Last month, venerable Rolling Stone magazine co-founder Jann Wenner sparked controversy when he defended his decision not to include rock legends in his new book “The Masters” in an interview with The New York Times. and roll, only white men.
Published at 1:02 am. Updated at 7:15 a.m.
Regarding female singer-songwriters, he claimed that “none of them expressed themselves in a sufficiently intellectually structured way” and that black musicians, particularly Stevie Wonder, did not express themselves “on a level” of Pete Townshend or Mick Jagger.
“It’s not that they aren’t creative geniuses. It’s not that they aren’t eloquent either. But try having a long conversation with Grace Slick or Janis Joplin, he said. You know, Joni [Mitchell] wasn’t a rock ‘n’ roll philosopher. In my opinion it did not meet this criterion. Neither through her work nor through the other interviews she has given. The people I interviewed were rock philosophers. »
Wenner, 77 years old, could have been content with the claim that his book was interested in artists with whom he was closely connected or with whom he shared certain affinities, even a philosophy. In this case Bob Dylan, John Lennon, Bono, Jerry Garcia, Bruce Springsteen, Pete Townshend and Mick Jagger.
Wenner preferred to explain that, conversely, no living black woman or man was intellectually up to the standards of eloquence that he himself arbitrarily established. This is similar to the definitions of racism and misogyny.
Facing the outcry, Wenner eventually apologized, but the damage was done. He was removed from the board of the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame Foundation, of which he served as president until 2020.
PHOTO MIKE COPPOLA, AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE ARCHIVE
Following his comments, Jann Wenner was removed from the board of the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame Foundation, of which he served as president until 2020.
The former editor of Men’s Journal, another magazine he founded, knew very well what he was doing, answering questions from the New York Times. “For public relations reasons, maybe I should have included a black artist and a female artist who don’t meet that historical standard, just to avoid criticism,” he said in an interview. I had the opportunity to do that. Maybe I’m old fashioned and don’t care. »
Maybe Jann Wenner is so blinded by his privileges that he believes his prejudices to be reality. Perhaps he takes his privileges so much for granted that he thinks he is protected by some kind of immunity. Perhaps for him only political correctness can justify it – what a heresy! – that a black woman or man is intellectually equal to a white man.
Perhaps he did not understand that the impunity of the boys’ club is no longer complete, that the arrogance and stupidity of his words, which he confuses with resistance to right thinking, are no longer as socially acceptable as they were in the last century. I’d be interested to know how much he doesn’t care if his reputation is tarnished by his nonsense…
What seems obvious, however, is that Rolling Stone magazine’s new management doesn’t care at all. On Monday, the magazine that Wenner co-founded in 1967 at the age of 21 – and which he has no longer directed since 2019 – wanted to distance itself en bloc from his controversial comments as part of a comprehensive PR campaign and an unprecedented step backwards. And for a good reason. Not only the credibility of the magazine, but also its future is at stake.
Since the magazine’s founding, the “rock heroes” featured in it have been predominantly white men, current editor Noah Shachtman admits in an editorial. “Rolling Stone clung to the beliefs and cultural blinders of its baby boomer beginnings for decades,” he writes. […] The misogyny and racism of the founding era lasted for a long time. »
Shachtman isn’t the only one trying to demonstrate that Rolling Stone is moving on from the past. Journalists at the magazine also wrote on Monday that they were “not surprised” by Jann Wenner’s comments, so much so that the former editor embodied the excesses of the boys’ club while perpetuating the false idea that the foundations of the rock belonged only to white men like himself .
“I see the over-coverage of Taylor Swift, Selena Gomez, and Harry Styles and think more could be done to highlight Black artists with the same passion,” writes Ernest Owens, a self-described Black, queer, and millennial journalist .
It begs the question: Would we talk as much about Taylor Swift if she were black, rather than a young blonde woman with blue eyes, the archetype of what is attractive in the West in a media world dominated by white men?
“If black lives matter, then black culture must matter,” argues the Black Rock Coalition in a Rolling Stone text that condemns Jann Wenner’s comments and reminds us that the African American contribution to rock does not depend on Jimi Hendrix is limited.
You wouldn’t guess it by skimming the magazine’s famous covers since its inception. The artists celebrated there were most often the image of Stillwater, the fictional group from the film Almost Famous by Cameron Crowe, who has written for the magazine since he was a teenager. “I want to see my smiling face on the cover of Rolling Stone,” sang Ray Sawyer 50 years ago. Her wish was granted the following month, unlike that of many women and minority artists.
Today, Rolling Stone, which lost much of its luster and relevance long before Wenner’s antics, is trying to make up for lost time by giving hip-hop more space, hiring journalists of color, and publishing articles like this recent “List of.” 50 Best Latin Rock Albums.” It’s Olivia Rodrigo who appears on the cover of the latest issue.
IMAGE FROM ROLLING STONE MAGAZINE INSTAGRAM ACCOUNT
Olivia Rodrigo on the cover of Rolling Stone magazine
Is it too little, too late? Can we correct a historical mistake with a mea culpa when the shameful truth of their rock magazine’s philosophy – to return to the “philosophers of rock” – comes to light? Can we save a house from ruin by repainting its exterior when its foundation is crumbling and termites have weakened its frame over decades?
If you don’t care, perhaps Rolling Stone is fundamentally too old-fashioned to adapt to the times. He at least has the merit to try.