The Rolling Stones are on the cover of Rolling Stone...

[lostbeachboy]

And The Beach Beach weren't on the cover last year because.....?

[SMiLE Brian]

Charlie Sheen

[KittyKat]

Mick Jagger is one of Jann Wenner's BFF's, for years. They're always in the mag even though most younger people don't care about them or know who they are. I'm sure advertisers aren't thrilled to have those geezers on the cover. They should have asked for cheaper ad rates for the issue. I'm sure the BB demographics and lack of cuddle-buddy status with Jann is the reason they didn't get the cover.

[wantsomecorn]

The Rolling Stones are a bigger name than The Beach Boys, and that's that. So was Charlie Sheen.

[Generation42]

The Rolling Stones are a bigger name than The Beach Boys, and that's that. So was Charlie Sheen.

As much as it sucks, I think this is probably true.  The 'Stones were a quality group, no doubt, but their popularity is completely out of scale with what I, personally, see as the legacy they've earned since at least Some Girls.

Sheen's story was like a rocket ship at the time.  Just one of those things, I guess.

[JohnMill]

"Rolling Stone" has long since ceased being a reputable music magazine.  Tom Petty once said (paraphrased) that it was once the hugest honor to make the cover of "Rolling Stone" as it signified that you had really found success as a musician/band as only the top musicians made the cover of RS.  That is obviously no longer the case and hasn't been for a long time.

[southbay]

saw the issue today and had the same thoughts.  Nevertheless, I still think Jason Fine's article is one of the best pieces I have ever read on the group in my 28 years of fandom, and...the RS picture of the Boys at the NYC diner was far cooler than the one of the Stones in this issue just sitting on a couch

[lostbeachboy]

The guys sitting around a table eating junk food at a NYC diner makes no sense to me whatsoever! If the beach boys are gonna be typecast (which they are) as just these surfer dudes then just have them wear stripped shirts sitting in a woody on the beach..

[leggo of my ego]

Meh. Jann and Mick...

 

Call me when Jan & Dean make the cover... and I'll

 

[Theydon Bois]

And The Beach Beach weren't on the cover last year because.....?

It's high time the Beach Beach got put on the cover.  NB Is anyone else confused about the name of the band we all like?

[southbay]

The guys sitting around a table eating junk food at a NYC diner makes no sense to me whatsoever! If the beach boys are gonna be typecast (which they are) as just these surfer dudes then just have them wear stripped shirts sitting in a woody on the beach..

you sound pretty angry about the whole ordeal...

[oldsurferdude]

And The Beach Beach weren't on the cover last year because.....?

It's high time the Beach Beach got put on the cover.  NB Is anyone else confused about the name of the band we all like?

They were on the cover-Oct.28, 1971 and Brian graced the cover on Nov. 4th, 1976 before mYke luHv made them irrelevant.

[lostbeachboy]

The guys sitting around a table eating junk food at a NYC diner makes no sense to me whatsoever! If the beach boys are gonna be typecast (which they are) as just these surfer dudes then just have them wear stripped shirts sitting in a woody on the beach..

you sound pretty angry about the whole ordeal...

I wouldn't say angry, I didn't lose any sleep over it. But a band like the beach boys celebrating their 50th anniversary not being on the cover of a music publication is pretty sad..

[Shady]

Honesty, who cares..

I don't think of of The Beach Boys are losing sleep over not being on the cover of Rolling Stone.

The Rolling Stones must be losing sleep over there ticket sales though  

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

F Rolling Stone...

Rolling Stone made itself irrelevant long ago.

[CosmicDancer]

Mick Jagger is one of Jann Wenner's BFF's, for years. They're always in the mag even though most younger people don't care about them or know who they are. I'm sure advertisers aren't thrilled to have those geezers on the cover. They should have asked for cheaper ad rates for the issue. I'm sure the BB demographics and lack of cuddle-buddy status with Jann is the reason they didn't get the cover.

This pretty well hits the nail on the head.  Jann even gave Mick's last solo album, at least I think it was the last one, "Goddess in the Doorway" a 5 star review when it came out.  That album was absolutely putrid.  Keith's suggested title for it was much better and more accurate, "Dogshit in the Doorway".  Every new Stones album of the 90's has gotten at least a 4 star review from RS as well.  Now I do think that all of said albums have some nice moments, usually in the form of the Keith sung songs, none of them are worth more than a 3 star review.

[oldsurferdude]

F Rolling Stone...

Rolling Stone made itself irrelevant long ago.

Jann Wenner, meet mYke luHv.

[Rocky Raccoon]

The Rolling Stones are a bigger name than The Beach Boys, and that's that. So was Charlie Sheen.

As much as it sucks, I think this is probably true.  The 'Stones were a quality group, no doubt, but their popularity is completely out of scale with what I, personally, see as the legacy they've earned since at least Some Girls.

As a whole, I'm probably a bigger Beach Boys fan than I am a Stones fan but I saw both bands on their respective 50th Anniversary tours and while the Beach Boys were great, the Stones absolutely blew me away.  And they've been able to keep themselves together in a way the Beach Boys have not.

[bossaroo]

the Rolling Stones do share their name with the magazine, after all... maybe their ass-kissing is to keep from getting sued. It's an interesting cover shot. I never would have imagined Charlie Watts looking the worst of the bunch and Keith looking the healthiest.

as for Charlie Sheen, he is certainly not more famous than the Beach Boys. they absolutely should have been given the cover last year.

the Boys eating at an old-school malt shop was pretty right-on without being too cliche. the Foster's Freeze plays quite prominently in early Beach Boys lore, and the diner setting is very American Graffiti.

[leggo of my ego]

 Jann even gave Mick's last solo album, at least I think it was the last one, "Goddess in the Doorway" a 5 star review when it came out.  That album was absolutely putrid.


You don't like it, do you? 

[SurfRiderHawaii]

Because the Stones don't play casinos. 

Seriously though, like McCartney, they never soiled their legacy.

[runnersdialzero]

Wanted to say that Mick Jagger always looks and especially sounds like he's taking a shit when singing. Always.

[Generation42]

As a whole, I'm probably a bigger Beach Boys fan than I am a Stones fan but I saw both bands on their respective 50th Anniversary tours and while the Beach Boys were great, the Stones absolutely blew me away.  And they've been able to keep themselves together in a way the Beach Boys have not.

That's cool.  I'm glad you enjoyed the shows and it says something that these guys can still get out there and sweat it up for 2 hours and deliver the goods, performance after performance, after all these years.

No, my personal issue with the Stones surrounds their largely uninspiring recorded output over the last three decades, or so, and the way in which it doesn't seem to reflect poorly on their legacy the way in which it does, say, for the 'Boys.  But hey, not everyone goes out on top like the Beatles.  I'm just fortunate, in that sense, that my top two favorite artists ended their runs before hitting any major creative nadirs.

[metal flake paint]

And The Beach Beach weren't on the cover last year because.....?

...the cover of Goldmine is way cooler 

[Cabinessenceking]

lists of bands which are continuously recycled on rolling stone cover:

Beatles
LedZep
Who
Rolling Stones

honorary mention:
Jimi Hendrix x 1000

the magazine is a load of horseshit. the internet has thankfully relieved our dependence on it.


also the Beach Boys haven't necessarily soiled their legacy. only Mike and Bruce do the casino shows. but hey, even Elvis and Sinatra only did that in the end. there's no shame in it really, just a whole lotta money.