Skip to content
Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Rolling Stone)   Job advice from Rolling Stone. Hey Aqualung, how about telling all your readers who saw Zep in the '70s to retire so the rest of us can have a farking career   (rollingstone.com) divider line
    More: Spiffy, The Rolling Stones, meaningful relationships, little time, business partners, relationship tip, red T-shirt, corporate cultures, conscious effort  
•       •       •

1599 clicks; posted to Business » on 13 Aug 2022 at 1:02 PM (7 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



54 Comments     (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2022-08-13 11:07:51 AM  
And yet another once-reputable publication goes the route of clickbait to get more readers and website traffic.

I'm also looking at you, Forbes and Harvard Business Review.

Sometimes the quality of an audience is more important than the quantity.
 
2022-08-13 11:23:31 AM  
This is the same kind of bullshiat that "experts" post on linkedin every day. Every. damned. day.
 
2022-08-13 12:16:26 PM  
Oh shut up.

/ saw Zep a couple of times in the '70s
// is retired
 
2022-08-13 12:17:29 PM  
It's only when no one is compelled to forfeit their labor - when there is a robust tight safety net where few or none fear that getting fired or laid off will make them homeless or lose medical treatment - will workplaces actively care about those who work in them.
 
2022-08-13 12:28:28 PM  

lindalouwho: Oh shut up.

/ saw Zep a couple of times in the '70s
// is retired


So did I. 2 of the worse performances I've ever paid to see.

Oops, paid for one, backstage for the other. It was NOT PRETTY backstage but it was the 70's.
 
2022-08-13 1:09:49 PM  

bostonguy: And yet another once-reputable publication goes the route of clickbait to get more readers and website traffic.

I'm also looking at you, Forbes and Harvard Business Review.

Sometimes the quality of an audience is more important than the quantity.


Rolling Stone hasn't been reputable since well before it changed formats. Mid 80s maaybe?  They did ok-ish with the initial post punk, new wave movements (5 stars for the "Love Will Tear Us Apart" 12 inch for instance), but quickly retreated to any novelty act that could claim the slightest relevance.
 
2022-08-13 1:11:02 PM  

drewogatory: bostonguy: And yet another once-reputable publication goes the route of clickbait to get more readers and website traffic.

I'm also looking at you, Forbes and Harvard Business Review.

Sometimes the quality of an audience is more important than the quantity.

Rolling Stone hasn't been reputable since well before it changed formats. Mid 80s maaybe?  They did ok-ish with the initial post punk, new wave movements (5 stars for the "Love Will Tear Us Apart" 12 inch for instance), but quickly retreated to any novelty act that could claim the slightest relevance.


Wow that should be nostalgia, not novelty. Maybe I'm having a stroke. No, the other kind. Is someone making toast?
 
2022-08-13 1:20:07 PM  

drewogatory: drewogatory: bostonguy: And yet another once-reputable publication goes the route of clickbait to get more readers and website traffic.

I'm also looking at you, Forbes and Harvard Business Review.

Sometimes the quality of an audience is more important than the quantity.

Rolling Stone hasn't been reputable since well before it changed formats. Mid 80s maaybe?  They did ok-ish with the initial post punk, new wave movements (5 stars for the "Love Will Tear Us Apart" 12 inch for instance), but quickly retreated to any novelty act that could claim the slightest relevance.

Wow that should be nostalgia, not novelty. Maybe I'm having a stroke. No, the other kind. Is someone making toast?


You're not as wrong as you may think.
Also, the change from newspaper to magazine happened in 1980.
 
2022-08-13 2:19:34 PM  
I stopped reading RS when that guy Taibi (not sure how to spell it and not looking it up) started being published with his bullshiat rants. Prior to him, it was a fun magazine to check out every so often.

/as it is, an anonymous friend of mine kept sending me RS year after year so I had choice but to read it.
//as soon as it would arrive, I'd commence to tearing out all the full-page ads. You'd be amazed at how few pages were leftover after the ads were torn out.
 
2022-08-13 2:29:16 PM  

MelGoesOnTour: I stopped reading RS when that guy Taibi (not sure how to spell it and not looking it up) started being published with his bullshiat rants. Prior to him, it was a fun magazine to check out every so often.

/as it is, an anonymous friend of mine kept sending me RS year after year so I had choice but to read it.
//as soon as it would arrive, I'd commence to tearing out all the full-page ads. You'd be amazed at how few pages were leftover after the ads were torn out.


you are so spot-on. i completely gave up on mag subscriptions after i started cutting out fav articles to save in binders. by the time you are through with ads you get very little reason to shift your eyeballs left to right. most magazines fully suck, and I'm mostly looking at the horrid trash on racks in supermarket check-outs. there are some 40 titles responsible for filling the empty heads of American women with absolute crap and ads for things they don't need. useless as politicians.
 
2022-08-13 2:33:11 PM  
Aqualung found work? Good for him! I just hope it doesn't involve supervising little girls...
media-amazon.comView Full Size
 
2022-08-13 2:33:40 PM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2022-08-13 2:35:54 PM  

MelGoesOnTour: //as soon as it would arrive, I'd commence to tearing out all the full-page ads. You'd be amazed at how few pages were leftover after the ads were torn out.


The majority of all print publications was ads (and still is?).
 
2022-08-13 2:45:47 PM  
What is so controversial about that bland list of plagiarized advice that it requires an  "Opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not reflect the views of Rolling Stone editors or publishers"disclaimer right at the beginning?
 
2022-08-13 2:50:10 PM  

psilocyberguy: lindalouwho: Oh shut up.

/ saw Zep a couple of times in the '70s
// is retired

So did I. 2 of the worse performances I've ever paid to see.

Oops, paid for one, backstage for the other. It was NOT PRETTY backstage but it was the 70's.


They were 2 of the best performances I've ever seen. Sorry you caught them on shiatty days, though it's not uncommon to hear both stories.

Back when Plant could hit all the notes.
 
2022-08-13 2:57:38 PM  

psilocyberguy: lindalouwho: Oh shut up.

/ saw Zep a couple of times in the '70s
// is retired

So did I. 2 of the worse performances I've ever paid to see.

Oops, paid for one, backstage for the other. It was NOT PRETTY backstage but it was the 70's.


How was the backstage performance?
 
2022-08-13 3:00:50 PM  

bostonguy: MelGoesOnTour: //as soon as it would arrive, I'd commence to tearing out all the full-page ads. You'd be amazed at how few pages were leftover after the ads were torn out.

The majority of all print publications was ads (and still is?).


True. However, over time (at least this applies to RS moreso than some mags) the percentage of full-page ads increased significantly compared to other contemporary mags. Clearly, this is because the advertisers thought RS was worth advertising in and were willing to pay the cost. So, in that regard, you can't blame the folks at RS who happily took that money. But, I think, it had unintentional costs over time i.e., RS lost, fairly quickly, any credibility it built up over time.
 
2022-08-13 3:01:51 PM  

KB202: What is so controversial about that bland list of plagiarized advice that it requires an  "Opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not reflect the views of Rolling Stone editors or publishers"disclaimer right at the beginning?


I can tell you exactly why. See this at the top.

Fark user imageView Full Size

Once upon a time, an editor reviewed, edited, and approved every single thing that went into a publication.

Today, however, those middlemen and the time spent doing editorial reviews is expensive. Many publications now want to publish as much stuff as easily as possible -- and as cheaply as possible. That means letting people publish stuff directly on their websites themselves (and through their own user accounts) with little or no oversight.

That is what things like this "Culture Council" are. Forbes does it too. As do others. They let "approved" people publish at will. Rolling Stone, and others, just add disclaimers to say that they are not responsible for it -- because they no longer want to review and approve stuff.

It's just publishing more and more "content" as much as possible for as little cost as possible to get more traffic, page views, and advertising impressions and clicks. So, of course, the standards go down and much of this stuff is clickbait at best or self-serving advertising at worst.

It's a goddamn travesty. And this short-sightedness ends up killing the brand of the publisher because they no longer care about quality control.
 
2022-08-13 3:11:49 PM  
Loved how the first bit of advice was - "Try to give a crap about other people, for the sake of the job"

It's like that statement "I don't know how to tell you it's OK to care about other people." If this is something that hasn't occurred to you by now, no amount of attempted artificial giveacrap is gonna work.
 
2022-08-13 3:17:06 PM  

bostonguy: KB202: What is so controversial about that bland list of plagiarized advice that it requires an  "Opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not reflect the views of Rolling Stone editors or publishers"disclaimer right at the beginning?

I can tell you exactly why. See this at the top.

[Fark user image 850x130]
Once upon a time, an editor reviewed, edited, and approved every single thing that went into a publication.

Today, however, those middlemen and the time spent doing editorial reviews is expensive. Many publications now want to publish as much stuff as easily as possible -- and as cheaply as possible. That means letting people publish stuff directly on their websites themselves (and through their own user accounts) with little or no oversight.

That is what things like this "Culture Council" are. Forbes does it too. As do others. They let "approved" people publish at will. Rolling Stone, and others, just add disclaimers to say that they are not responsible for it -- because they no longer want to review and approve stuff.

It's just publishing more and more "content" as much as possible for as little cost as possible to get more traffic, page views, and advertising impressions and clicks. So, of course, the standards go down and much of this stuff is clickbait at best or self-serving advertising at worst.

It's a goddamn travesty. And this short-sightedness ends up killing the brand of the publisher because they no longer care about quality control.


So, it's kind of like a TotalFark account...
 
2022-08-13 3:17:12 PM  
Listen more than talk is the one that I really need to work on.
 
2022-08-13 3:32:03 PM  

bostonguy: KB202: What is so controversial about that bland list of plagiarized advice that it requires an  "Opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not reflect the views of Rolling Stone editors or publishers"disclaimer right at the beginning?

I can tell you exactly why. See this at the top.

[Fark user image 850x130]
Once upon a time, an editor reviewed, edited, and approved every single thing that went into a publication.

Today, however, those middlemen and the time spent doing editorial reviews is expensive. Many publications now want to publish as much stuff as easily as possible -- and as cheaply as possible. That means letting people publish stuff directly on their websites themselves (and through their own user accounts) with little or no oversight.

That is what things like this "Culture Council" are. Forbes does it too. As do others. They let "approved" people publish at will. Rolling Stone, and others, just add disclaimers to say that they are not responsible for it -- because they no longer want to review and approve stuff.

It's just publishing more and more "content" as much as possible for as little cost as possible to get more traffic, page views, and advertising impressions and clicks. So, of course, the standards go down and much of this stuff is clickbait at best or self-serving advertising at worst.

It's a goddamn travesty. And this short-sightedness ends up killing the brand of the publisher because they no longer care about quality control.


If only this were that.

This is a "Pay-to-Play" scheme. For $2,000 you can buy into the credibility of Rolling Stone by having something published under your name (most are probably written by some highly-indebted freelancer who won't get near $2,000 for the PR puff piece). 

Most of these article will never appear on the site for anyone going directly there. It's about showing up on search engines mentioned as a Rolling Stone contributor, thus raising the profile of the "author". And some people, even those who have not read Rolling Stone, may fall for it, thinking you have to have something to say.
 
2022-08-13 3:35:06 PM  

bostonguy: MelGoesOnTour: //as soon as it would arrive, I'd commence to tearing out all the full-page ads. You'd be amazed at how few pages were leftover after the ads were torn out.

The majority of all print publications was ads (and still is?).


Try explaining Computer Shopper to a genz type (or even a millenial).  Just as few contributing articles, but well over an inch thick (all ads).  For the boomers, think of a Sears wishbook (for nerds) that came out every month but from lots of different stores thrown together.
 
2022-08-13 3:35:38 PM  

Ed Willy: If only this were that.

This is a "Pay-to-Play" scheme. For $2,000 you can buy into the credibility of Rolling Stone by having something published under your name (most are probably written by some highly-indebted freelancer who won't get near $2,000 for the PR puff piece). 

Most of these article will never appear on the site for anyone going directly there. It's about showing up on search engines mentioned as a Rolling Stone contributor, thus raising the profile of the "author". And some people, even those who have not read Rolling Stone, may fall for it, thinking you have to have something to say.


Thank you for that.

Yes, that is also a common practice these days.

It's also a goddamn travesty.
 
2022-08-13 3:46:02 PM  

bostonguy: And yet another once-reputable publication goes the route of clickbait to get more readers and website traffic.

I'm also looking at you, Forbes and Harvard Business Review.

Sometimes the quality of an audience is more important than the quantity.


Rolling Stone hasn't been reputable since HST stopped writing for them.
 
2022-08-13 3:46:51 PM  
Nobody is gonna just hand you a career, Little one, you have to want and work for it. It takes time. You'll be the old one soon, sneering in disgust at the next band of children that want you to just hand things over for free.
 
2022-08-13 3:48:13 PM  
So, it is a TotalFark account... for
img.fark.net
 
2022-08-13 4:31:35 PM  
5/39/69 Fillmore east, Led Zeppelin, Delaney and Bonnie and the farking woody Herman big band, I paid 3.50 for the ticket.
Then in 1973 in mobile Alabama, festival seating and left half way thru due to the volume and that they sucked
 
2022-08-13 4:47:36 PM  

Some Bass Playing Guy: This is the same kind of bullshiat that "experts" post on linkedin every day. Every. damned. day.


LinkedIn has become unusable.

drewogatory: Rolling Stone hasn't been reputable since well before it changed formats. Mid 80s maaybe? They did ok-ish with the initial post punk, new wave movements (5 stars for the "Love Will Tear Us Apart" 12 inch for instance), but quickly retreated to any novelty act that could claim the slightest relevance.


They had some quality political coverage from 2000s until before the end of the Obama admin

/never gave a fark about their music coverage
 
2022-08-13 4:52:06 PM  
The name thing is just tough for me. I can remember things about people in a brief encounter, but names just escape me in the immediate. I try the tricks mentioned, the blunt a little of it, but not bulletproof.

Two types of bartenders. One knows your name and the other knows your drink.
 
2022-08-13 4:55:03 PM  

OhioUGrad: LinkedIn has become unusable.


it is perplexing.

If you are trying to find a job while unemployed, go crazy on it.

If you are looking for work while already employed, it gets a bit trickier.  Especially since employers flatly ask for your linkedIn profile at application.
 
2022-08-13 5:30:59 PM  

OhioUGrad: Some Bass Playing Guy: This is the same kind of bullshiat that "experts" post on linkedin every day. Every. damned. day.

LinkedIn has become unusable.

drewogatory: Rolling Stone hasn't been reputable since well before it changed formats. Mid 80s maaybe? They did ok-ish with the initial post punk, new wave movements (5 stars for the "Love Will Tear Us Apart" 12 inch for instance), but quickly retreated to any novelty act that could claim the slightest relevance.

They had some quality political coverage from 2000s until before the end of the Obama admin

/never gave a fark about their music coverage


I avoid politics like the plague. Literally nothing could interest me less than the ridiculous cult of personality that surrounds what should be petty bureaucrats.
 
2022-08-13 5:49:11 PM  

Some Bass Playing Guy: This is the same kind of bullshiat that "experts" post on linkedin every day. Every. damned. day.


I love the way they just go ahead and assume that there's one kind of job (something to do all day with computers and emailing and conference calls), that all workplaces consist of the same mix of half a dozen personalities in the same general levels of jobs, they're all in cities and thusly statistically diverse, they all have ideal ladders to climb to advance, and every place has the same kind of "problem employees".  Still, it's a complete meritocracy and the people hired are the best to be found for their positions.
 
2022-08-13 5:51:29 PM  
Bobcat Goldthwait talks about Rolling Stone magazine (NSFW):
Bobcat Goldthwait on Rolling Stone Magazine and Huey Lewis
Youtube tSIkR39Lm5o
 
2022-08-13 6:05:00 PM  

Hyjamon: OhioUGrad: LinkedIn has become unusable.

it is perplexing.

If you are trying to find a job while unemployed, go crazy on it.

If you are looking for work while already employed, it gets a bit trickier.  Especially since employers flatly ask for your linkedIn profile at application.


I've had better luck with Indeed and Dice.

drewogatory: I avoid politics like the plague. Literally nothing could interest me less than the ridiculous cult of personality that surrounds what should be petty bureaucrats.


Good way to keep your sanity!
 
2022-08-13 6:23:19 PM  
Subby, you sucky baby. I'm a tail-end boomer. When I graduated, all the best jobs were taken by people only five or ten years older than me. I couldn't exactly wait for them to retire. Some of them are just retiring now.
 
2022-08-13 7:35:52 PM  
Heard a story about how Eddie Vedder bought a copy of Rolling Stone the first time he appeared in the mag. As he was paying for it he opened it up to his picture and said, "hey, that's me!". The clerk - who didn't speak much English - looked at it, nodded his head and asked, "is that a cycling magazine?"
 
2022-08-13 7:46:17 PM  
Also, wear clean dress clothes to an interview, don't slouch, and speak clearly and properly.
 
2022-08-13 8:04:51 PM  
Sorry subby. I plan on living to 120, and working every day that I can.

You can't have my job. You'll have to find your own. I'm not retiring for you.
 
2022-08-13 8:31:18 PM  
The first album was good. The second album was okay.

Or I don't know maybe I just got high and lost interest.
 
2022-08-13 9:03:24 PM  

lindalouwho: Oh shut up.

/ saw Zep a couple of times in the '70s
// is retired


Same.
 
2022-08-13 9:03:41 PM  
I'm sorry, I don't take job advice from a publication that lies about campus rape.

/Thought we forgot, eh?
//How's Jackie?
 
2022-08-13 10:11:10 PM  
1. Be genuinely interested in others.
No, can we just stick with "no".  Those who are interesting got my attention.  In the fullest measure.  The ones who came to meetings to talk when they had nothing to say should have been transferred to Malta.

2. Make the other person feel important - and do it sincerely.
See #1 directly above.

3. Listen more than you talk.
After the agenda has been read, be ready to enforce said agenda, then listen away.  If you're in a meeting that has a number of (6 to 9) solutions you're in the wrong meeting.
 
2022-08-14 1:41:03 AM  

Hyjamon: OhioUGrad: LinkedIn has become unusable.

it is perplexing.

If you are trying to find a job while unemployed, go crazy on it.

If you are looking for work while already employed, it gets a bit trickier.  Especially since employers flatly ask for your linkedIn profile at application.


I use it to keep a current employer on their toes. I update 3-4 times a month with a new course, cert, portfolio link, or post, and every employer I have had in the last 15 years has called me in to ask why I'm updating linkedin and if I'm job hunting. I also wear nicer clothes to work a couple of times a quarter and go out for a two-hour lunch, just so they wonder if I had an interview.
 
2022-08-14 2:16:12 AM  

KB202: Hyjamon: OhioUGrad: LinkedIn has become unusable.

it is perplexing.

If you are trying to find a job while unemployed, go crazy on it.

If you are looking for work while already employed, it gets a bit trickier.  Especially since employers flatly ask for your linkedIn profile at application.

I use it to keep a current employer on their toes. I update 3-4 times a month with a new course, cert, portfolio link, or post, and every employer I have had in the last 15 years has called me in to ask why I'm updating linkedin and if I'm job hunting. I also wear nicer clothes to work a couple of times a quarter and go out for a two-hour lunch, just so they wonder if I had an interview.


nice. Need to work on the wearing nicer cloths. my 8x8 office with no air circulation has been 82 the past three months.

otherwise...

Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2022-08-14 8:57:16 AM  
They'd like to retire, but the pension was raided for the CEO's personal profits, and replaced with a 401k that tanked due to bad "investments".
 
2022-08-14 8:58:12 AM  

bostonguy: And yet another once-reputable publication goes the route of clickbait to get more readers and website traffic.

I'm also looking at you, Forbes and Harvard Business Review.

Sometimes the quality of an audience is more important than the quantity.


Not according to capitalism; quantity is everything.
 
2022-08-14 9:04:30 AM  

Tyrone Slothrop: bostonguy: And yet another once-reputable publication goes the route of clickbait to get more readers and website traffic.

I'm also looking at you, Forbes and Harvard Business Review.

Sometimes the quality of an audience is more important than the quantity.

Not according to capitalism; quantity is everything.


Take two publications:

1. One has a readership of 100 people, and each reader's net worth is $1 million.
2. One has a readership of 1,000 people, and each reader's net worth is $100.

Which publication has the more valuable audience?
 
2022-08-14 9:32:13 AM  

KB202: I also wear nicer clothes to work a couple of times a quarter


Same. Love the reaction.
 
2022-08-14 11:25:30 AM  
The older Gen-Xers loved Zep more than the Boomers ever did. Rolling Stone had little but scathing reviews of them for many years.
 
Displayed 50 of 54 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.