Mostly, I am not a fan of Jann Wenner, especially after reading his autobiography last year or so.  In that book, he showed he is the type of person who gets front-row seats to everything and goes around bragging about it.  Also, in his book, he went on quite a bit about being a sincere environmentalist and then gushed over his own private jet and went on about how he knew he had more or less made it when he was being flown in it all alone. 

Now, I do think the early incarnation of Rolling Stone and up to his selling of it, Rolling Stone was an essential magazine (nowadays it makes me want to puke - I believe we have entered a phase of print magazines where so much of the writing is done by pure assignment to anyone that can string together a few words and is done entirely on the cheap and in a way to push pieces purely for sales figures).

Now for his recent little trouble - it is really pissing me off and here is why - at first, I had a bit of trouble getting to read his actual interview with the NY Times and only saw encapsulated nuggets of his most inflaming comments. I have learned through the years, that when this happens, typically there is more to the story and in this case, that was true again.

Yes, Wenner chose poor words to describe his opinions of ROCK AND ROLL music and his poor choice has clearly propelled this story, but so has the idiotic mass media.  For one thing, to me, interviewers have a responsibility to ask relevant follow-up questions. This reporter kind of missed that boat a bit.  Secondly, word usage is a powerful thing, and too often words are horribly misconstrued and perceived differently by individuals (for example, when I type the word "red," what shade of red does one mentally imagine: a bright red? a crimson red? a light red? or a blood red?).

So, here is my point - after reading the printed interview and Wenner's later follow-up comments, it was clear to me he was speaking of the musicians that spoke ROCK AND ROLL to him.  He was speaking of the artists of ROCK AND ROLL (the reason I capitalize Rock and Roll is because he was not speaking of jazz, country, pop, rap, or other genres of music, but ROCK AND ROLL.

Not only that, but he also spoke of how much time and access he had to the seven musicians he wrote about (I would also imagine the book is purely a way for him to make money because of the interviews, six of the seven have already been published in issues of Rolling Stone).

At the end of the day, it is HIS book about HIS perceptions of those who impacted him the most over a period of decades and spoke to him (literally, metaphorically, spiritually, et cetera) regarding ROCK AND ROLL. 

Take Jimi Hendrix for an example.  Any fan of Rock and Roll knows and understands his importance to this genre and of his influence, but time-wise his existence in the era of rock and roll is quite limited, and to me, it would be understandable if being unable to state his influence on an individual would be as powerful if he was still around today.

Now, let's throw in Jackson Browne - yes, I am a fan of his - to me, Jackson Browne, though very well known, is an artist who does not receive the amount of accolades for his contributions to rock and roll that I feel he deserves (and most likely because of a very few number of incidents in his life that we, as fans, actually know very little of). For an example of just how under the radar his influences go, I believe it is in the documentary on the music of Laurel Canyon where Don Henley speaks of Browne's huge influence on the Eagles (a band I am not a fan of).  And then, there is the whole California singer-songwriter genre and how he is still producing influential and relevant music to this day.

We all have our "masters" when it comes to things we are passionate about and to me, to demand a person who is going to write a book about "their" masters include those that don't really resonate with them is quite disingenuous. 

And like I stated, I am not a fan of Jann Wenner - frankly, he should have let Rolling Stone die rather than sell it, which has allowed it to turn into the garbage it is today (seriously, pick up a current issue and compare the content to what was once in it back in the 80s, 90s, and up to when Wenner sold it). 

Hell, it's like owning a Corvette and putting a Ford Festivia engine in it and claiming because it still looks like a Corvette, it is still a Corvette.