Recent abhorent comments made by Rolling Stone co-founder are a reminder that music journalism still has a gatekeeping problem.
My magazine of choice was the more alternative Spin. It was easier convincing my mom to shell out for an annual subscription to the magazine than it was to get her to pay for cable, for MTV.
I learned about Radiohead, Elliott Smith, Portishead and Weezer from Spin. It was through its pages thatThe magazine was foundational in the development of a large swath of my personal music tastes. It wasn’t my holy bible — during my teens I would also steal copies of Vibe and the Source from my older cousin to satisfy my hip hop needs — but it certainly influenced me enough to pursue a career in culture journalism years later.
But even though I preferred Spin, it was never lost on me that the magazine was trying to replicate the past success of Rolling Stone. It wasn’t derivative per se — Spin did a much better job at covering Black and female artists — but it was certainly following the mold that made Rolling Stone a cultural symbol for the boomer generation.
When Marchese asked about the lack of Black and female musicians in his book, Wenner defended himself by saying that these artists weren’t “articulate” enough to make his cut.Never mind that many of the so-called “masters” in Wenner’s book owe much of their success to Black musicians — just ask Mick Jagger how important blues legend Howlin’ Wolf was to him.
“Our purpose, especially since his departure, has been to tell stories that reflect the diversity of voices and experiences that shape our world,” the statement read.