I'm talking about the size of Rolling Stone magazine, obviously! What did you think I was talking about? (Seriously though, if you vote for McCain/Palin I might have to unfriend you on Facebook.)
I've had a subscription to Rolling Stone since I was in high school. I have no idea how I decided on subscribing, or how on earth I'm still getting issues since I haven't paid or renewed for like three years. Actually, I think one year for my birthday three different people renewed my subscription as a gift... anyway—I always look forward to my giant copy in the mail every other week.
Well, now Rolling Stone has downsized it's magazine's dimensions to the typical tabloid size of, well, almost every other magazine on newsstands today. If you want to full rundown on why they decided to make the change and the history of Rolling Stone you can read Jann Wenner's editor's note on the issue. Here's my take:
I mostly like the new size. I think the mag is a good, familiar size. The pages feel more structured and the magazine as a whole feels more substantial. The smaller size means there's more to grab on to. While the dimensions have changed, the three-column articles on most pages hasn't, so it still has that newspaper feel to it, without being newspaper sized. The compact size also means that the new Rolling Stone won't get all jacked up in my bag like the larger versions did. The soft spine and big size lead to many a torn or crumpled page.
The only bad thing about the new tabloid size, in my opinion, is that Rolling Stone feels a little less rock 'n roll in its new skin. It was always rebelling against publicational (so not a word) norms in its bigger incarnation. Now it feels little like "the man" got his hands on it. But I guess using less paper and helping the planet is still pretty cool.
Got an opinion?
Related Things: