The greatest five star rating of an undeserving album by ROLLING STONE.

 No, it’s not the one for Taylor Swift’s THE LIFE OF A SHOWGIRL (which I streamed most of), written by Taylor superfan Maya Georgi.  Not linking to it here, but the tone is essentially Taylor Swift is the greatest and I love everything of hers forever and always.

Here’s schmitt, from his list of 500 worst ROLLING STONE album reviews, discussing Parke Puterbaugh’s enthusiastic overvaluation of The Who’s underwhelming (Roger Daltrey famously disliked it) 1982 album IT’S HARD, which, apparently, Jann Wenner must have determined unpannable since The Who were in the midst of what was envisioned as their this-is-it farewell tour:

Rating: 5 Stars
"It figures. Just when the Who had ceased to matter much – the band members having channeled a lot of their power and volatility and commitment into solo careers, employing the Who chiefly as a vehicle to take a greatest-hits revue on the road – it figures that they'd make their most vital and coherent album since Who's Next. It's fitting that It's Hard is a great record because, given the inverted world of Pete Townshend's mind, it's what you were least expecting." (Parke Puterbaugh, 9/30/82 Review)


The Who formed in London in 1964. The band featured Pete Townshend on guitar, Roger Daltrey on vocals, John Entwistle on bass, and Keith Moon on drums. For the next fourteen years, this lineup didn't change.

The band was notorious for their raucous behavior and in-fighting that was even rumored to have become physical at times. Yet each of the four members were insistent that if any of them were to leave the group, the Who would cease to exist. "I don't think it would carry on," Keith Moon told Melody Maker's Chris Charlesworth in the 4/22/72 issue. "It would naturally fall apart."

Pete Townshend, the Who's principal songwriter, agreed. "[W]e're lucky to be together today, to be the same four blokes we always were," he remarked to Dave Schulps in the April '78 issue of Trouser Press. "Because when you've known and worked with four people for 15 years, in the end you've got a power no one else can get unless they wait 15 years."

Yet to many observers, by 1978 Townshend's famous adage "hope I die before I get old" was really beginning to seem like an albatross for the group. Townshend himself announced upon the release of the band's eighth album, Who Are You, that he was done touring with the Who. "[T]he Who now seem to consider themselves tired and old," Ira Robbins observed in a 1978 issue of Crawdaddy!. "Who Are You is a tired and old album, one that scarcely does them justice."

On September 7, 1978, Keith Moon died from an overdose of Hemineverin, a drug prescribed to him to treat symptoms associated with alcohol withdrawal. He was thirty-two years old. 

One might have thought that this event would have been the impetus for the Who to finally disband after years of decline, but oddly enough, it had precisely the opposite effect. Indeed, Townshend now professed a renewed interest in the Who. "Ironically, Keith's passing was a positive thing," he told Chris Welch in a 1/27/79 interview with Melody Maker. "I feel now there is a tremendous open door and I feel very excited about the fact the Who is a well-established band with a tremendous history, but suddenly we're in the middle of nowhere – a new band. I'm really excited about it."

Towshend later described his reaction to Moon's death as "immediate and completely irrational, bordering on insane" in his 2012 autobiography, Who I Am. Roger Daltrey concurred in a 1994 interview with Goldmine. "Keith was such an extraordinary drummer, to try and replace him was just ridiculous," he said.

If Moon's passing had briefly rejuvenated Townshend's flagging interest in the band, the effect seems to have largely dissipated by their next LP, 1981's Face Dances. By this time, Townshend seemed destined to follow Moon to an early grave, having descended into an abyss of alcoholism and drug addiction. Townshend was in rehab when the band started work on their tenth album, It's Hard. "In my absence, The Who had started recording at Glyn Johns's new studio in the country, with Andy Fairweather Low standing in on guitar," Townshend recalled in his autobiography. "I felt pressure to jump off the plane from rehab and join them directly, [but] it wasn't until 3 March that I drove down to meet everyone."

"Much had been said in the press about what I had or hadn't delivered to The Who as its major songwriter, but I wanted a brief from them, some guidance," he continued. "My head was empty."

The guidance Townshend sought was not forthcoming. Daltrey and Kenney Jones, Moon's replacement, advised they wanted to perform songs about "the important issues of the day", an idea Townshend dismissed as crazy. It is little surprise, then, that the results of these sessions were nothing short of disastrous. Roger Daltrey, in particular, was unsatisfied with the album. "When Roger heard the final mixes he wanted to hold it back, because to his ear it didn't really feel finished," Townshend said. "But with the tour closing in on us we were running out of time, and I persuaded him to let it stand."

Townshend made the rounds upon the record's release, assuring the press that the band had been completely revitalized in the process of making It's Hard. "Recording has rejuventated us," he told Chris Salewicz in the November '82 issue of Creem. "Not so much in musical terms, but in the sense of standing together and saying that we're prepared to actually change the way that we live, and the way that we operate, if it will make a difference. The new Who songs are violently aggressive, the most aggressive stuff we've ever come up with. The songs that I've written are totally preoccupied with the danger and tension of living in the 80's. And that is the common attitude and stance that the band has."

"It’s Hard should never have been released," Daltrey retorted in 1994. "Pete had just come off detox and he was really looking for help. We did It’s Hard in the studio and the band was rehearsing before Pete got out of the clinic just to try and keep a vibe up, to try and support Pete. But when the album was finished and I heard it I said, 'Pete, this is just a complete piece of shit and it should never come out!'"

"I hated it," he continued. "I still hate it. Hate it, hate it, hate it!"

Mick Farren panned this album in his October '82 review for The Village Voice. "Townshend's alternating need to know (remember 'The Seeker') and need to confess, Entwistle's seeming distaste for all the trappings of stardom, and the general erosion of age seems to have produced a standardized late-model Who song that's long, wordy, medium-paced, based on an over-extended guitar or synthesizer figure, and lacking in both hooks and genuine power," he wrote. "I fear that It's Hard – and it's a terrible thing to find yourself saying about the Who – sounds like an album that was made because it had to be, with little to offer bar sluggish, warmed-over riffs and midlife angst."

Meanwhile, Parke Puterbaugh gave the album a five-star "classic" rating in Rolling Stone, describing it as the band's best effort in more than a decade.

In later years, many critics were unsparing in their assessment of It's Hard, which was widely regarded as an unmitigated failure. "This record should never have been released," Steven Rosen wrote in 2007, echoing Daltrey. "It is ur-Who, a particularly nasty strain of music that bears only a marginal similarity to the original band. And if money had never been a part of the equation before this, it did pose its ugly snout here. The album represented one of three records contracted to the Warner Bros. label. Everything that plagued Face Dances infects this one: poor production, half-hearted performances, and sickly songs. Townshend had been hoarding all the notable tracks for his own interests, and thus, his own solo records of the time are far better representations of the recorded works."

Mark Kemp rated It's Hard two-and-a-half stars in the fourth edition of the album guide: "by the time of the aptly named It's Hard, the Who had lost all inspiration."

New Poem: KEN BURNS AT BOHEMIAN GROVE

WELL. WHY SHOULDN’T I GO THERE?

because old (mostly white) boys still run the world

and I make long TV shows

about old (mostly white) boys

with occasional girls in support

.>

please don’t ask me about Jann Wenner

Summing up Jann Wenner’s Boomer-centric racist/sexist comments.

David Marchese of THE NEW YORK TIMES got ROLLING STONE co-founder Jann Wenner to admit that there is no place for Black and female artists in the Wenner pantheon because of “articulation.”  So Joni Mitchell, Grace Slick, Janis Joplin, Stevie Wonder, Marvin Gaye, Curtis Mayfield and Otis Redding were relegated to nevers or also-rans.

Regarding Jann Wenner’s criteria for Caucasian male rock star myth/legend status: there are people who want to be mythic and pursue validation by someone Important (Bono, Bruce Springsteen).  And then there’s Jann chasing already mythic Dylan, Lennon and Jagger with the hunger to be validated by them.  

And here’s Wenner’s part-apology, part don’t cause my book to be pulled statement:

In a statement issued late Saturday by a representative for Little, Brown and Company, the publisher of his book, Mr. Wenner said: “In my interview with The New York Times I made comments that diminished the contributions, genius and impact of Black and women artists and I apologize wholeheartedly for those remarks.

“‘The Masters’ is a collection of interviews I’ve done over the years,” he continued, “that seemed to me to best represent an idea of rock ’n’ roll’s impact on my world; they were not meant to represent the whole of music and its diverse and important originators but to reflect the high points of my career and interviews I felt illustrated the breadth and experience in that career. They don’t reflect my appreciation and admiration for myriad totemic, world-changing artists whose music and ideas I revere and will celebrate and promote as long as I live. I totally understand the inflammatory nature of badly chosen words and deeply apologize and accept the consequences.”

When ROLLING STONE grades/re-grades rock artists on a curve.

Links to various album reviews that have appeared in ROLLING STONE demonstrating the magazine's determination to "come through" for artists delivering albums that aren't universally acclaimed on original release.

First, founder Jann Wenner pre-emptively strikes critics of Bob Dylan's 1979 gospel album SLOW TRAIN COMING: http://www.rollingstone.com/music/albumreviews/slow-train-coming-19790920

Last year, David Fricke overrates Bruce Springsteen's grab-bag HIGH HOPES:
http://www.rollingstone.com/music/albumreviews/high-hopes-20140106

Paul Nelson's lukewarm review of The Rolling Stones' SOME GIRLS:
http://www.rollingstone.com/music/albumreviews/some-girls-19780810

The above is later reversed by Rob Sheffield's gooey, gushy five-star review of its reissued version:
http://www.rollingstone.com/music/albumreviews/some-girls-deluxe-edition-20111121

Greil Marcus dismissing Bob Dylan's 1978 STREET-LEGAL:
http://www.rollingstone.com/music/albumreviews/street-legal-19780824

Jann Wenner throwing Nelson and Marcus under the bus for not bowing to Greatness:
http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/love-in-vain-dylan-and-the-stones-in-the-seventies-19780921

Finishing with the all-time-classic miscue of Parke Puterbaugh giving The Who's IT'S HARD five stars in 1982: http://www.rollingstone.com/music/albumreviews/its-hard-19820930

Predicting the 2014 Rock and Roll Hall Of Fame inductees.

http://mobile.avclub.com/articles/nirvana-hall-oates-the-replacements-and-more-nomin,104297/?mobile=true

Here are my predictions for the Final Five:
1. Nirvana
2. Chic
3. Peter Gabriel
4. Hall and Oates
5. Yes

Link Wray and The Paul Butterfield Blues Band will get some kind of subsidiary recognition.

Billy Joel says his old music is "juvenile"--giving inadvertent finger to longtime fans.

In 1982, Billy Joel took an artistic leap forward with the album THE NYLON CURTAIN.  As a result, he wanted to ensure he'd read good reviews from rock critics instead of bad ones.  So, around that time, a more-positive relationship was created between Billy and ROLLING STONE. 

Prior to that, Billy Joel received variable reviews from the biweekly publication.  Positive ones overall for THE STRANGER and 52ND STREET, but then the late Paul Nelson dinged him for 1980's GLASS HOUSES.  If memory is correct, Nelson wrote that Billy came off like "a drunken fratboy putting the make on an airline stewardess."

Anyway, Billy got good treatment from ROLLING STONE hereafter.  He retired from making pop/rock albums in 1993, but would occasionally tour.  And Sony/Columbia reshuffled Billy's existing song catalog to dribble out hits compilations, live albums, album reissues and one rarities-dominated box set to the fan base.

And for the past twenty years, Jann Wenner and ROLLING STONE have continued publishing Billy Joel stories, regardless of valid readership interest.

This week, there's another Billy Joel one-page puff interview in ROLLING STONE (the issue with the cover story on Rihanna--haven't read it yet but I'm assuming it tries to spin the Chris Brown re-relationship in a positive rather than pathetic victim-goes-back-to-victimizer way).  It avoids mentioning the 412th compilation (this time of love songs), but centers on good notices for Billy's participation in recent NY hurricane benefit shows.

And then Billy Joel proceeds to call his pre-retirement music "juvenile."

This longtime fan's blood pressure went up upon reading that passage.

The logic is: it's okay/financially and morally defensible to keep making money by having Sony repackage the old "juvenile" music, but Billy can't be bothered to, say, create a second "adult" classical album or even another Broadway show (remembering the Twyla Tharp dance concept show MOVIN' OUT from the previous decade).

Fine if he wants to be Charles Foster Kane shuffling in ultracomfort between Manhattan and Hamptons Xanadus.

But if Billy Joel wants nothing more to do with actively creating music for ears other than his own, then it should be time for him and Jann Wenner to can the solipsistic crap periodically appearing in ROLLING STONE.

Guessing the 2013 Rock and Roll Hall of Fame Final Five.

http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/rush-public-enemy-deep-purple-nominated-for-rock-and-roll-hall-of-fame-20121004

http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/music/2012/10/04/2013-rock-hall-of-fame-nominees/1610957/

Here's my guess (having read ROLLING STONE since 1975) as to the artists making it into the Jann Wenner-curated Lifetime Achievement Club:
Public Enemy
Rush
Donna Summer
Heart
Kraftwerk

Laura Nyro's son and this year's Rock and Roll Hall of Fame ceremony.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rogerfriedman/2012/03/22/rock-hall-of-fame-wont-invite-laura-nyros-son-to-induction-ceremony/

In one of life's little ironies, this appeared on the website of FORBES magazine, which Bono has a part-ownership in (also keep in mind the handle-with-kid-gloves approach of ROLLING STONE to recent U2-related projects like the disappointing recent album NO LINE ON THE HORIZON and the SPIDER-MAN musical).

Roger Friedman, when formerly employed by Fox, was critical of the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.

Curious to see how strong the editorial firewall at Forbes.com will be.

UPDATE 5/7/12: I'm in the process of watching the 2 1/2 hour HBO version of the 2012 ceremony and was happy to see that Nyro's son accepted her award after the heartfelt induction speech from Bette Midler. 

Criticism--and the supersensitive/vindictive reaction to it--in rock and roll.

Recently, I read the late Paul Nelson's book of interviews with Clint Eastwood--CONVERSATIONS WITH CLINT.

Now, I'm onto EVERYTHING IS AN AFTERTHOUGHT: THE LIFE AND WRITINGS OF PAUL NELSON (edited by Kevin Avery).

Some choice tidbits from the book:
Stephen Holden on artists who Jann Wenner considered sacred cows in ROLLING STONE:
"Jann would insist on positive reviews for his personal friends, including Boz Scaggs and Art Garfunkel, in particular, and Jimmy Webb.  They got lots of coverage and they always got positive reviews."

Paul Nelson's personal friendship with Jackson Browne (Browne's album THE PRETENDER was a Nelson favorite) came to an end when Nelson panned J.D. Souther's (Souther is now probably best known for songwriting--with hits for the Eagles and Linda Ronstadt--rather than his singing/recording career) album YOU'RE ONLY LONELY.

From the review:
"These days, J.D. Souther is mostly a parody of the sensitive California singer/songwriter.  He's calendar art, the aural equivalent of a Kodak color slide: leaves turning in the autumn as photographed by Felicia Filigree of Vassar.  He's so lazy that too often his songs have trouble holding even the most cliched poses, because their creator can't be bothered to supply the necessary conviction, much less any at all. 'If you don't want my love/Well, there's nothing I can do.' he mewls, sounding like he's mildly annoyed because his Perrier is getting warm."

Don Henley wrote an angry letter to ROLLING STONE (keep in mind that ROLLING STONE was then considered THE major rock magazine) that began:
"Paul Nelson's blade seems to be getting too big for him to carry.  He's so busy being cute and is such an obviously biased little prick, he invalidates his own reviews."

Then the book goes on to recount a conversation Nelson had with Jackson Browne concerning the Souther album:
Jackson Browne: "It was if he had wasted his time [two years] making this record.  It was as if his first record, which you liked, was made last week, and this week he didn't do so well.  Now, I don't think that's the job of the reviewer--if you don't mind my telling you your job this once.  I think often reviewers are given assignments and they write about something and they might not care for the thing.  They may be actually pissed off that they have to write about it, and that anger gets handed over to the artist."
Paul Nelson: "If I don't like John David's album, I dont see anything wrong with my saying that I don't like it."
Browne: "By the end of the review, I still didn't know why you didn't like it."
Nelson: "Because I thought it was real narcissistic."
"You know," Browne snapped his fingers, "that can be said just like that.  I disagree.  But I think it could be said without cultural references like Perrier and the amount of money one might have made."
"I wanted to shake him up," Paul shot back, "Which I told you in advance when we talked, that I thought--"
Browne: "No, you didn't tell me in advance.  You told me after you'd written it and before I had read it."

The punchline to this SoCal rock story:
Jackson Browne read the review of the Souther album and called Nelson "and demanded to know how he could've written such a thing."

Nelson was planning on writing a Jackson Browne biography before the Souther review blowup and Browne killed the project, saying "Well, I don't see how we can do a book now.  I couldn't go and do a book with the journalist that had savaged my friend."

And that's how people behave when they have money and the stakes are higher than, say, the poetry community (where similar behavior occurs too).

Rock and Roll Hall of Fame: those who haven't made it into Jann Wenner's lifetime-achievement club.

http://www.telegram.com/article/20110317/COLUMN09/103170664/

And, from Wikipedia's article about the Hall:
The main criticism of the Hall of Fame is that the nomination process is controlled by a few individuals who are not musicians, such as founder Jann Wenner (who has filled the position of managing editor for Rolling Stone magazine), former foundation director Suzan Evans, and writer Dave Marsh, reflecting their tastes rather than the views of the rock world as a whole. A former member of the nominations board once commented that "At one point Suzan Evans lamented the choices being made because there weren't enough big names that would sell tickets to the dinner. That was quickly remedied by dropping one of the doo-wop groups being considered in favor of a 'name' artist...I saw how certain pioneering artists of the '50s and early '60s were shunned because there needed to be more name power on the list, resulting in '70s superstars getting in before the people who made it possible for them. Some of those pioneers still aren't in today."[19] According to Fox News, petitions with tens of thousands of signatures were also being ignored, and some groups that were signed with certain labels or companies or were affiliated with various committee members have even been put up for nomination with no discussion at all.[19] The committee has also been accused of largely ignoring certain genres.[20] According to author Brett Milano, "entire genres get passed over, particularly progressive rock, '60s Top 40, New Orleans funk and a whole lot of black music."[21]

Regarding the above paragraph from the Wikipedia article: It could be safe to say that Neil Diamond received his Hall pass at least due to his contributions to 60s Top 40--the new collection of his 66-68 Bang Records period (in Mono) is worth buying/downloading

Re passing of Lamar Fike--Elvis Presley entourage member.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110219/ap_en_mu/us_obit_memphis_mafia_member
http://www.amazon.com/Elvis-Albert-Harry-Goldman/dp/0070236577
http://www.amazon.com/Elvis-Albert-Harry-Goldman/dp/0070236577
http://wn.com/Albert_Goldman
Lamar Fike was one of the sources for Albert Goldman's bile-filled 1981 biography of Elvis Presley titled ELVIS.
Pro-and-con views of Fike on an Elvis fan site:
http://www.elvisnews.com/news.aspx/lamar-fike-passed-away/13116

Elton John and Billy Joel pass messages to each other through Jann Wenner.

http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/billy-joel-responds-to-elton-johns-tough-love-in-the-new-rolling-stone-20110202

Some background: Billy Joel (and his music) used to be routinely hammered by ROLLING STONE until 1982--when, from the release of THE NYLON CURTAIN onwards, he was treated with more reverence.  For awhile in recent years, it seemed like no issue of RS would go by without some kind of reference to Joel's comings-and-goings.

With regards to Elton John's comment about Billy Joel's creative stasis: I myself wonder why Joel doesn't at least try to write new songs for, say, a Broadway-intended musical.

It's a lot better than drinking, wrecking cars and self-sorrow.

Jann Wenner hits a huge low: a special ROLLING STONE Jonas Brothers issue.

I guess I should have seen it coming, given the tendency of ROLLING STONE to regard the teenpop act Jonas Brothers (now currently on a Disney Channel series that channels, in style, episodes of THE MONKEES) as legitimate-because-they're-making-money rockers.

But, a couple of hours ago at my local Costco in Northridge, CA, I discovered IT in all its malign banality.

Yes. Jann Wenner and Wenner Media just gave the world a ROLLING STONE Jonas Brothers special issue

Wenner didn't do this in the 90s for Hanson--which, if I remember correctly, got more respect from rock critics.

Wenner didn't do this in the 70s for The Osmonds or David and Shaun Cassidy. They only received articles and/or cover stories at best.

But now Jann Wenner, chasing preteen dollars, has devalued the ROLLING STONE brand in supplicant service to a teenpop group [and their Svengali father] which, earlier this year, had a less-than-successful foray into concert moviemaking (even with the power of the Walt Disney Company behind them).

As Sylvester, Jr. used to do in Warner Brothers cartoons, I will now put a paper bag over my head and say: "Oh, the shame of it!"