Rolling Stone Put Miley Cyrus on Front Cover Over Nirvana and Pearl Jam

Magazine's latest issue features stories of Seattle rock legends, yet Miley makes the cover.

Ultimate Guitar

Despite featuring stories about 20th anniversary of Nirvana's final record "In Utero" and grunge veterans Pearl Jam, Rolling Stone editorial decided to give Miley Cyrus the advantage and place the controversial young pop star on the front cover of upcoming issue, Alternative Nation reports. The Nirvana feature piece consists of an interview with the band's former drummer Dave Grohl and his memories of final conversation with late frontman Kurt Cobain, while the Pearl Jam article revolves around vocalist Eddie Vedder and the group's upcoming tenth studio effort "Lightning Bolt," due out on October 15. Ever since this year's MTV Awards ceremony, Miley's been in the public limelight, with even some of the prominent rock figures touching on the matter of VMAs. Dave Grohl gave his opinion regarding "rock is dead" comments in one of the ceremony reports, while Queens of the Stone Age frontman Josh Homme took a quick jab at Cyrus, announcing a "twerk-free" show at the same venue. The same source also included footage of Miley's 2011 "Smells Like Teen Spirit" live performance along with a snarky question: "Could she be an early candidate to front Nirvana at the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame?" So did the magazine disrespect the icons or should young stars get the advantage? Let us know in the comments.

YouTube preview picture

63 comments sorted by best / new / date

    And is anyone actually surprised..?
    yup rolling stone is full of crap
    To be fair, it makes more sense in terms of Rolling Stone being a contemporary periodical. The front cover has to be 'the talk of the moment'. Plus, the magazine isn't exactly about rock 'n' roll music. It's more about the rock 'n' roll image. But yeah, it's a load of crap and can someone cut that ****ing tongue off already? We've had ample opportunity!
    I read rolling stone, but I am mad at them for putting miley on the cover instead of nirvana. One to celebrate their 20 year anniversary of In Utero, and two theres a whole article on them.
    Nero Galon
    I think she forgot how to wear clothes?
    and how to use her tongue ... its all over the place in all of her pictures
    It's like that one part of 21 Jump Street where they take the drugs and the gym teacher keeps saying,"Put your tongue back in your mouth"
    I don't get why people would buy Rolling Stone anyway. Why not just get real toilet paper? It's cheaper and comes clean, because Rolling Stone is already full of s**t. Let's see... RS... Terrorists, awful pop products and those meaningless, awful "top 100" lists..
    Haha yeah that 100 greatest guitarists list they made was really quite laughable. Seemed like level of fame was the determining factor in that list.
    Miley Cyrus quite literally repulses me. I've always thought she was gross looking and now she's even worse. Ugh.
    One of many reasons why I've always believed The Rolling Stone is an insult to rock.
    i nearly threw up when they suggested she front Nirvana at the Rock n Roll Hall of Fame
    RS put the Boston bombing suspect on their cover, so my expectations are very low. I don't buy their crappy rag.
    I think UG is trying to incite a revolution, although at this point I'd seriously welcome one.
    I was done with these douchbags since the terrorist cover. Now i know they just plain dont care anymore.
    I mean, honestly, is anyone actually surprised? While Nirvana and Pearl Jam, for me, are way more important than Miley Cyrus, this can't come as a surprise to anyone. And to be honest, I wouldn't be too surprised if they'd put a picture of Bin Ladin on the front with the text saying "Recent discovery made in cave in Pakistan: Usama Bin Ladin rapping to a dubstep backtrack!"
    Hardcore Pearl Jam fans have very low expectations of Rolling Stone anyways. Last time they ran a major story on PJ they ended up putting Eddie on the cover by himself despite having promised to use a band picture. I'm surprised they even contributed to this piece but I don't think I'll lose any sleep over skipping it. That being said, I think it's stupid for this site to try and turn this into a controversy. The Boston bomber kid was a whole different matter and Rolling Stone hasn't been a relevant magazine for rock & roll music and culture for a LONG time
    After some Rolling Stone reporter tweeted "Rock is dead" following the Miley Cyrus VMA shit, Dave Grohl retweeted him with a picture of one of his sold-out shows.
    And not a single person is surprised, they put Dzhokhar Tsarnaev on the cover for Christ's sake. Rolling Stone is just another tabloid in my opinion.
    I'm not a fan of Miley, RS or even Nirvana for that matter. But I'd rather see something new on the cover than the same ****ing Nirvana or Pearl Jam or Led Zeppelin picture every time.
    Considering that Rolling Stone is a magazine that focuses on popular culture as a whole and not only in rock music, I'm not surprised. Her latest music video caused quite a shitstorm. (PS: I'd still bang her)
    Just tweeted Rollingstone "It disgusts me that you would spit on nirvana's significance in pop culture and put cyrus on the cover. Never buying 1 again, no cred." But seriously rollingstone...F*ck you. May sell a few more copies to tweens and prepubescent boys who cant buy a porn mags...but this just sullies their reputation... Huge sellouts - corporate dickheads
    I think she's front cover cause she's more eye-catching then grohl, Grohl just dont listen, I want DAVE GROHL IN THAT POOL INSTEAD!
    She looks like Jimmy Darmody now. Not attractive at all. And people actually still care what Rolling Stone have to say? That's about the same as getting offended when the WBC get on their high horse. They are both irrelevant money *****s
    She's not even hot. She lacks the muscles in her tongue to keep it in her mouth, add to that the shaven haircut and she looks like a lesbian giraffe. Just sayin'.
    Well younger musicians should get an advantage sometimes in order to promote them, you know, get them out there and make them known. But Miley Cyrus is well known enough, though some would argue that Nirvana and Pearl Jam are, too. Whatever, I personally prefer the latter two
    That's not the case here. It's just another publication cashing in on the Miley hype. Nothing new at all. Before her it was Lindsey Lohan and Britney Spears. Nothing to do with promoting new talent. Just Rolling Stone making a buck from talking about the latest media skank. Of course they'll try and argue that she's got a "rock n roll attitude" and she's the closest thing we've got to a "real rockstar" but that's totally transparent.
    I'm sorry. I have nothing against Miley Cyrus really. She's just another teenie bopper trying to be crazy. But in my opinion (humble as it may be), if you're going to perform any nirvana song, may it be her or anyone else, please do it right. Not just nirvana, but any band. You can try to make it your own as much as possible, but with her, it's not possible. She wasn't even alive when the song came out!
    So if I play some Django Reinhardt, I'm a piece of shit and disrespectful cause I wasn't alive back then? Get the **** out..Her cover was fine.
    Listen up everyone you unforgiving artist hating good lookin' sons o' bitches, I think as maybe shocking as her appearance and musician vibe may currently be, I think for a pop star to go bonkers and become different is kinda cool. Like, no, most of her songs belong in the very depths of hell but it's good that she's making her own image regardless of how "shameless" it is. And to be honest, how Rolling Stone are still milking Nirvana for stories is beyond me. For once they've got something to talk about, and whoever said that Rolling Stone was focused on certain genres of music! Everyone relax and take a deep breath and remember that it's also refreshing to see train-wreck musicians talked about by rock magazines!
    Rolling Stone is an irrelevant piece of shit for the most part, so who cares? Everyone who would be interested about In Utero's 20th already know about it and just about anyone else can cover Pearl Jam's new album.
    Well we are living in the past guys. Sure what about led zep cover. John B died this month few years ago.... like it is just rolling stones rolling with the times they think are changing. any of you read the dam thing? the tripe that they print!!!! it has not been a good mag since the 90's!!!!!
    Yup, this pretty much sums up the state of music in this country. Bands that actually write their own music, and have/had actually worked hard for success get overshadowed by this manufactured bull***t. Nirvana even fell below "The War on Gay Teens" . . . I thought this was a music publication first, and social commentary second. F**k Rolling Stone.
    i, i...i really just couldnt give a **** any more. its bullshit like this that makes me not give any ****s about what goes on in society, because clearly society doesnt give a **** either
    I've known for years that Rolling Stone's "Top x" lists were pure bull, and this just reinforces that attitude for the entire magazine.
    This is a prime example of how much society has degraded over the years. We like listening to "music" that talks about sex drugs and partying! I really hope Nirvana or another major makes a mainstream comeback to correct humanities faults. Kurt we need you here on earth!!!