|
Post by davey on Sept 18, 2023 14:34:31 GMT
. Talk about an implosion….
Discuss.
|
|
|
Post by adamcoan on Sept 18, 2023 14:40:09 GMT
Why, what did he do ?
|
|
|
Post by davey on Sept 18, 2023 14:50:05 GMT
He’s been kicked off of the Rock Hall committee for comments he made in an interview a few days ago.
He was promoting his book “The Masters” featuring long-form-interviews with Dylan, Lennon, Garcia, Townshend, Springsteen, Jagger and Bono. When asked why he didn’t include any women or black artists he said…
“ It’s not that they’re not creative geniuses. It’s not that they’re inarticulate, although, go have a deep conversation with Grace Slick or Janis Joplin. Please, be my guest. You know, Joni was not a philosopher of rock ’n’ roll. She didn’t, in my mind, meet that test. Not by her work, not by other interviews she did. The people I interviewed were the kind of philosophers of rock.
Of Black artists — you know, Stevie Wonder, genius, right? I suppose when you use a word as broad as “masters,” the fault is using that word. Maybe Marvin Gaye, or Curtis Mayfield? I mean, they just didn’t articulate at that level.”
|
|
|
Post by adamcoan on Sept 18, 2023 14:59:12 GMT
So, bloke writes a book about artists who he thinks are interesting. I don't know if Stevie Wonder is mister articulate or whether Diana Ross is the pinnacle of profound insights.
He said, for him ,he didn't consider any black or female artist that he knew had anything to bring to his book. That's like, just his opinion man. Where's the implosion ?
|
|
|
Post by davey on Sept 18, 2023 15:15:51 GMT
He’s arguing that he couldn’t find one women or black artist as articulate as fucking Bono?
C’mon.
|
|
|
Post by adamcoan on Sept 18, 2023 15:20:29 GMT
I Don't see any argument Davey, it's just his opinion. He has probably met a lot of artists, so, rightly or not, he came to his own conclusion. It doesn't appear that he was coerced into making this admission or he has expressed anything but his opinion.
I don't see an implosion, just a headline.
|
|
|
Post by Charlie O. on Sept 18, 2023 15:38:43 GMT
I haven't read the original interview, and maybe I should do that before commenting, but this is my take so far.
It was an incredibly boneheaded thing to SAY... but thinking about the people in his book, and the people NOT in his book that he mentions, all of whom I've read interesting interviews with (except maybe Curtis Mayfield - I don't think I've ever read a Curtis Mayfield interview)... it seems to me he was going for a particular kind of thing with his book. All of the people in his book (that he mentioned), even fucking BONO, have spoken at length and in some depth about the power of music/rock & roll, about what it does and how it does it. And I can't remember Joni Mitchell or Marvin Gaye or Grace Slick or Stevie Wonder ever doing that, as such. (Maybe they just were never asked the right questions?)
So yeah, it was a really stupid thing for him to say the way he said it, and yeah, the book has a stupid title, but I think that's where he was coming from. For the record, I have no great love for Jann Wenner and don't particularly wish to be his apologist, but that's just how it looks to me.
|
|
|
Post by fearlessfreap on Sept 18, 2023 16:32:25 GMT
I've disliked Wenner my entire adult life, but I'm getting awfully tired of people looking for fights. Wenner has bad taste, he interviews who he likes. Why should he interview people he has no interest in, that's what other writers are for. One of my biggest complaints about Rolling Stone was how they ignored hard rock. It's not like their readers didn't like it, but the editorial staff didn't. How difficult would it have been to get some free lance writer to review or write about popular hard rock acts. They didn't really cover soul all that much either, despite having Marsh and Landau on their staff who were more than qualified to write about it. In this case, however, I see their (his) point -- Rolling Stone readers weren't soul fans.
|
|
|
Post by davey on Sept 18, 2023 16:33:01 GMT
I Don't see any argument Davey, it's just his opinion. He has probably met a lot of artists, so, rightly or not, he came to his own conclusion. It doesn't appear that he was coerced into making this admission or he has expressed anything but his opinion. I don't see an implosion, just a headline. Well - he got kicked off the Hall of Fame committee, which given the fact that he started the Hall, would seem to be an implosion to me.
|
|
|
Post by davey on Sept 18, 2023 16:48:22 GMT
I haven't read the original interview, and maybe I should do that before commenting, but this is my take so far. It was an incredibly boneheaded thing to SAY... but thinking about the people in his book, and the people NOT in his book that he mentions, all of whom I've read interesting interviews with (except maybe Curtis Mayfield - I don't think I've ever read a Curtis Mayfield interview)... it seems to me he was going for a particular kind of thing with his book. All of the people in his book (that he mentioned), even fucking BONO, have spoken at length and in some depth about the power of music/rock & roll, about what it does and how it does it. And I can't remember Joni Mitchell or Marvin Gaye or Grace Slick or Stevie Wonder ever doing that, as such. (Maybe they just were never asked the right questions?) So yeah, it was a really stupid thing for him to say the way he said it, and yeah, the book has a stupid title, but I think that's where he was coming from. For the record, I have no great love for Jann Wenner and don't particularly wish to be his apologist, but that's just how it looks to me. On a substantive level, you could argue this a lot of ways. He may be entirely right that only a handful of white men of a certain vintage are apt to pontificate in a way he’d find satisfying about the meaning of rock and roll. But the lack of other perspectives IS telling. If only a certain kind of person is gonna uphold your narrative, perhaps that narrative isn’t as universal as you think. But he has a right to write a shitty book, so go with Bono. Fine by me. What does him in is the utter dismissal he voices about the black and female artists he cites. The “go have a deep conversation with Grace Slick or Janis Joplin. Please, be my guest” shit and the “they didn’t articulate at that level” shit.
|
|
|
Post by Charlie O. on Sept 18, 2023 16:54:07 GMT
What does him in is the utter dismissal he voices about the black and female artists he cites. The “go have a deep conversation with Grace Slick or Janis Joplin. Please, be my guest” shit and the “they didn’t articulate at that level” shit. I share your annoyance with that, especially given that those two women were in fact very intelligent and articulate. But it's also true that they didn't tend to talk about what I gathered Wenner wanted his book to be about - though again, perhaps Jann simply didn't think to interview them "at that level."
|
|
toomanyhatz
god
I've met him/her. He/she's great!!
Posts: 3,242
|
Post by toomanyhatz on Sept 18, 2023 17:50:32 GMT
Nobody's even mentioning the other content in the interview that's, to me, every bit as problematic. The one where he basically admits to letting interviewees edit their own articles, and making editorial decisions that give friends of his (chiefly Mick Jagger - as a solo artist!) a higher rating than the editorial board agreed to.
So it isn't just that he's arguing that White Men with Guitars are the spokespeople for all that is great about music and culture, it's that he's appointing himself the gatekeeper for who gets to be in the club and who doesn't. I know he started the magazine, and of course he can do what he wants to with it (he actually uses the words "I'm entitled" at one point, because of course he does) but then he can't complain when others push him out of the way when he explodes his own credibility.
Basically, he represents the bloated excess that Rolling Stone magazine once was dedicated to providing an alternative to. Same old story, of course - racism and sexism has always been built in to the structure, whatever the 'revolutionary' claims of its adherents. What I find most problematic is the Trumpiness of it all. Yes, you're right - I'm guilty of all of these things. But I'm rich and powerful, so fuck you.
|
|
|
Post by adamcoan on Sept 18, 2023 17:52:27 GMT
I Don't see any argument Davey, it's just his opinion. He has probably met a lot of artists, so, rightly or not, he came to his own conclusion. It doesn't appear that he was coerced into making this admission or he has expressed anything but his opinion. I don't see an implosion, just a headline. Well - he got kicked off the Hall of Fame committee, which given the fact that he started the Hall, would seem to be an implosion to me. Hall of fame Davy. No longer president of the Arizona cactus club, replaced in the X-factor. I mean, you know ? Whoooo
|
|
|
Post by oh oooh on Sept 18, 2023 17:54:03 GMT
ooh judgement
|
|
|
Post by adamcoan on Sept 18, 2023 18:01:20 GMT
Nobody's even mentioning the other content in the interview that's, to me, every bit as problematic. The one where he basically admits to letting interviewees edit their own articles, and making editorial decisions that give friends of his (chiefly Mick Jagger - as a solo artist!) a higher rating than the editorial board agreed to. So it isn't just that he's arguing that White Men with Guitars are the spokespeople for all that is great about music and culture, it's that he's appointing himself the gatekeeper for who gets to be in the club and who doesn't. I know he started the magazine, and of course he can do what he wants to with it (he actually uses the words "I'm entitled" at one point, because of course he does) but then he can't complain when others push him out of the way when he explodes his own credibility. Basically, he represents the bloated excess that Rolling Stone magazine once was dedicated to providing an alternative to. Same old story, of course - racism and sexism has always been built in to the structure, whatever the 'revolutionary' claims of its adherents. What I find most problematic is the Trumpiness of it all. Yes, you're right - I'm guilty of all of these things. But I'm rich and powerful, so fuck you. Not to go all Goat boy on you but... this is news because he is rich and powerful, and don't we love it when they say they don't want to talk about something that has either forced inclusivity to it, or someone admits that they don't want to include or find the whole spectrum interesting. It isn't Trump like, again it's his opinion. I honestly don't know if he is right or wrong. Tbh, I honestly ,really don't care enough to buy it or read it.
|
|