At some point, we stopped covering Sinead O’Connor. It’s not that she stopped talking or that she stopped being controversial, it’s just at some point, it seemed like she was unwell and – much like the Amanda Bynes situation – the media attention wasn’t helping. Sinead did go away for a little while to get some kind of treatment for what she said was a bipolar disorder. But over the past couple of years, she chimes in on pop culture issues. This week, she’s taking aim at Kim Kardashian’s Rolling Stone cover, which came out on July 1st (I’m just saying, this isn’t very timely). So did Sinead have a problem with the Rolling Stone writer referring to Kim as a “jungle Aphrodite”? No. Sinead had a problem with the fact that Kim doesn’t have anything to do with music. Which seems like… that ship sailed a long time ago.
Nothing compares to shots fired via social media. Irish singer Sinead O’Connor took to Facebook on Tuesday to voice her displeasure about Kim Kardashian West recently gracing the cover of Rolling Stone. She did not mince words.
“What is this c— doing on the cover of Rolling Stone ? Music has officially died,” O’Connor wrote. “Who knew it would be Rolling Stone that murdered it? Simon Cowell and Louis Walsh can no longer be expected to take all the blame. Bob Dylan must be f—ing horrified. #BoycottRollingStone”
While music coverage is what Rolling Stone is best known for, it is a popular culture publication. Kardashian is a popular culture figure and certainly not the first non-musician to appear on the cover.
Yes, Rolling Stone has always been about pop culture, although they are pretty music-oriented. I’m all for declaring a magazine to be “over” as soon as a Kardashian appears on the cover, but pretty soon that will mean we have no magazines left to read. Besides, I’d rather see a “pop culture” figure like Kim on the cover as opposed to Rolling Stone’s Teen Beat-treatment of terrorist Dzhokhar Tsarnaev.
Oh, and Kim does have something to do with music – she’s Kanye’s “muse”. Hahahaha.
Photos courtesy of Rolling Stone, WENN.
What about that pop music masterpiece “Jam Turn It Up” or Out or whatever that caterwauling she did for “fun”.
WOE IS LIFE.
Music is dead… Comic-con is a genocide…
What is there to live for anymore? I feel… So cold…
*faints delicately*
Thank you! What’s with all these rich people whining this morning?
Nice hat.
Haahaa! It’s just too much drama in one day.
Oleanna, Nicole, I know right?? The dramz and the whines seem to be at an unprecedented high in the celebuverse today.
Oh, Shambles, darling, come back to us! We cannot live if you are gone, music is gone, contraception is gone, and something tragic about comic-con that I haven’t read yet…it’s too much! Goodbye sweet world…*faints clumsily pretty much like she does everything else – sorry about your foot*
Well, GNATalicious …. If I am to be the only thread that keeps you hanging on in this cold, music-killing world, I guess I shall ask my cat to give me CPR so that I might return to you. I hope you haven’t bruised yourself while fainting clumsily, you delicate flower, you.
Nope, I’m fine. Your cat must have better breath than mine, is all I can say besides thank you! For coming back to us!
Does anyone know what the appropriate condolence sentiment is for the death of music? Is it a floral wreath? Fruit basket? A Chevy and directions to the Levy?
And to whom should we address them?
Moss on a rolling stone?
“A Chevy and directions to the Levy?”
I’m laughing way too hard at this, oh gracious. I would assume, then, that we should be addressing our death-of-music condolences to Miss American Pie.
This would be a great PlayBoy cover also.
Haha. That is areola I see, right?
Or a sea safety ad. Always remember to bring along your flotation devices.
If you blurred the magazine title and asked me to guess what it was, I’d say Playboy. The jaunty nautical theme and the over the top boobage are totally Playboy.
I agree Wren. We get Rolling Stone and I tore off the cover because my little nieces were coming to visit for the weekend and I didn’t think they needed to see what looks like a Playboy cover. It’s been titty central on the cover of RS lately. I think the last issue before KK was the one with Laura Prepon and Taylor Schilling’s nipples.
That’s exactly what I was coming here to say! She’s wearing Hef’s captain’s hat, boobs out, vacant look… beyond the ‘what is she doing here’ question – who styled this??
I feel like she and Morrissey should team up and be friends. Just think of the things we’d hear about the state of the world today.
Exactly. I’m so sick of people with abrupt world views. They’re no fun at all.
Someone has to say it tho
My mother always told me that if you don’t have anything nice to say then you shouldn’t say anything at all. It’s a pithy and cute saying therefore it must be true.
Rolling Stone has been like that for years though, weren’t the girls from The Hills on the cover (thats the only non music one I can think off the top of my head).
They’re like any publication in this era, trying to stay relevant and keep their head above water and shift as many units as possible. They still do some great interviews, Noel Gallagher’s most recent one being a total gem but then, he tends to do great interviews anyway.
That’s an unflattering picture of Kim Kardashian.
Aren’t they all?
I thought the Kim cover was dumb.. mainly because it was just done to get attention. RS could have featured so many other artist. Artist that never get the opportunity for this kind of exposure. Kim didn’t NEED the RS cover. Why not feature some up and coming Band or some artist trying to make a comeback. Music.. REAL music is dying because all we have now that are so popular are a bunch of (ugh I just can’t find the word) people with limited talent and great PR/Social media appeal.
100% agree Lisa! Bring back bands with instruments, bring back rock! I’m tired of these lip-sync, auto-tuned rock star wannabe’s!
The same argument was raised when Cumberbatch got the Time magazine cover instead of Turing (as that was who they were talking about in the article). Someone on here made the valid point about how he would sell better, it’s sad but it’s true.
I truly don’t think this issue will sell well at all. I subscribe and most definitely will not read this. I flipped it over on the counter as she disgusts me. She is just boring and beyond superficial. Huge turn-off.
People need to stop looking to the media for integrity. They only care about money.
THIS.
Yeah, I’m starting to get that.
Spot on. Tough lesson to learn, though.
Anyone who whines about Queen of the Selfies, Kim Kardashian, on the Rolling Stone cover gets a thumbs up from me. She’s a bore. I don’t care if she is pop culture. She has zero interesting to say. She has no depth. She isn’t an interesting read at all.
Yeah exactly. Something like this can’t go uncommented on!!!
+1
I am with Sinead on this one, also. I know RS lost its integrity years ago, but this still seems wrong to me. And, yes, I am a middle aged music fan who remembers when a RS cover meant something.
Where was Sinead the multiple times Jennifer Aniston was on the cover of Rolling Stone nude?
IIRC, people did complain about that. To be fair, though, Jennifer Aniston and her hair have talent. Friends was a relevant, funny show. I don’t know where it would fit in the history of television, but in its day, it was water cooler conversation.
Rolling Stone committed suicide years ago, music was unharmed in the process.
This. And I’m waiting for Auto-Tune to be on the cover of Rolling Stone.
Yes! Rolling Stone is a mere shadow of it’s former glory. It used to be a force in music, but abandoned that niche long ago to focus on pop culture and politics. I have the CD set with the past issues for 40 years. I love reading the ones from the 60’s and early 70’s. That was when Rolling Stone was relevant.
RS has been irrelevant for years. Pop music HAS died. It’s all auto tuned and no one actually plays an instrument. Rock & Roll will never die.
I am not a Kim fan at all and I don’t particularly like her but it seems to me that people are using her as a punchbag for their own issues.
The only thing I can see is that Kim is famous and these people use her name to get publicity.
Like she doesn’t use people for fame! Please!
I can’t believe I’m about to defend a Kartrashian- but for goodness sake! Rolling Stone may have originated as a music only mag, but it hasn’t been music only for a very long time.
I find her being on the cover of ANY magazine annoying, because I dislike her and everything her family stands for. But to take issue with her being on RS because it’s a “music” magazine? No.
They had the Boston Bomber on the cover. I agree regarding Kim. EXTREMELY boring and I would NEVER buy a magazine with her on the cover no matter what it is.
I’m not a prude but in the grocery store and I saw the cover and it looks like Porn cover. Like a cover that should be in shrink wrap on a newsstand and you have to specially ask for it bc it’s in a high back shelf.
I did think she’s gone too far and so did rolling Stone! It wasn’t sexy, it was over the top a guy takes it in the bathroom while having a good time alone….. She doesn’t need to go that far at this point in her success/ money empire!
Go this far? It’s what she built a career on, being a porn star and living blow-up doll.
I was thinking this is quite a bit of clothing for her. We have seen her naked several times and I am sure there will be plenty more times in the future. These people will go down in history as the family who became millionaires for no particular reason (besides the porn and blow-up doll thing).
This is actually tame for her.
The picture looks like it was shot by Creepy Uncle Terry
Laugh for the week!!! I guarantee there will be complaints after it is openly displayed on store shelves.
I think it was actually
I can’t stand Kim, but calling her a c@nt is really rude. I realize this is a minor point, but it bugged me.
I agree. One woman calling another a c@nt does not help the cause.
The term is used differently in Ireland. I understand your point, but there it is more commonly used and not deemed at the same level of offensiveness as it is here.
Oh, interesting. I didn’t know that. I only use it for the most extreme cases, like my former evil coworker. Lol
Yup. I met a couple Irish people visiting the states who were shocked at how sensitively we treat the C word. They had to learn to censor themselves fast.
Yeah, in Ireland and the UK cunt is like bitch or asshole here in the U.S. It’s not as offensive and sort of an everyday word.
I get that it’s more commonly used in UK/Ireland, but doesn’t it mean the same thing? I mean, it’s still slang for vagina right?
I’m 100% with GNAT. I really just cannot with that word.
You would be less sensitized where it is the norm, even if the meaning is the same. It’s not the biggest insult ever hurled toward someone, in other words. It’s not a word I use, but you need the context of its place in another culture.
As I said above, I understand that but you’re missing my point. It isn’t about the perceived level of offense, it’s the fact that using a woman’s body part as an insult is never ok for me. I feel the same way about p*ssy, which is a very commonly used word here in the US.
The fact that people are desensitized to that word doesn’t make it any more acceptable to me, it actually makes it worse.
Why? Why is it worse than calling someone a dick? Is it because the dick gets more respect? Why isn’t that a more offensive slam? Or how about a-hole, really. That should be the worst insult since the primary function is to release excrement. Or how about calling someone a foot? Maybe using the c word isn’t all that offensive after all, now that I think about it.
I remember reading somewhere that in certain countries, calling someone a dog is the most offensive jab you can make.
It’s worse because d*ck isn’t the equivalent of the c-word. In fact (surprise!) there is no equivalent for men. I mean even “balls” is considered a compliment (“this cake is the balls!”) or a symbol of strength (“man, that guy is tough as balls”) but when has any slang term for the vagina ever been considered anything other than an insult? It’s about the context in which the word is used, Kiddo. I even hear people use the word “vagina” as a way to say that a man is weak, inferior, or less than. Everyone has an asshole, so no it’s not offensive because it’s not specific to one gender that has been historically oppressed and marginalized.
Using any of those words as an insult ignores the history of men using female-specific words like whore, slut, bitch, etc as a way to shame women for their sexuality.
And before I get the “In Britain, both men and women are called the c-word” defense–yeah I understand that but that doesn’t change my mind.
Finally, the c-word is a slang term that is thrown around a LOT in MRA forums. Those dudes have really adopted it as their favorite word to express how little they value women. For that reason alone, it’s not a word that you’ll ever hear come out of my mouth.
If we can’t call Kim a c@nt, then what good is that word? We can’t just waste it, poor kim, she just Can’t Understand Normal Thinking.
D*ckhead?
What a hypocrite I am, huh?
It amazes me that this cover photo is what disappoints people about RS when far more troubling IMO was, as aptly derided by a commenter above, the “Teen Beat treatment” of the Tsarnaev cover photo, as well as the irresponsibly reported UVA fraternity rape accusations.
I guess I was the only one who didn’t have a problem with the Tsarnaev cover. He’s a good looking guy. Good looking guys can be terrorists and criminals. The fact that some might feel conflicted about his appearance versus the acts he committed says something about society, which interests me.
The Kardashian family own the media. The dailymail has a whopping 18 stories about them today. This is lunacy and it has to stop!!!!!!!!!!
Wow, it is like Sinead O’Connor and my husband are soulmates. I think he said the exact thing when this issue appeared in our mailbox.
I don’t subscribe to RS but if I did I would rip the cover off the mag and get rid of any interview pages with that thing!
I will never look at Vogue again because she appeared on the cover.
All of her answers to questions seem so rehearsed. She probably has a daily appointment with someone in the PR biz who gives her answers to questions that may come up.
All this from a sex tape …
If I was a magazine editor that was perceived as to have a bit of class or influence I would not touch Kim or Kylie with a 3,000 ft. pole after seeing the Vogue and now this debacle.
I get they wanted to move issues, but this was just seriously a bad call.
The real question to me is do they really move issues? I don’t think so. Maybe Kylie does if she is on the right teenage cover. Other than that, I don’t think they are as popular as their so called following on twitter and Instagram would indicate.
Oh no, their fanbase never actually buys their stuff. I think for the mags they do it to get free publicity (cuz E! and co. will promote anything they do) and the controversy generates (short-lived) interest.
Rolling Stone magazine was dead long before it put the Kardashian on the cover. Perhaps Sinead didn’t get the word.
Eh, what? Flappin’ Snooki has a RS cover. RS hasn’t been a serious music outlet for almost decades now.
To be fair, that cover isn’t of Kim Kardashian.
It’s of her breasts.
Rolling Stone has certainly put scantily-clad and attractive ladies on the cover before (Christina Aguilera and a bottle of mustard come to mind), but their cover doesn’t usually look like some cheap, porn-adjacent “lads” magazine.
This cover does. Terrible photo; boring subject matter.
I just find it funny that the tag line is “Inside Her Real World”, when there is absolutely nothing real about her. The woman is composed of silicone, random injectables, photoshop filters and plastic.
Rolling Stone’s lack of real, credible journalism for several years now puts the magazine on the same level of cosmopolitan. Why would anyone take a RS cover so seriously these days?
This is the same magazine that put Blake Lively and Leighton Meester sensually licking an ice cream cone on the cover.
I haven’t seen anyone mention this, so I will: Sinead O’Connor sang live at the Ultimate Fighting Championship in Vegas on Saturday night. Yes, the UFC, WTF??? I think that means the Ultimate Fighting Championship is dead.
Sinead has always been hyperbolic and you have to take her infrequent outbursts with the knowledge that she’s teetering on a razor’s edge of mental instability. Rolling Stone has become a venue for celebrity trash but to give it credit for killing music is just silly. Not according to my 500+ CD collection encompassing musicians from pop to rock to jazz to classical to non-classifiable genres, but is nevertheless amazing music.
Keep calm and take your meds Sinead.
I think her distaste of seeing a Kardashian may have been stated in hyperbolic form, but lots of people are sick to death of the Kardashian’s ubiquity, and seeping into all forms of media, no matter the genre. Being put off by this is the very essence of mental health.
Rolling stone really stooped to a low level I or putting this trash on the cover. I never comment on these people but today it bothers me. I am so sick of seeing them plastered everywhere. it says a lot about our society when crap like this is glorified.
To me, music died a long time ago. Disco damaged it and Madonna singing “Like a Virgin” was the nail in the coffin. There are glimmers of good music from time to time but then some new sound or style comes along and stomps it out. In the late 1990s, I asked a teenage boy what type of music he liked and it was the electronic stuff in video games. So very sad.