- Nov 21, 2006
In what sounds like a pathetic attempt to reinvent themselves, Rolling Stone Magazine vows to be harder on Eric Clapton. I guess because beating up on a Boomer who had the unmitigated gall to take an anti-vaccine stance (but later reneged) is fashionable and good for sales.
A friend from the midwest summed it up like this: "Eh, its downfall is that it’s not 1967-80 anymore and Bruno Mars or whoever ain’t no Zep or Floyd. When it tries to cover what’s sort of happening now, it seems like the middle aged guy with a gut and a combover trying to score again at the club that’s in the same building Dixie Electric Co was in in ‘78."
'More immediate, more visceral' and a lot tougher on Eric Clapton: A plan for reviving Rolling StoneLast Monday in Manhattan, outside the Fifth Avenue offices of Rolling Stone, dozens of...www.chron.com