I emailed our editor, Michael Spadoni, prior to our release, that it was quite a fortuitous coincidence that Reax Magazine's premiere issue was coming out the same week as Rolling Stone's 1000th issue. Rolling Stone's Special Collector's Edition sports a garish cover and blatant ripoff of The Beatles' "Sergeant Pepper's Lonely Heart's Club Band" sleeve, daring the reader's rock trivia intelligence of who these people are. Over 150 pop culture icons appear on the cover; thankfully, a silhouette-guided decoder is provided on page 32--hidden among the Hummer and Absolut Vodka advertisements. The celebrity worship drips from the news rack, as if proudly announcing Rolling Stone's 39 year-old history of star-fucking. Like the magazine's content over the last 17 years, the cover is overcrowded with faces and personalities that have nothing to do with music or its relevant history. (Why is Michael Jordan in the crowd? Why is Willie Nelson in the last row? Is Dr. Evil really getting top billing over Woody Guthrie?). The entire self-congratulatory, self-serving piece of glossy pulp is as antiquated as rock's first concept album. Even the high fidelity, three dimensional cover seems so Jaws 3-D, circa 1984 (along with the 3-D ad for Target on the back).

Dr. Hook and the Medicine Show sang about the thrill you get for being on the cover of Rolling Stone. But what thrills did Rolling Stone get for rock stars posing on its covers? Elusive stars like Dylan, Lennon, Springsteen, Madonna, and Kurt Cobain all elevated Rolling Stone to reverential status by posing on the cover. Rolling Stone makes no pretenses that the purpose of the cover photo was to sell units.

Perusing through Rolling Stone's 100 famous covers section of the issue, I am surprised that publisher Jann Wenner went to all this trouble to show his readership a visual degradation of his once proud dream. Like the Medici's of the Italian Rennaisance, he'd had the cultural landscape at his fingertips, steadily on its pulse. Annie Lebovitz, Hunter S. Thompson, Herb Ritts, Cameron Crowe, Kurt Loder, Greil Marcus… an entire Greek chorus of rock's intellectual elite was at his disposal. And Wenner deftly used all of these resources to form one of the first creative critical publications on an often legitimacy-debated but established art form. Rolling Stone began as a ruthless critique of pop music. A 5/11/68 issue featured an exclusive three page interview, and cover photo, of psychedelic blues guitar maestro Eric Clapton, followed by a scorching Jon Landau (staff critic) column calling out the guitarist as the master of cliches of all the post-World War blues artists. Rumor has it that Clapton became physically ill from the piece. (Not the best way to ensure future access to your subjects.)

The early tabloid-style paper of Rolling Stone (much like the paper that Reax uses) did not stop at tearing down the rock music establishment. It was free--and more than eager--to toss hand grenades at American politics. Anxious to skewer Nixon's last days as our executive's branch greatest embarrassment, Rolling Stone was at the forefront of portraying the disgraced leader as a cartoon character. (Although, like Babe Ruth before him, Tricky Dick's reputation has now fallen to second place, eclipsed by the Bonds-ian effort of G.W. Bush).

There were Keith and Mick, standing proudly--and shirtless--on the 1/17/75 cover in homoerotic Roman bathers' poses. Or it was the non-rock punk god Johnny Rotten, whom his own country refused to acknowledge, that Rolling Stone put on its 10/20/77 cover, portending the eminence and soon-to-be downfall of the genre. Lennon appeared on two controversial covers, nude both times; the first time for Rolling Stone's 1968 scandalous cover of he and Yono, nude in their bedroom, unabashedly bottomless. The second time, it was for the morbid Lebovitz 1981 portrait of the naked, spectral Beatle embracing a fully-clothed Ono in their Manhattan condo, the same place where his execution would occur in the entrance of the building just one week later. Both covers encapsulated the beginning and end of a mad independent.

Despite the 1980's having a superficial reputation--and Rolling Stone changing its cover design to mimic Bob Guccione's Penthouse--Wenner's tradition of excellence continued. Peter Townsend, Springsteen, and Prince all provided signposts to the new direction of radio-friendly rock. Even ephemeral celebrity stories, like the 1983 interview of Eddie Murphy, crystallized the seduction of new, politically incorrect talent breaking free from the idealistic and naive notions of the 1960's.

It was not until the 1990's when Rolling Stone began to bloat, like Brandon Davis on too much Ketel One and coke, and the magazine began its US Weekly decline.

Tom Cruise ushered out the decade on 7/12/90, emerging from the glistening Pacific Ocean, with nipples erect in a painted-on wife-beater. While similar to Keith and Mick's pre-Brokeback Mountain theme, the Herb Ritts cover of the apostle of Scientology screamed press release! Cindy Crawford, Pamela Anderson, Jenny McCarthy, and Brad Pitt followed, gracing Rolling Stone's slide into star system adulation. Somehow, Hollywood agents invaded Rolling Stone's editorial staff and staged a coup d'etat. Even relevant music covers became overtly deliberate and obviously commemorative of celebrity culture, like Axl Rose appearing as an obvious Jim Morrison mimic, and the same happened to Nirvana, with Cobain wearing a perfect post-modern ironist T-shirt, declaring Corporate Magazines Still Suck.

Rolling Stone's covers on political commentaries also turned flaccid. For example, President Clinton (12/9/93) and Presidential candidate Al Gore (11/9/00), both posed inertly in front of superimposed backgrounds. Sadly, the 9/11-dedicated issue (10/25/01; it took Jann long enough), now looks terribly hokey considering our nation's current reputation around the world. The design is a single American Flag pin set against a white background; the "Rolling Stone" logo in red, white, and blue. It now draws comparison to so many faux patriotic declarations that erupted after the attacks, and could double as a fourth of July peace time issue.

Tits and ass sold a lot of Rolling Stone issues in the late 1990s. Brittany first gave us a glimpse of hers on the 4/15/99 cover. Pam Anderson--with Beavis and Butthead ogling on--and Gillian Anderson both proffered a healthy dose of cleavage. Italian model Laetita Casta revealed cleavage from both ends in a completely nude 1998 cover. (Not to neglect Jennifer Anniston's blurry bum, though of course her haircut had to be in perfect focus.) Never one to be sexist, Bart Simpson, the Red Hot Chili Peppers (it was very cold in the studio that day), Justin Timberlake, and Kid Rock all provided free nipple shots. But no celebrity nude cover captured the vapidity of Rolling Stone in the 1990's quite like Janet Jackson's 9/16/93 infamous black and white topless shot, with then secret husband and now famous hand model, Rene Elizando, cupping her newly installed bare breasts. Rolling Stone literally achieved what it set out to do from its inception: celebrity pornography.

Much like early Reagan administration MTV, necessity for Rolling Stone became the mother of all invention. Rolling Stone had trouble finding content to fill its pages, and resorted to using its advertising space to recruit contributors (similar to Reax). (Q: How do you think I got my job? A: Nobody else answered the MySpace bulletin.) The results were hungry writers and photographers looking to shake the establishment, like the musicians they covered. However, along the way to record label payola and advertiser preferences, Wenner lost his objectivity in order to compete financially with People and Vanity Fair. Can you imagine a Rolling Stone reviewer today, trashing 50 Cent's Candy Shop in the same issue as he, and his gunshot scars, graced the cover? They could forget about ever interviewing Eminem or Dr. Dre again.

In the last 18 months, Rolling Stone covers have returned to their origins, at least in form. Single portraits and more musicians are now prevalent. But, the effect of this retro reform is a pitiful and sentimental reminder of past greatness. This is metaphorically captured in Bono's 11/5/05 cover, which is doppelganger to Bob Dylan's 1/26/78 cover--two head shots with both icons sporting long hair, shades, and thin goatees. The difference being, Dylan plays up the rock star image, holding back as usual and blocking out his eyes in classic Ray-Ban Wayfarers, whereas Bono's eyes are clearly visible behind tinted bug eyes. Quite fitting, considering Rolling Stone has become as transparent as Bono's signature wraparound shades.

What's sad is that there is still excellent content to be found in today's Rolling Stone. Lebovitz still shoots for Wenner and the political commentary remains liberally critical but reasonably analytical at the same time. And while Rolling Stone will have already moved onto RS #1004 by the time Reax #2 goes to print, it still publishes updates of independent radio and music talent within its pages (albeit in much smaller font).

I am proud to be associated with Reax, because of the opportunity to offer you, the Tampa Bay reader, a platform to explore and voice your musical opinions. Like RS #1, we are passionate about music, and if you are reading this, I can make a safe bet that you are too. The drunk dial feature is not a gimmick; we really want to hear from you. (We just can't promise you a booty call in response--our Sales and Marketing Manager, Chris Kelly, already has a booked calendar.) But, we do want to print your reactions, whether it be a concert review, a slam on the magazine, or an answer to our MySpace bulletins.

I cannot guarantee that Reax will one day hit issue #1000. Nor, what that cover would look like. But, I can promise one thing: if it's in 3-D, you can count me out. That is, unless Janet Jackson needs another hand model.