I’m not sure if this is really “mainstream”, but I’d have to vote for Victoria magazine. My mom subscribed to it for a year and I still have no idea what they’re trying to accomplish: page after page of pretty British children at tea parties, people’s homes (usually British) decorated for the holidays, photos of rolling hills and sparkling lakes (in Britain), and clothes and furniture so expensive none but a (British?) royal family could afford it.
What are they doing, trying to make us dumb Americans regret having a revolution to get away from this kind of stuff?
I agree with Maxim. Look, another nekkid lady on the cover! Look, another poorly written article in which she bitches about how she can’t find a man to satisfy her sex drive! Look, another picture of aforementioned nekkid lady crouching in front of a mirror with her nipple right there in the open! It’s just so childish, and I don’t find it funny.
Also, Rolling Stone may have once been the be-all and end-all of non-mainstream music, but the day they put Britney Spears on the cover (followed closely by Christina Aguilera, the Backstreet Boys, and *NSYNC) was the day I stopped buying it. I think when Li’l Miss Southern Spirit graced the covers in pink booty shorts, every 18+ human being realized, in one giant ear-popping epiphany, that RS had stopped caring about challenging the definition of music and started pandering to the lowest common denominator: horny teenage boys and tweenie girls with leopard-print purses and white platform sneakers.:rolleyes:
I agree with every single thing andygirl said about women’s beauty magazines. The only one I read is Vogue, which I have subscribed to since I was 13, and the only one I know that doesn’t constantly remind women that they will not be perfect until they are a blonde, size 6, c-cup mannequin conditioned to chew with her mouths closed, fold napkins perfectly, teeter around during subzero winters on painfully high Manolo Blahnik heels with no pantyhose, and spend $700 on a designer skirt.
Her first video should be with Shania Twain and/or Christina Aguilera. That would be really cool, and would sell more copies than all of her CDs combined.
And I think a subscription to Hustler might impress my male friends, but most women would probably not want to see that on the coffee table.
Entertainment Weekly
A few years ago, it had a perforated card stuck in the middle and on it you would find, listed by category, the books, cd’s, videos, books, etc the EDITORS suggested you buy. What were you supposed to do with this card? Go into a book/video/record store, show the card to the clerk and grunt, “Me want this!”. Thay have since stopped this, thankfully.
Well, I know we’re not supposed to “defend” our favorite magazines against criticism, but this is more of a correction than a defense:
Maxim does not ever show “nipple shots,” as they were called earlier. Furthermore, there is no “nudity” per se; it’s never shown outright. I guarantee that if you look through any issue, you may see a lot of skin, but never a bare breast (or nipple) or any hint of genitalia. Around here, we call it “The Playboy that my wife lets me subscribe to.” The articles are admittedly shallow, but it’s quite an entertaining magazine anyway.
Seventeen, or any other “teen centered” magazine. Ok i’m not the best person to read those because my music taste isn’t contemporary, and I don’t really watch current movies. But they are damned shallow. AND they talk down to the reader. Sigh.
Quietly goes and hides all of her Cosmo and Maxim mags.
Seriously though, I buy and read both Cosmo and Maxim on a monthly basis. For the same reason I buy cheap romance novels. Because they are stupid and fun.
Time. It doesn’t even have the LOL entertainment value of checkout-line tabloids.
This seems to be a good place to mention a magazine that was mentioned in jest on National Public Radio’s show Car Talk: the Britney Spears Astrosphysical Review. I love those guys.
Thank you, thank you! I am not alone! So many candidates, so few exceptions.
most of the “womens’ magazines”; they’re ads with a few puff pieces to lend an air of legitimacy. I can’t even wade through one any more just for laughs.
The New Yorker: it pains me, but it’s slid into the slag heap. Tina Brown didn’t start the descent, but she sure shoved hard.
Vanity Fair: ingrown, etoliated East Coast dreck; a bunch of painfully isolated huckster wannabes who haven’t a clue.
Time: it was always “McNews”. Loathed it for years.
Architectural Record: I’m sorry, for the purported “mass appeal” journal for the profession, it does a great job of rendering the whole field not marginal but actively ridiculous.
'Scuse me, gotta leave; my blood pressure is rising again and the doc doesn’t like that.
**
[/QUOTE]
Also, Rolling Stone that RS had stopped caring about challenging the definition of music and started pandering to the lowest common denominator: horny teenage boys and tweenie girls with leopard-print purses and white platform sneakers.:rolleyes:**
[/QUOTE]
Of course, the argument could be made that rock 'n roll has ALWAYS been targeted to the “horny teenage boys and tweenie girls”, which would merely make RS par for the course. But, you’re right about how “mainstream” it is. I can’t remember the last time an album was given less than three stars in their review section. What the most offensive thing about the “mainstreaming” of RS is, is that the writers in the magazine still try to play themselves off as being “counter-culture”, whilst their columns and articles are sandwiched between twenty pages of ads for perfume, clothing, gadgets, etc. And the political writing in this mag often seems to come straight out of the Stoidela think-tank (not that I’m on the other end of that spectrum, mind you).
Ooh… Another vote for Rolling Stone. Were these guys ever good? Or has their whole shtick been “piss off the readers because controversy equals Big Ad Bucks?”
When everyone started writing columns in the “witty smartass mode” I quit reading. Espically when Popular Mechanics had a few. Hell, Miss Manners went smart ass over a decade ago.
And don’t get me started on Time/Newsweek/US News. Preprocessed swill, slanted against whatever the flavor-of-the-month public opinion is at worst, blantantly partisan at best.
I think of that as Uncle Cecil mode, which I think a lot of people adopted when they saw how revered he was because of his style. Few do it well. Most should stop.
Lame magazines:
Hot Rod… Does anyone over the age of 18 with all their teeth read this crap?
GQ… one good article and 180 pages of advertising does not a magazine make.
US… a magazine that makes one nostalgic for People, which is a sick thing in and of itself.
And a big ass vote for Reader’s Digest. What evil bastard came up with the idea for a magazine that is watered down trip taken from every other throw back magazine from the 1950’s? And then who spread the idea that it should be the dominant periodical in every waiting room across the United States? I want them to be hurt badly for their transgression.
Glamour is right up there with Cosmo. I’ll read it just for shits and giggles. It’s just pathetic.
And I admit-I ADORE the Best and Worst Dressed-the worst dressed section cracks me up.
I used to read Seventeen when I was younger, and I loved it. A few months ago, I was bored to tears and bought an issue and was even MORE bored after reading it.
Although I will buy any prom or evening gown magazine…I’ve always loved looking at pretty formals. So sue me.
Those teenybopper fan rags are pretty rank. Let’s see if I remember the ones I used to read: Teen Beat, Tiger Beat, 16, SuperTeen, Bop, Big Bopper, etc etc…
REALLY bad magazines. I used to get them mostly for pin ups of Will Friedle.
(hangs her head in shame)
