I bought the new Rolling Stone cause it had the Beatles on the cover, and it purported to tell the 'inside story' of 'why the beatles broke up'. I'll admit, first of, that I really enjoyed reading the rather long (by magazine standards) article. Cause I was such an enthusiast in my younger years, I probably enjoy the mythology of The Beatles story even more than I enjoy the music (though it's close).
But at the same time, I found it pretty irritating cause there was not a single new significant fact. There was the occasional snippet of conversation I hadn't heard before, but nothing that remotely shed new light on anything. And you know, I was a pretty big fan, but I was hardly a scholar. So I just found it kind of cheap that they presented it like, 'here's the never before told story'. So I wrote a letter to the editor saying just that. And now I'm trying to decide if, on the gazillion-to-one chance it gets published, I'll find it more cool or embarrassing.
Not unlike the only other time I made a quasi-appearance in the magazine. Not me, individually. But the band's "After The Flood" album was reviewed. The reviewer didn't like the album, which of course kinda sucked. But my band's album was reviewed in Rolling Stone magazine. Which was bizarre, in a good way. Sometimes you gotta take the good with the bad.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Geek it up, baby.
ReplyDelete