20
Feb
Rolling Stone Magazine Commercial (1986)
posted by admin in Best of 1986 and have Comments (25)
Tags: 1986, 80s, ad, advertisement, commercial, magazine, Music, Offer, Paul, rolling, schaffer, Stone, Television, tv
25 Responses to “Rolling Stone Magazine Commercial (1986)”
Place your comment
Please fill your data and comment below.
-
Retro Commercials
- Best commercials (9860)
- Best of 1974 (211)
- Best of 1975 (433)
- Best of 1976 (450)
- Best of 1977 (314)
- Best of 1978 (374)
- Best of 1979 (294)
- Best of 1980 (282)
- Best of 1981 (290)
- Best of 1982 (241)
- Best of 1983 (288)
- Best of 1984 (276)
- Best of 1985 (303)
- Best of 1986 (382)
- Best of 1987 (600)
- Best of 1988 (628)
- Best of 1989 (646)
- Best of 1990 (685)
- Best of 1991 (592)
- Best of 1992 (615)
- Best of 1993 (642)
- Best of 1994 (651)
- Best of 1995 (663)
- Retro Commercials videos (410)
- Super Bowl Commercial (1066)
- Uncategorized (1)
- Best commercials (9860)
-
-
Features
Blogroll
-
-
Recent Posts
© Retro Commercials 2010.
(C) Cubica
that magazine is kind of preverted!
“such a gas!”…lol
my bro and i still sing that paul shaffer rolling stone bit. So badass. so just call this number… ooon the telephoooooone and get your subscription to rOOOoOOoling stoooone
Yep, I could really use a picture of Dan Rather (at :58).
In short.. Yeah 60s then 90s best entire decades, but late 70s/early 80s best 5 year period!
I can see the argument for the late sixties as the best time for music.. but it was a very homogenous period stylisticly.
76-81 incorporates the best of the punk movement (Pistols/Buzzcocks/Clash), a fair amount of classic rock/prog rock (Pink Floyd), the birth of electronica (Kraftwerk, Jean-Paul Jarre, Brian Eno), some good pop (Kate Bush), AND amazing post-punk (Joy Division, Talking Heads).
The beginnings of hip-hop/rap, too.
A good discussion going on here. I believe the mid-to-late 90′s was probably the last good era in “pop.” That’s before the Latin invasion, teen female corporate creation, boy-band era of the late 90′s that has changed the tide in music sales demographics to appeal to young teens. With that said, I think the late 1960′s (67-69) was the best era for music.
The 90′s was a more vibrant decade for the UK. There was the obvious Blur/Oasis/Supergrass/Manics/Verve Britpop thing, but also all of the biggest names in electronica – Aphex Twin/Fatboy Slim/Prodigy/Orbital/Boards of Canada/Autechre/Chemical Brothers as well as the more popular dance stuff. Then there was the trip hop scene of Massive Attack/Portishead/Tricky (as well as Bjork etc). Plus with Radiohead and My Bloody Valentine some great alt rock.
I reckon 76-81 was the best era for music.
Too true!
In a similar fashion the 80′s was my favorite decade for music (disregard the poofy hair, loud colors and spandex pants!), whereas the 90′s to me were a bit ho-hum although there were a couple of bands out of that decade I liked.
Yep. But at the same time that’s just an obvious phenomenon: *At the time* you’re flooded with all the rubbish there is about, whereas in reflection only the most critically acclaimed artists are remembered.
However, whereas the 90′s was a superb time for music, I actually DO think the 00′s has been mediocre. There haven’t been many big new bands.. most of the best bands have been bands from the 90′s still kicking around releasing their 5th and 6th albums..
Of course, in musical terms yes!
Yet, I think that with a lot of today’s music, ANY Joe Sixpack can pick up a guitar and make a “hit”!
As a part time musician myself that’s probably why more emphasis is cast on the bands of yester-year than today. There are a few, yet very little of today’s artists can match or even come close to the older musicians no matter how much the media props them up!
They usually end up being nothing more than the “flavors of the month”!
Let’s put it this way: They seem the kind of people that would prefer The Bends to OK Computer!!
(Up to you if you get the drift of that one)
Okay you’re correct in the sense they’re ideological left/liberal (like all arts magazines, really), but I was trying to make the analogy they’re conservative in MUSICAL terms.
It’s a good magazine, but they have a ‘sad Dad-esque’ capacity to immortalise the big ‘classic’ white male rock bands from the 50s/60s/70s in almost bigoted respect, whereas newer, more avant-guarde stuff, eg post-punk, electronica, or even often just post-80′s modern alternative rock, often goes seriously under-rated!
Tomsega,
Sorry my friend, but I have to disagree with you!
Rolling Stone is NOT nor has it EVER been a conservative institution!
They are so far to the left they make that old liquor infused barf-bag Ted Kennedy look conservative!
And from what I’ve heard lately their subscription numbers are about like the New York Times…..way down! As is the case with most of the far left media!
Rolling Stone Magazine is like the musical equivalent of Daily Mail – such a conservative institution! It’s Americana and blue-based rigidity all the way.
Not that NME is any better.
To this day every time I see Paul I think of him singing about Rolling Stone Magazine.
nah. i meant get YO subscription.
Also: The voice over sounds like Alan Kalter of Late Show with David Letterman?
You mean “GET YOUR SUBSCRIPTION”.
Me too:
“So just call this number, on the telephone
and get your subscription to Rollllling Stone.”
Rolling Stone used to be cool, now all they put on the cover are air-headed no-talent bimbos and third rate (c)rap artists. And don’t get me started on Jann Wenner!! (My opinion only, yours may differ)
“get yo subscription to rolllllling stone”
Is Rolling Stone still published? Why is it a marketing tool for corporate entertainment?
The first couple of minutes are missing. But I like Paul Schaffer singing at the end.
$44 for endless cologne ads and obnoxious music reviews. I used to love the magazine up until about 1999. Now it’s just a marketing tool for corporate entertainment. Although, seeing this commercial makes me realize that maybe it has always been that way.