Newsgroups: alt.music.nirvana
Subject: NOVOSELIC ON RS#748
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 15:13:50 -0800
I've just finished reading the Rolling Stone Article on Pearl
Jam and Eddie Vedder. It breaks my heart the way they tear
apart Eddie. I really don't think Rolling Stone has the authority
to carry out such a thrashing. There are many points in the
article that I take issue with.
First off, on a personal note, it was painful that those
writers had to exhume Kurt to build up their case against Pearl
Jam. R.S. opened up a can of worms. No one was above or
below receiving a negative perspective from Kurt. No one. Some
were printed, some weren't. I'll assure Rolling Stone that a
quickly penned message on a T-shirt was the least of it. I'll tell
you this though, if Kurt knew someone was personally hurt by
his words, he truly felt bad. God bless Kurt.
It seems like the magazine believes it has license to use
Kurt's name to illustrate any point it wants to make. A few
months ago it was a reefer madness, anti-drug hysteria article
against Seattle. Now they dig up Kurt to slam one of our
exemplary community leaders. This belligerence and disrespect
annoys me.
What standard is R.S. basing its scrutiny on? For R.S. to
judge Pearl Jam or Eddies credibility, in regards to the
revolution, is a complete ruse. If not the revolution, then what
are they holding him up to? I have original copies of the earliest
R.S. magazines. I love them. 30 years ago they had something
to say. Printed on newsprint it was like a fanzine, the music and
politics covered were truly revolutionary. Today, the magazine
is pop culture and political status quo. Why did R.S. move
away from it's original mission? It did so to keep up with it's
demographic. R.S. may be successful but is it real? I'd like to
quote a true revolutionary, Jesus Christ, who said, "It is better
to have not known me than to have known me and turned away".
R.S. turned away long ago. Rolling Stone magazine
doesn't have the authority or credibility to judge anyone.
- Krist Novoselic
|