Every few years, the old "Is rock dead?" question gets rolled out for a volley of pointless arguments in magazine articles and letters columns. Until they stop making guitars, the answer will be an emphatic no, but because the question keeps getting asked, you have to wonder if a lot of people actually do want rock dead. Magazines such as Rolling Stone and Spin typically cover the usual pop stars and concede minimal coverage to hip-hop and dance music, mostly to save face and stay somewhat hip: Notice the way the latter waited for Moby to sell two million albums before he graced its cover, as if Play weren't great a year ago. The status-quo "sales equals coverage" strategy is slowly instigating a backlash, with many seeking what the rock-centric magazines aren't offering. Is it any wonder that Urb and XLR8R, which exclusively cover dance music and rave culture, have grown in prominence? The new, higher-profile Revolution isn't ashamed of its staunchly anti-rock stance; at the very least, its name reveals its allegiances. But the magazine's second issue goes all out in making its point with the feature "The 50 Albums That Killed Rock." (Note the supposition that rock is already dead.) The list includes beat-centric releases drawn from the past 30 years, from disco to Depeche Mode through Sasha & Digweed, though the magazine wisely includes such non-dance discs as Bob Marley's Exodus and Public Enemy's It Takes A Nation Of Millions To Hold Us Back. Revolution's writers don't justify their choices in a grander context—each entry is more or less just a review—but the individual records do stand as touchstones of some sort. Unfortunately, the rest of the magazine isn't terribly interesting, nor is it as diverse as its peers. Niche markets are dedicated, but they can be saturated. If rock ever does die, dance magazines will be capably supported by a giant new generation of music lovers. Until then, Revolution will struggle to be special.