Rolling Stone

Uncensored History of Rolling Stone is written by a journalist removed from the magazine whose information comes primarily from input given by many people comprising the ever changing  staff from its birth in 1967 to roughly 1989.  The current and (many) former staff’s wealth of information creates an overly comprehensive history (some of which I really don’t need to know about) that revolves around one man- founding member Jann Wenner- and essentially all of his whims.  As the story goes, Wenner wanted to be where all the glamour was, hanging out with rich friends and begging to go all the great parties when he wasn’t necessarily welcome in such high circles. He was a superior networker who worshipped people like Lennon, Dylan, and Jagger in the 60s; his ultimate goal seems to have been to meet them and to be among people like them. When he convinced his father figure friend Ralph Gleason, a music journalist characterized by his belief in the healing, mystical, and all seeing powers of music (clearly partial to a psychedelic 60’s reasoning), to join him in making a magazine, as well as convincing others to support him financially, it was all most likely to meet these figures and to become one of them, to be the “ultimate groupie”.  The details divulged in this “uncensored History” include all of the intense business deals that had to be made to keep the magazine afloat, what seemed to be the constant changing in and out of employees and the unceasing shuffling of roles,  plenty of cocaine and speed, and overall a hectic system that left little room for sleep.  In this hairy mess of negotiations and principled writers who actually made the magazine, a few things came to my attention.

            There were few aspects and people of the Rolling Stone as presented in this book that I have either learned from or wish to think about further. Being a total fan about your subjects brings politics into the reviewing process, and it could potentially make the magazine into a sort of place for idol worship;  What I really got out of this book was how many people Jann collected and how he saw that his success depended on all the people that he sucked up to.  While the magazine was in publication, he would specifically instruct his reviews writers to write positive reviews for his friends or people that he wanted to be his friends, and in turn his writers, like Ed Ward, would write passive aggressive endings like “In the end, this is an album that, the less said, the better” (132 about a Bob Dylan album).  My volatile hero, Chuck Young, had to fight for what he wanted to write, especially since he was coming in as a reviewer toward the end of the seventies, a certainly dry period for rock n roll, but also the beginning of Punk Rock, to which he fastened himself. Jann would always tell Young to “quit writing about Punk Rock!” for “Jann’s tastes were either social (Jackson Browne, Boz Scaggs and other recent cover subjects), or sentimental (Dylan, the Beatles, and the stones), and in both cases antiquated.” (my italics)” (280).  Whereas James Cameron, the 15 year old boy writing for Rolling Stone, “embodied all the traits of mid seventies American Rock- amiable, unoffensive, and enormously successful,” (271) Young sought to “smear the cult of celebrity that so infatuated his boss” (277). He did so with humor and constant deconsecration to get his point across., using his spot to ask, “which would you rather do; read another ‘random note’ about Mick Jagger or pull your own teeth?”  which received favourable response from staff members and readers alike (288). Wenner even admitted that Jagger thought it was funny.   Young is my ideal rock and roll journalist because he holds nothing sacred.  He has no political attachments that would inhibit his ability to critique an album or a musician thoroughly and honestly. That is pretty hard to come by in a magazine, especially one whose life depends on record company endorsement and subscriptions as well as multiple other companies who put up their add space. The more people whose money goes into the magazine, the less space the magazine has to work with.

            It seems as if in some cases the Rolling Stone’s hands were tied, especially if Jann Wenner was aware of the effects of print.  But in terms of politics, Jann was pretty a-political- if anything only because he had no interest, or he didn’t have a clue. If Hunter S. Thompson hadn’t come on to the staff, the Rolling Stone would have perhaps stayed a lukewarm magazine uninterested in Politics.  Jann once thought that the world should be run by a good business man, exhibiting his total ignorance.  Rolling Stone’s political stance was that of Thompson’s.

            Jann Wenner had a very specific vision for his magazine- one which largely excluded African Americans and ugly people on the staff and in the magazine.  Africans Amercans were either ignored or “black music- despite Landau’s presense [probably the only writer who gave black music a chance] despite 1974-75 music editor Abe Peck’s varied tastes and depite the occasional brilliant profile…-was usually discussed only with great discomfort” (270)  They hated disco in the 70s, which claimed to have a “different audience, blacks and gays and women” (270).    He was also known never to hire someone because they were particularly ugly.  One female staffer who was not conventionally beautiful was not allowed to be in the company photo. (216)

            A woman was welcomed into the office, and if she could “get the job done, so be it” (217).  However, most women were stuck bringing Jann coffee or were subject to sexual harassment, save the photographer, who was able to hang out with the boys.  After Marianne Partridge was hired to be copy chief, she “changed the dynamics of the office forever”, and gave these women official jobs. (217)  Before Partridge, Women were not necessarily restricted forcibly, they were neglected, and their roles were just assumed.