RS is very entertaining, so I didn't mind the size of the mag.

I never read this magazine on a regular basis, but I like the movie reviews by Peter Travers.

I love Rolling Stone, and I think this is weird! It's not that big of a deal, but I liked the bigger pages, especially when they had good photography.

Good! I found it a bit cumbersome. That's one of the reasons I stopped subscribing to it in the 90's.

I'm mostly glad it's being shrunk cause it was a little hard to manage. But also a little sad cause those big pages were great for collaging with! Oops, my artist is showing.

I always read the mag at my cousins and never found the size to be bothersome or harder to read--I would just fold it in half--no probs! and i always knew what magazine it was from the back or any angle because it was so unique, i was actually just reading it tonight when i was there--so sad that its changing!

I never thought I'd say this but Springsteen look hella hot on the cover, yeah?

well i think that there was something special about the book being larger, but i think that if they are using a better paper stock by going smaller, then it's really a win win.

Rolling Stone lost it's soul years and years ago.

You're so right Great Sommelier.

I boycott Rolling Stone Mag because of how unfair they've always been to Queen. So underated while they praise crap like Zac Efron and company.

It seems like the end of an era and that larger size was cumbersome.
But then, I haven't read this magazine in years, also, unfazed.

I like the smaller magazines, especially for traveling. I usually pick up the UK version of Glamour, because it's "purse-size". I do agree that the bigger size is nice for photos. Shame to loose that aspect, since RS produces some awesome photo shoots.

I actually like the smaller size - allowing for higher quality paper *sort of* makes up for the lack of big photos.

Unfazed, but RS did stand out among others being a larger sized mag.