Life comes at you fast sometimes. On Friday, the New York Times published an interview by David Marchese with Rolling Stone magazine and Rock and Roll Hall of Fame co-founder Jann Wenner to mark the publication of Wenner’s upcoming book “The Masters: Conversations with Dylan, Lennon, Jagger, Townshend, Garcia, Bono, and Springsteen.”
When Marchese pointed out that the entire list is made up of white males and asked about his method for selecting subjects, Wenner could’ve just stopped at saying it was his “love of them.” But maybe it’s a thing with arrogant, powerful men who bask in the misguided belief that their success was totally of their own doing: He had to keep going. He had to proclaim that Black performers “weren’t in his zeitgeist” and “Insofar as the women, just none of them were as articulate enough on this intellectual level.” An incredulous Marchese tried to let him work his way out of it, but nope. Jann doubled down. Views that had been covered up by others for decades were out into the light and looking pretty bad.
Knowing he’s a putz, I just chalked it up to Wenner being Wenner and went back to my own concerns about Twitter/”X”‘s implosion and the possible loss of a Hall watching community that’s already drifting. I figured there’d be some mild backlash, but surprisingly, it escalated quickly. On Saturday, the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame Foundation convened its board and tossed Wenner by a unanimous vote with the exception of Jon Landau, who reportedly abstained. Wenner reportedly begged his case, but to no avail, and he was left to issue an apology and to say he “accept(s) the consequence.” Rolling Stone itself, helmed by Wenner’s own son Gus, issued a statement decrying the comments. Nice end to a career.
Mary and Eric of the Hall Watchers podcast had JUST dropped an episode voicing frustration with the Hall’s silence of late — I told Mary that if she wanted news, she got it.
Nothing I have to say here is groundbreaking. But is Wenner’s ouster only going to be optics from an organization unwilling to see the tiny steps it’s taken toward inclusivity eroded? An organization with a major award — voted on by Wenner — named for an alleged sexual predator accused of breaking a female assistant’s arm. (An award that only went to a women for the first time last year.)
Or is it going to be an opportunity to face up to the fact that these are the roots from which the Rock Hall sprang? There are those rushing to Wenner’s defense, claiming that he’s being persecuted for an opinion that it’s his right to have. But as Lulu Garcia-Navarro pointed out, Wenner was “the gatekeeper for an entire generation of music.” It’s not just who gets to be in a book. It’s that he’s never seen his viewpoint as a problem, or cared. He was in a position to decide on whom to shine a light and whom to leave in the dark. And those same people are still being left in the dark.
So even as the Hall gets ready for the induction ceremony and oversees a major renovation at the physical Hall, could it come back to take this whole mess a a guidestar for what to do going forward to distance itself from that mindset, forever? We can only be hopeful and watch. But there are some signs it could show us to let us know that’s what’s happening:
- Give Wenner’s place on the Board to a woman of color.
- Rename the Ahmet Ertegun Award (given to non-performing music industry professionals) to its original neutral name.
- Consistently induct women and POC for that honor.
- Continue to nominate and induct women and POC as performers in meaningful numbers. As we progress into the 80s, 90s, and beyond, is 50% of the ballot impossible?
None of this is groundbreaking stuff; it’s just what springs to mind at the moment. The specifics can always be argued. (And argued, and argued….) What’s important is that this bizarre and pathetic moment not be wasted. As Jann Wenner takes his place in the dark, let’s see some steps toward bringing more deserving people out of it.
Iconic Rock Talk Show 