Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch
The fact that they made him look as glamorous and rockstarry as they could is kind of gross. Whenever we have these type of things happening we always have arguments on the board about bringing these scum into pop culture Icon Status. This is what Rolling Stones tried to do whether they admit it or not.
They could have gone with other covers, they didn't even need him on the cover, yet they did it to obviously pump up sales.
The sad thing is that the people who are on the cover of Stones magazine become pop icons or cool people at least for a while. This is worse then that.
|
They didn't make him look glamourous, he just looks that way.
NY Times used the same picture.