Joan Jett Blasts Rolling Stone

[Marvster]

Don't know if this has been posted yet, and don't know if it's actually from Joan Jett, but it's a helluva letter. Marv ----- An Open Letter to Rolling Stone by Joan Jett. (This letter was written to Rolling Stone after their "Women in Rock" issue was published, but was not printed by their editors. Please forward it to all the rocking people you know!) I tried to find some cleverly worded way to express my disgust with your "Women in Rock" issue, but what i have to say is really quite simple: You guys are completely retarded. By RS standards, Rock is no longer a style of music but a trendy costume to be whipped up by expensive stylists and slapped onto the latest pop tart barbie doll. Give a girl some tight pants and a spiky bracelet and POOF! She ROCKS! Your poor choice of cover girls and featured artists brings to mind the Sports Illustrated swimsuit editions. There is nothing necessarily wrong with the breast-baring models inside..but we all understand that they have NOTHING TO DO WITH SPORTS--Which just might be offensive to women who are interested in sports or who might even be (gasp) real athletes. Yes, Britney has a talented stylist and yes, somebody gave Shakira a Guns & Roses t-shirt to wear..but they ARE NOT NOW NOR WILL THEY EVER BE ROCK. Maybe it's naive of me to expect any glimmer of rock'n'roll credibility OR respect for women from a magazine whose cover shot is regularly a naked underweight actress. The thing is, I AM a woman musician with a rock band, and as we all are I am STARVED for any little crumb of recognition that real women rockers might be thrown. So like a sucker I find myself short another five bucks ..and pissed enough to write my first letter to an editor. Avril Lavigne gets some studded accessories from Hot Topic so now she's "upholding the brazen tradition of teenage outrage"???!! Are you SERIOUS? And could someone please explain to me why people keep insisting on referring to PINK as rock? Wasn't she doing the white girl hip hop thing a minute ago? Yeah, she performed on the Aerosmith tribute show --big deal..she was on the Janet Jackson tribute show just before that--Whatever's trendy. WHO CARES. She's a Spice Girl reject...but I digress. Jewel and Mandy friggin' Moore have full page features as Rock Icons...Meanwhile Joan Jett gets one line. ONE LINE. Joan Jett & the Blackhearts, who have never stopped touring, recently did 10 days in the Middle East playing for the troops stationed in Afghanistan. In AFGHANISTAN, Joan would come onstage wearing a birkha, which she ripped off and stomped on before blazing through the purest and nastiest rock show ANYWHERE. But even in the RS WOMEN IN ROCK issue, a story like that gets ONE SENTENCE on the bottom of the last page of Random Notes. Britney's Rock credentials? Well, she butchers the song "I Love Rock'n'Roll" on her latest record, and when asked about it the genius replies "Well, I've always loved Pat Benatar." And SHE is your Rock issue cover girl?? You should be REALLY embarrassed. Sleater Kinney was the only rock group listed on the cover..and they got only half a page. Ashanti, the r&b back up singer who can't seem to do anything without "featuring Jah Rule," has two pages. What about the Donnas? The Yeah Yeah Yeahs? The Distillers? A mag like RS has the power to shine important light on groups like these-- instead they are afterthoughts, and that valuable spotlight is wasted on the same overexposed pop princesses WHO HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH ROCK. In your own letter from the editor you have the hypocritical balls to say "rock radio won't touch female artists, while the pop factory keeps churning out soundalike clones, and ambitious musicians with something to say find themselves left out in the cold." The pages that follow those words are a blatant display that Rolling Stone magazine is happily working for the factory now too. If the issue had been called "Women in Music"..or maybe "Some Cute Girls with Top 10 Records out Right Now"..I would have no beef with it. Corny as it may sound, ROCK is something which is still meaningful and even sacred to some of us. Use the word "rock" in bold letters next to a picture of Britney Fucking Spears, and you're turning your whole publication into a joke...and an offensive joke at that.

[Franknputer]

Wow - I think my opinion of JJ just went up a couple notches. :)

[freddynl]

It's time to buy some cd's of Joan Jet!

[G. Ratte]

Oh hell yeah! Joan Jett is a real rock icon. I've seen her play twice and she kicked ass left and right. Was listening to "I Still Dream About You" the other day, one of smaller hits...awesome. Her stuff is usually AC/DC-esque hard rock but a lot catchier than anything else I can think of. The Donnas are also rad, and probably the best of the "The..." bands, ha. 'cuz the guitarist understands blusey riff-rock and putting SPACE in the rhythm, unlike those anemic pussy-boy strummers in The Strokes, etc.

[jackpine]

Ya just gotta say ... right on Joan

[wraub]

Strong words indeed, and just about what I thought of that issue of RS. One question, though. If this letter was written "by" JJ, why is she referred to in the third person? Editorial license? Just curious... Peace, wraub

[Anderton]

There's one thing I like about the "new" Rolling Stone: I can get through it in 10 minutes, the old ones used to take up too much time to read. And they finally got rid of that boring old William Grieder! Hey, who wants to read about ECONOMICS and POLITICS in a hot hot hot trendy publication? You'll also notice they have a rad new spelling checker that not only fixes spelling errors, but automatically replaces words that have more than 4 syllables with easier-to-digest equivalents that have only one or two syllables! I also like their new "almost everyone gets three stars" CD review policy. I mean, why make anyone feel bad, y'know? (Of course, for record companies that don't advertise in the mag, you can safely get away with 2 stars.) And that picture of Christina Aguilera a couple issues back with the Paul Reed Smith guitar...wow, what a statement! Surely Richard Avedon must be green with envy that he was never able to produce such profound, moving photographs. Yes, the "new" Rolling Stone sure is peachy! Now I feel totally in tune with that "phat" pop culture of all the "kids!" NOT.

[Anderton]

Okay, enough sarcasm. Look on the bright side: David Fricke still writes for them.

[Marvster]

[quote]Originally posted by Anderton: [b]And that picture of Christina Aguilera a couple issues back with the Paul Reed Smith guitar...wow, what a statement![/b][/quote]Wouldn't you love to see that on the cover of an MI mag ... just once? The mail would keep you occupied for months. Marv

[Kaz]

supposedly, the letter was not written by her, but an assistant or manager or something. hasn't rolling stone been a cheesy teen mag for at least 20 years? i sort of think joan jett is pretty cheesy, too, isn't she?

[Meriphew_dup1]

Rolling Stone sucks. Has for a long time.

[deanmass]

RS has sucked monkey ass for a long, long time... WTF happened to CREEM??/ THAT was a ROCK mag...

[Shawn1272]

The hypocrisy of Rolling Stone is reaching new heights. Don't you love it when they put a no talent hack such as say....Jennifer Love Hewitt on the cover, proclaim her as the new "IT" girl, interview her as if she has something intesting to say AND THEN...completely rip her record apart in the review section of the very next issue. Classic. I don't have a problem with loving Miss Hewitt. I also don't have a problem with hating her record. But pick one. Either run with this tabloid mentality towards music with magazine sales being the top priority OR stick to your guns and actually write about and review music that actually matters. Whoever wrote that letter to the editor hit the nail on the head. Rock on Joan. S

[alcohol]

There were other reasons to buy Rolling Stone other than the William Grieder articles?

[nursers]

Kerrang is the only rock mag worth reading :)

[pumpcat]

[quote]Originally posted by zork: [b]i sort of think joan jett is pretty cheesy, too, isn't she?[/b][/quote]Joan Jett is the absolute antithesis of cheesy. She's been playing great, honest, no-bullshit Rock music for over 25 years. Hell, she was Punk before Johnny Lydon met Malcom McLaren. I've seen her perform several times, and I even had the honor of opening for her band a couple times. I personally think that she ranks up there with the best of the best Rock & Roll entertainers. She is a great Rock singer, plays a mean rhythm guitar, and has written and produced more great records than any of those ass-wagging wanna-be lip-synchers will see in their mercifully short careers.

[surfmonkey]

[quote]Originally posted by Anderton: [b] I also like their new "almost everyone gets three stars" CD review policy. I mean, why make anyone feel bad, y'know? (Of course, for record companies that don't advertise in the mag, you can safely get away with 2 stars.) [/b][/quote]Not to get completely off subject here. But that's a big complaint I have with both Bass Player and Keyboard Magazines. In fact they stopped using a rating system completely, and now give us this nebulous warm and fuzzy overview, without a wiff of actual opinion. Anyway, Joan Jett Rocks!! Back to Rolling Stone bashing...

[Duhduh]

Does anyone even read Rolling Stone anymore? Didnt they start sucking when Cameron Crowe left? ;)

[Alndln]

I forgot about Rolling Stone "and" Joan Jett over 20 years ago.Was this letter some sort of trick to remind us?

[remainanon]

I've always loved JJ, and whether it's her or not, she's absolutely right. Rolling Stone "Women in Rock" is a bit like People Magazine's "50 most beautiful people" issue. Each page is bought and paid for. Don't kid yourselves. Still, if they print it they should be able to stand a good, solid bollocking! JW

[Jotown]

Hell yes, I posted a thread on this topic the day I saw the cover: [url=http://www.musicgearnetwork.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=008838]Women In Rock![/url] I am not a big fan of Joan Jett, but she surely has more to do with rock than any of the chicks featured in that article. Whoever wrote that letter made a great point very eloquently. I guess I was just being too nice. :mad:

[strat0124]

[quote]Originally posted by pumpcat: [b] [quote]Originally posted by zork: [b]i sort of think joan jett is pretty cheesy, too, isn't she?[/b][/quote]Joan Jett is the absolute antithesis of cheesy. She's been playing great, honest, no-bullshit Rock music for over 25 years. Hell, she was Punk before Johnny Lydon met Malcom McLaren. I've seen her perform several times, and I even had the honor of opening for her band a couple times. I personally think that she ranks up there with the best of the best Rock & Roll entertainers. She is a great Rock singer, plays a mean rhythm guitar, and has written and produced more great records than any of those ass-wagging wanna-be lip-synchers will see in their mercifully short careers.[/b][/quote]Amen......

[The Bear Jew]

OK... Joan Jett = ROCK. Period. Pure attitude and balls to the wall. I'd give her head in a hearbeat. However.... Rolling Stone hasn't been relevant to music in 20 years or more. I think most people who give a shit about music already know this. As a music writer, Rolling Stone has chapped my ass for a long time -- there's almost nothing related to music in it anymore! Basically, RS is an advertising machine for pop culture crap and big record labels. That's why the records reviewed in RS never get trashed or overly praised -- RS's writers are specifically instructed not to trash anything for fear of pissing off the labels who advertise and losing potential ad revenue. The thing is, Joan Jett (or whoever REALLY wrote this letter) should have already known this... Ranting about RS being a sucky music magazine is like complaining that Micheal Jackson is GETTING weird looking. He's been weird looking for fuckin' years! It's not news, and neither is the fact that RS is a shitty music rag. Want REAL music news? Check out some of the underground mags: Punk Planet, No Depression, Maximum Rock N' Roll, Flipside, Magnet, etc. There are other options out there. As with anything, you have to dig a little to get to the good stuff. BTW, Joan Jett rocks so much that a Japanese band named Guitar Wolf named one of its albums ([i]Jet Generation[/i]) after her... he band's singer (Guitarwolf Seji) says the music gives people "jet feeling." They also wear "I Love Rock N' Roll" t-shirts all the time. Fuckin' Joan Jett.

[Lee Flier]

Ya know... I stopped caring about Rolling Stone many years ago and have pretty much considered them irrelevant but you know what? I'm still really glad somebody took the time to blast them over this. She's totally right - whether we like it or not, RS IS a magazine that is read by lots and lots of people and COULD be used as a vehicle to draw attention to some deserving artists. Instead they go out of their way to profane the meaning of the word "rock" and give more airtime to those who already have way too much of it. Those who know better just continue to ignore and dismiss such blatant ridiculousness, assuming that everybody else thinks it's irrelevant too, but obviously a lot of people DON'T. It's sad, it's scary, but it's true. So good for anyone who bothers to point this out. BTW we have a National Guardsman on these forums who is currently stationed in Afghanistan, and was there when Joan Jett played there. I'm not the biggest fan of hers but that definitely took a lot of guts to go over there and make the troops' lives a little happier. I put some of his photos up on a web site which you can see [url=http://what-the.com/adam]here[/url] , including a pic of Joan. Rock on Joan, and a big honking thumbs down to Rolling Stone.

[Gtoledo3]

The thing I HATE is that , in an effort to hold on to at least one shred of dignity, you can bet they will totally tear down one of the artist covered in their features section when they are subsequently covered in the "album reviews" section. Last issue it was Audioslave; "...the sum is less than the parts," or some bullshit. And it's pretty damn disingenious to give a Boston album one star for sounding like Boston. C'MON!!! Or when they review AC/DC; " These guys just keep making the same album over and over again- 1 1/2 stars."

[Jeff Klopmeyer]

Lee's the only person who has actually referred to the case in point: what the hell is rock? Rolling Stone may suck, may not, who cares. But I am every bit as disturbed as Joan (or whoever wrote the letter) at the way that the word "rock" has expanded to include any type of popular music aimed at the youth. I have a pretty damn broad definition of rock myself. But like the letter says, the majority of the artists included in that issue of the magazine are not rock artists by any meaning of the word! Hip-hop, pop, dance music...it's all fine. But "rock" is based on sound...not fashion. Perhaps next time, RS can call this bi-decadal issue "Women who make popular music" instead of mistakenly lumping them all under the rock genre. - Jeff

[doc taz]

[quote]Originally posted by nursers: [b]Kerrang is the only rock mag worth reading :) [/b][/quote]Don't forget the [url=http://www.terrorizer.co.uk/]TERRORIZER[/url] !

[RobT]

Makes me wish CREEM magazine was still around ...

[KHAN]

I've never been a fan of Joan Jett's music, but I have a bazillion times more respect for her than any of the current crop of [i]"Rolling Stone Friendly"[/i] [b][i]ARTISTS?????[/i][/b]. I got a RS subscription as a Christmas Present back in the late 80's, and thought it sucked back then. I can't even imagine how bad it sucks now.

[Sylver]

If I'm at the doctor's office and have a choice between RS and practically anything else, I will pick just about anything else. So, if you see me in a doc's office reading McCalls ...