Wow, this sucks, but I had to see this for myself -- I guess somebody figured out, "Hey, if they only pay a thousandths of a thousandths of a cent in music streaming, why can't we copy this model, and apply it to journalism?"
But it's the perfect fit for an era of paying someone to click open an email, to review your work (Submittable), shelling out for all the costs for the work that you do (Lyft, Uber, and others like them), and so on, and so forth --- if this sticks, the race to the bottom just got a little bit deeper and nastier.
Uh fuck you Rolling Stone your magazine sucks anyway. Was it ever really relevant?
Its critical coverage of Altamont was alone within the media. And Hunter Thompson's work in the early 70s was massive. Generally speaking, while it was still based in San Fran, it was important. Once it moved to New York, it was aging Boomer celebrity lust.
Uh fuck you Rolling Stone your magazine sucks anyway. Was it ever really relevant?
Its critical coverage of Altamont was alone within the media. And Hunter Thompson's work in the early 70s was massive. Generally speaking, while it was still based in San Fran, it was important. Once it moved to New York, it was aging Boomer celebrity lust.
Yeah. Much like the actual Rolling Stones it was diminishing returns after the early 70s.
Uh fuck you Rolling Stone your magazine sucks anyway. Was it ever really relevant?
Its critical coverage of Altamont was alone within the media. And Hunter Thompson's work in the early 70s was massive. Generally speaking, while it was still based in San Fran, it was important. Once it moved to New York, it was aging Boomer celebrity lust.
Yeah. Much like the actual Rolling Stones it was diminishing returns after the early 70s.
(Looks both ways for sudden return of muppet)
Dylan, Springsteen, and the Stones could always be assured a 5-star review of their latest album, with an assurance that it was "a return to form."
Uh fuck you Rolling Stone your magazine sucks anyway. Was it ever really relevant?
Its critical coverage of Altamont was alone within the media. And Hunter Thompson's work in the early 70s was massive. Generally speaking, while it was still based in San Fran, it was important. Once it moved to New York, it was aging Boomer celebrity lust.
Yeah. Much like the actual Rolling Stones it was diminishing returns after the early 70s.
(Looks both ways for sudden return of muppet)
Dylan, Springsteen, and the Stones could always be assured a 5-star review of their latest album, with an assurance that it was "a return to form."
Uh fuck you Rolling Stone your magazine sucks anyway. Was it ever really relevant?
Its critical coverage of Altamont was alone within the media. And Hunter Thompson's work in the early 70s was massive. Generally speaking, while it was still based in San Fran, it was important. Once it moved to New York, it was aging Boomer celebrity lust.
Yeah. Much like the actual Rolling Stones it was diminishing returns after the early 70s.
(Looks both ways for sudden return of muppet)
Dylan, Springsteen, and the Stones could always be assured a 5-star review of their latest album, with an assurance that it was "a return to form."
Always true and correct in bob's case
“He’s the poor man’s Steeleye Span.” - Heston, probably.
Its critical coverage of Altamont was alone within the media. And Hunter Thompson's work in the early 70s was massive. Generally speaking, while it was still based in San Fran, it was important. Once it moved to New York, it was aging Boomer celebrity lust.
Yeah. Much like the actual Rolling Stones it was diminishing returns after the early 70s.
(Looks both ways for sudden return of muppet)
Dylan, Springsteen, and the Stones could always be assured a 5-star review of their latest album, with an assurance that it was "a return to form."
Always true and correct in bob's case
“He’s the poor man’s Steeleye Span.” - Heston, probably.
Oddly enough, Heston believes Dylan is also the poor man's Shakin' Stevens.
