"I've just finished reading the Rolling Stone Article on
PearlJam and Eddie Vedder. It breaks my heart the way
they tear apart Eddie. I really don't think Rolling Stone has
the authority to carry out such a thrashing. There are many
points in the article that I take issue with. "First off, on a
personal note, it was painful that those writers
had to exhume Kurt to build up their case against PearlJam.
R.S. opened up a can of worms. No one was above or
below receiving a negative perspective from Kurt. No one.
Some were printed, some weren't. I'll assure Rolling Stone
that a quickly penned message on a T-shirt was the least of
it. I'll tell you this though, if Kurt knew someone was
personally hurt by his words, he truly felt bad. God bless
Kurt.
"It seems like the magazine believes it has license to use
Kurt's name to illustrate any point it wants to make. A few
months ago it was a reefer madness, anti-drug hysteria
article against Seattle. Now they dig up Kurt to slam one of
our exemplary community leaders. This belligerence and
disrespect annoy me. "What standard is R.S. basing its scrutiny
on? For R.S. to judge PearlJam or Eddies credibility, in
regards to the revolution, is a complete ruse. If not the
revolution, then what are they holding him up to? I have
original copies of the earliest R.S. magazines. I love them. 30
years ago they had something to say. Today, the magazine is
pop culture and political status quo. Why did R.S. move
away from it's original mission? It did so to keep up
with it's demographic. R.S. may be successful, but is it real?
I'd like to quote a true revolutionary, Jesus Christ, who said, "It
is better to have not known me than to have known me and
turnedaway".
"R.S. turned away long ago. Rolling Stone magazine doesn't
have the authority or credibility to judge anyone."
--Krist Novoselic