Is Rolling Stone racist?

ho ho ho.

that dood

I can tell you that they were a fuck of a lot more Clay fans online than Ruben fans.

are you familiar with the demographics of folks that use the internet? there's probably plenty of lower class folks without internet access. there's also probably a shit load of people in alabama who don't have internet access. not to wreck on alabama, cause there are plenty of computers there, etc., but i bet that there are still a lot of ruben supporters who could give two shits about the internet.

It's particularly irritating to see the likes of Christina, Justin and Eminem on the cover because they're co-opting RECENT black art so flagrantly.

that's bullshit. i'm white. but i can safely tell you that hip-hop and r&b is as much a part of my upbringing than any black kid. it's a part of who i am. if i choose to express myself in those forms, it's totally legit. there's no co-opting. it's all mixed up.

it's choosing to force people into ghettos of white and black that's racist. leave rolling stone alone and look in the mirror.
m.

Oh you must mean, like, Vanilla Ice? Please. I'm not one of these extremist cats who disses the Beattles, the Rolling Stones or even Elvis for being influenced by black cats. The way I see it, these guys always--like Eminem--gave credit where credit was due.

Of course that doesn't mean that racism isn't at work--just that the artists aren't the sources of it--which is exactly the point this thread was trying to discuss. No one said Clay was racist--they asked was Rolling Stone racist. The problem is us--namely the critics and the white music buying public. White critics--by and large--given a choice between a black dude and a white dude performing black music capably, are prone to christen the white dude the genius.

But even critics aren't the source of the problem. Most big music publications, fuck it, most entertaiment publications are subtle outgrowths of the industry. They are moved by threats from publicists, and people who purchase large swaths of space for ads. It doesn't take genius to know that if they have to listen to black-influenced musice, white people--for a lot of reasons, some fucked up, some perfectly natural--would generally rather see someone who looks like them doing it.

The idea that black people haven't been ripped off musicly, is fairly easy to shout from the other side of the street. On a basic logical level, the music industry rips everyone off. But from the perspective of race, at the very least black people have watched thier music become semi-accepted and a viable commercial product, even as the society has consistently proven unwilling to accept the people who made it all possible. You can call that whatever you want. On my side of the street, it's called a rip-off.

P.S. As for the original question, I prefer to consider context. This is a country that has never willingly grappled with issues of race and racism in good faith. Rolling Stone is a magazine that serves people live in this country. They are pretty much doing what the societal imperative demands.

heh. to quote Ron Jeremy in _Orgazmo_: "Hence, it exploits...people!"

I do, of course, judge those artists in the day-to-day. I'm not particularly enamored with any of them, but that wasn't the point.

all of which is by way of saying that if yr. talking black culture in america its never been just a *black* thing but but a thing from partic. black people in a racially-fucked america-as-a-whole thing. Also vanilla ice i think gave credit where it was due too. but nobody particularly WANTED his credit (victory has many fathers but defeat is ever an orphan) not to mention which v. ice is probably more distincint by almost any measure from the hip-hop of his day than em from the hip-hop of today. which is part of the trick, eh?

Hehe, good point. And yeah your right, I think the idea of "giving credit" is a bit disturbing. But I'm not sure that that's even the problem. The racism and music issue has never really been about the artists. I mean a lot of these 60s bands would bring old blues cats on stage and introduce them to crowds that weren't really into what they were doing. There is a really good case to be made that without Eminem, 50 Cent would not have a career right now. Of course this becomes even murkier in today's context, given that there may have never been an Eminem without a Dre.

Might point is that I don't think the problem is--as it's often stated by royally pissed-off black people--that artists are ripping off black culture and acting like it's thier own. And you have a case that most people who borrow from black aren't borrowing from some pure well of culture.

The problem is actually very simple--this country is racist. More aptly put, black people are this country's great untouchable. African-Americans have one of the longest tenures in this country of any ethnic group, are, with some competition from our Latino brothers, the least wealthy, least educated and most segregated. Talk to people abroad, and they look at black folks like this country lazy beggar class. This includes other black people, who immigrate here and promptly find thier children integrated into that lazy beggar class. I see it everyday on Flatbush.

What the hell does that have to do with Rolling Stone? As long as racism exists, the magazine will sell better if Clay is on the cover. It's that simple. As long as we are the untouchables, as long as we are the great American insouluble, expect an art like rap to only be considered "high art" when it has an Eminem in its midst.

We aren't mad that we don't get credit--although it may sound like we are. Fuck credit. We're mad that people love hearing our music, but hate hearing us. It's like a whore complex, almost. Damn we love what black folks do for us in the bedroom, but don't ever bring em home to mama.

Normally, I wouldn't care about RS; but for once, I'm actually looking forward to the next issue...for the letter column...I can't wait to see what kind of reaction/response this cover will have in the next issue.
I'm not sure if it'll be chilly or hot, so bring both a sweater and suncreen...and possibly a flak jacket.

Ta-Nehisi: you should sum up your posts and mail them into the magazine.

dude, i'd fuckin' buy MULTIPLE COPIES just to see these guys with that logo on the cover.

America needs to be better exposed to their smiling visages.

http://www.stclairevents.com/images/huun-huur-tu.jpg

Version #1
Headline: Is Tupac Really Dead?
Cover Image: Tupac on a slab, a coroner poking him with a stick.

Version #2
Headline: Are the Stripes, the Hives and the Vines really three seperate bands?
Cover Image: Five vaguely new-york rocker fellas in black shirts and white ties posing out

Version #3
Headline: The Le Mystère des Voix Bulgares Revival Starts HERE!
Cover Image: 300 Bulgarian women in cheesy peasant folk dresses all trying to pout in a sultry, sex-kittenish way. Failing.

Rolling Stone, at least originally, was a ROCK magazine, right? If memory serves correct, the only vaguely "rock" musicians that have been on the cover in the past year-or-so have been Phish and Dave Matthews band. Have they given up any attempt at remaining a "rock" oriented magazine then?

i should probably not post when i'm either (a) really drunk or (b) not really awake.

Heh that's my new signature.

HA: What was the purpose of putting Eminem on the cover of Rolling Stone?

JL: We were attempting to explain about Eminem and his work.

HA: What does it mean to call him a 'genius' in terms of being the most covered hip-hop artists at Rolling Stone? Why not Jay-Z on the cover?

JL: I can't speak to the way he's been contextualized. He outsold anyone else by two to one. Our job is to cover him in any way that we can. It's a commercial proposition. At a certain level, it's that reductive. A commercial proposition is part of it.

What would it take for Jay-Z? It would take the confidence that we would be as successful with those covers. hip hop covers haven't been extraordinary successful for us in the past. We're not trusted as a hip-hip authority?

HA: Well, why put Enimem on the cover?

JL: As he might agree, he's blown up bigger than that. It did work when we did it before. He's the biggest thing in the music industry.

HA: What does his whiteness have to do with this?

JL: It's not incidental. To say that it's not a factor is ridiculous. He said that he'd sell 1/2 the records if he wasn't right. Obviously it has something to do with it.

HA: In the article, it says 'no one denies that his race has a lot to do with his popularity?' What does that mean?

JL: I don't think it's a simple question. What do you think?

HA: Please tell me first.

JL: It's part of what of what he says is a big factor. He's more acceptible to a broad-based audience. He makes pop singles too. It's been a factor since the start of his career.

HA: By saying the 'genius', how's that different than 'success'?

JL: We wanted these stories to address his particular genius, whatever it is. We hoped that we might explain some of that.

HA: By hailing this artist and having him on so many covers, to have a cover that says 'genius' for him but not have Jay-Z on the cover...

JL: This mistakes us for a hip-hop mag. Also, Britney's had more Rolling Stone covers than Eminem.

HA: Do you see the use of 'genius' as...

JL: I see it as a cover line of what some of the intention of the piece and to attract the eye of a potential reader...

HA: And it has no other context where a white man dominates a black artform?

JL: Harry, I answered your question already.

"I hate all this crap! But I'm going to give you FUCKERS what you want! Now, a Nickelback cover."

hee hee.

with sticks.

i like the personable touch that only pointy sticks can provide.

http://www.tsl.state.tx.us/ld/projects/trc/2002/manual/images/bilingual/stick.jpg