the reviews are awful, they only post bad news, last year there were alot of important news about the band and the only one they've posted was that about "mijovi" the energy drink! nothing about the #1 debut of lost highway, nothing about prudential or arena 02,etc... it's very strange, they hate and ignore them all the time.
its a mistery for me, i wanto know! anyone?

I have other issues with Rolling Stone Magazine. I canceled my subscription early.

But to answer your question -- they focus a "lot" on younger acts. They do give some nods to the older bands, but not nearly as much. Back in the 80s, Jon was on the cover at least twice though. So I don't think they "hated them from the start." I think they are trying to give a boost to the newer performers. They also want to be a political magazine, I think :)

I canceled my subscription early because I had all I could stand of them trying to push their political agenda on their readers. I might ruffle some feathers here, but the bottom line for me is, if I want a political magazine, then I will subscribe to one. I wanted a music magazine, but they were becoming less and less that. It's different if they are focusing on how music is related to political views. BUT! That is not the path they are on.

Sorry --- rant over :)

Your original question -- I don' t think they "hate" Bon Jovi. I believe they just have a different agenda these days, and it's not necessarily "music and pop culture."




Mel

I get your point, but what about other older bands like metallica, guns and roses, or bruce, radiohead, etc, they had a cover recently, there are news about them all the time, i've read news about Gn'R every week and they haven't done anything relevant, it seems that they have their favourites and try to ignore the ones they don't like.

I don't know the answer about whether or not they have something against Jovi. You are right that they do sometimes feature the older bands on the cover. The last issue I received was in early August of this year.

I wonder what their subscriber demographic is these days. You know, the band members have often said they are not the critics' favorite. Maybe others will have more insight than I do.


There are other older bands that have (in my opinion) warranted more coverage, but I might be biased toward those I keep up with and like best. I was wondering similar things about Rolling Stone magazine for not mentioning Peter Frampton's first studio album in I think it was 9 years when he released "Now" in 2000. Then, he released an instrumental rock album/cd and it went largely unnoticed other than his grammy that did not get aired on the awards show :) So maybe they do just have some they like better than others.

I am reminded of the lack of Jovi nomination for the RnR Hall of Fame. This topic reminds me of that topic, if that makes any sense.

I think the main issue with BJ in RS is that one it's well know that Hammer doesn't like Jon, and in a broader sense, RS butchered Jovi's early releases, especially Slippery. I think because of that, giving Jovi and/or Slippery credit now would be admitting their own mistakes. Now, they've had to do that with other bands in the past (Nirvana, Zeppelin) but Jovi doesn't have the same widespread critical acclaim those bands do.

To me Rolling Stone just isn't a proper music magazine anymore. And when you think about it, Bon Jovi are never really mentioned in any music magazines these days- I just don't think they have the critical acclaim to warrant as much coverage as some of the newer bands.

JBJ was on the cover of the 500th issue of Rolling Stone magazine. That's quite an achievement for someone who has been constantly criticized by that magazine. Shows just how hypocritical and money hungry they are.

They offered him on the cover a third time for Blaze of Glory, but he refused.

As stated by everyone else, Rolling Stone is shit. Terrible magazine, who seem to think it's ok to have The Jonas Brothers on their front cover.

In the 60s and 70s, they snubbed Led Zeppelin completely. They were only on the cover for the first time last year, I think. That says a lot.

Jon has been on the cover a couple of times. One was with him dressed as a cowboy, if I recall correctly. But yeah, what kind of shit magazine gives These Days and Crush the same rating?

Nirvana were featured once on the cover before Kurt Cobain died, and the magazine's opinions on them were never too high. Of course, Cobain got on the front cover for a memorial when he died.

They've also repeatedly ignored and slammed Oasis in the most ignorant ways, using all the stupid cliches that you have to say in your reviews and articles. I don't Oasis have ever been on the cover no matter how important they've been to music. EDIT: They were actually in 1996. Doesn't mean the magazine hates them any less though, that was at the time when Oasis were THE band.

Shit magazine.

he was once on the cover with Blaze of Glory, wasn't he?

Jon was on the cover of issue 500 on May 21, 1987, and issue 545 on February 19, 1989. The second one is the one with the white horse, and it says "Rock's Young Gun" on the cover. The article inside is about the plans for the upcoming Moscow Music Peace Festival, though, and it would seem that February 1989 would be too early for Blaze. (Jon mentions that he'd have liked to have been in Young Guns in the article, though, as he's talking about NOT wanting an acting career. LOL)

I thought those were the only covers, but I could certainly be wrong. Anyone know for sure?

Nope, you are right Terri. Those are the only two issues where Jon appeared on the cover.

deb

Rolling Stone is crap.

To go along with this, the two covers that he was on, are not that attractive at all. Take a look for yourself.

1987: http://www.rollingstone.com/photos/g...to/10/large/u2

1989: http://www.rollingstone.com/photos/g...oto/2/large/u2

I like the second one, with him and the mrs.

I'm was also pissed that RS had not had them on the cover more also. After all the albums they sold! WTF? However-I do agree that it was not their best album. and I continue to believe that doing that album was for monetary gain also. Jon is a very smart,shrewd businessman-he saw the success of WSYCGH and decided to break into the country market too. Brilliant marketing decision. Not that it worked that well-i'm not sure.
I don't agree at all about the worst tour though was LH. My issues were that they continue to play the same stuff like Shout and also that they had all the extra musicians for their "country songs". My band is 5 guys on the stage. I cannot be this honest on the FC board or I get slammed. I think the comments about "Whatever makes the band happy,whatever songs they want to sing"...etc. Whatever makes the fans happy!! Hello..........geez.

Apart from the first two sentences, what does any of that have to do with the topic?

Did I miss a BTR attack that already got deleted, or are you going WAY off topic..:confused:

Ummm......I don't know what the hell I meant. I guess I was agreeing with someone else about LH and Rolling Stone ignoring it. I can't explain myself...I'm on vicodin for my knee surgery....who knows what I mean...
Wait-I do make sense-I was responding to Hammered's post about the shittiest album and shittiest tour of 07/08. I guess I went went off a rant regarding that cd and the subsequent tour. I liked HAND tour alot better-no veering off into the country music world.

You might have posted on the wrong topic because I think there is a topic on here that related to your earlier post. :)

BTR, also could have posted his usual LH bullshit in here, and gotten deleted after she answered him.

Good point! :p