Jann Wenner’s Rolling Stone: Jagger, Dylan, Leibovitz & More

CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, HOST: Music has long been an outlet for social and political change. And our next guest has documented the industry for decades. Jann Wenner founded “Rolling Stone Magazine” and defined a whole generation of artists. He was instrumental in the careers of people like photographer Annie Leibovitz and the writer Tom Wolfe. Now, he is detailing his own life in a new autobiography that’s already a “New York Times” best-seller. To reflect on rock and roll and the iconic magazine, he speaks to Walter Isaacson.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

WALTER ISAACSON, HOST: Thank you, Christiane. Jann Wenner, welcome to the show.

JANN WENNER, AUTHOR, “LIKE A ROLLING STONE: A MEMOIR” AND CO-FOUNDER, ROLLING STONE: Thank you, Walter. It’s an honor to be here with you.

ISAACSON: So, November 1967, the first issue of “Rolling Stone”. That was a real transitional henge (ph) year. What’s happening in the Bay Area in the late 1967 period to is protest movements, the Free Speech Movement, the politics, also drugs. I mean, everybody is on acid (ph) that whole time, and rock. What Rolling Stone does, in my opinion, is help bring together politics, rock and roll, protest, and even the drug culture of the time.

WENNER: I think that is absolutely correct. I mean, that started to emerge earlier than ’67, it just kind of sprung to life. But when I went to — when I was in Berkeley in ’65, it was the beginning of the Free Speech Movement and there was the emergence of the drug culture which spread wildly through the Bay Area. The Hells Angels were also in town. The Black Panthers were getting ready to go. The (INAUDIBLE) start. And you had the emergence of music as this, kind of, culture. Culture, of course, in the kind of — form of communication among all these people, among young people, among youth people. Where they were involved in the protesting or not. It became the tribal telegraph. I mean, you could only speak to other young people at time through the radio, through their jukebox. Otherwise, magazines weren’t open. Newspapers, films, television you wouldn’t read about any about — any of these stuff in the establishment press. And the establishment press’s attitude towards music was — it was a bunch of teenage stuff, you know, or a bunch of stuff that’s kind of, like, not very respectable, not very worthwhile. The kids — these kids with long hair. But music became the glue that held the generation together. And we were — we came along with FM radio, you know, all these other mediums. The vehicle for communication, for spreading this word out. And it was the mixing of those cultures which you just identified, together which gave us what we now call the ’60s.

ISAACSON: This book, “Like A Rolling Stone”, is incredibly candid and open and honest. And even at the beginning, you talk about being at boarding school. I guess, your parents, kind of, sent your away. But dealing with your sexuality, you had a girlfriend but you liked a boy there. Tell me what it was in the late — in the ’60s to have to deal with sexuality and being gay?

WENNER: Well, I think — when I was growing up, we don’t really have to deal with it unless it was some overwhelming passion you had to, I guess, be gay. Because you kept that secret and we just — that was it, you had no choice. In those times, in the ’50s, I think it was hard to remember, but men could get arrested and sent to jail for having sex. I mean, when you think about it now, it’s incredible. I mean —

ISAACSON: But did that affect you to have to keep it a secret?

WENNER: Not really, you know, you just — I didn’t have any —

ISAACSON: You sure?

WENNER: I don’t think it did. If it did, I — no — more damage for it. And I like women plenty, you know. I didn’t — wasn’t feeling depressed or deprived. A little conflicted, a little confused, you know. There’s nowhere you can really turn to for advice. There are no role models. There’s nothing like “Will and Grace” on TV or any open discussion of it. It was simply illegal and not done and that was that. And so, you know, just keep your mouth shut. But you made another point about honesty in the book, which I appreciate. I made a decision to just be very frank about this, and to be very frank about the use of drugs throughout this period — for a long period of time because I think these were essential parts of the generation, essential parts of our time. I didn’t have anything new to say about coming out or being gay, you know. But the fact it existed and it was — that co-exist among others was important. And it was important to, I think, indicate the incredibly large role that drugs had in the generation. You know, from the joys of LSD discoveries, to the pot, to the damage of cocaine. But, you know, in the — not unlike the ’20s, the jazz age and the prolific use of bathtub gin and other prohibition alcohol. But — and — that was an age soaked in drugs. And this too was a time soaked in drugs. These drugs, from my generation, more like LSD than, like, alcohol.

ISAACSON: You say that “Rolling Stone” was not just about the music. In fact, I think you write that in the very first addition of “Rolling Stone”. What you mean by that.

WENNER: I meant that I thought the music was more about than just fun and the dancing, and the beliefs and the freedom of it. It was carrying a message. I mean, it was carrying a very clear message about philosophical and ethical message about the way we should behave. As people — the way we relate to other people. How our values are actually towards societies, you know. This notion of the alienation of — to the hypocrisy of society, of the adult society, which we were looking at. This is not about life celebrating (ph) the pursuit of happiness which had told us we were going to have in the message (ph). We — we’re going up, we’re finding open racism everywhere. We’re fighting like this crazy attitude about drugs. We’re finding — you’ve shunned us for a long year. And I thought that “Rolling Stone” should be about those issues and about those things. And it every quickly began. I mean, our readers somewhere — had been enlisted in Vietnam. You know, we’re involved in all the important issues and we came out of student protests, as well as music and drugs. And I thought, everything went together, came together. And I mean, certainly, you look at Dylan and what he was writing and what he was singing about, and you see it all come together.

ISAACSON: Well, Dylan, he gives you the phrase, like a Rolling Stone. And he’s very much a character in this book. Tell me about your relationship with Bob Dylan.

WENNER: My relationship with Bob, I got a hold of early on because I really wanted to interview him. I felt the mission of “Rolling Stone Magazine” would never be completely fulfilled if we didn’t chronicle the life and act as, kind of, spokes — not a spokesperson but a, kind of, proselytizer, a promoter. I interpreted a fan of Bob. I mean, I think in Bob’s work, he embodied everything that we stood for in kind of a moral way and in an aesthetic way, and attitude towards society. So, I sought him out right away, and within a year met him. He came to interview me. I was asking him for an interview, and he came to interviewed me and see if that would be acceptable. It was a big scoop for us. He hadn’t given an interview in three or four, five years. He had been in Woodstock. And from there on, we kind of became allies. And over the years, he gave 10 or 11 really amazing important interviews from various “Rolling Stone” writers. And in the course, we became good buddies. You know, I mean, Bob, unlike his reputation in person, if he’s in a mood, is a great — he’s very funny, very personal, very easy to be with. And we have a lot of fun. We always — every time we get together, at least once year, we have a lot of laughs and poke fun at each other. And he reads (ph) me for, kind of, discussing Gods (ph) in magazine. Ron and I read him for doing all those awful records, I mean, everybody knows that they’re no good. And it goes much more than that. But he’s at the soul of “Rolling Stone”. He’s in the opening quote of the book and he’s in the very last chapter. That — the anthem he wrote for our generation called, “Forever Young” you know, which I still subscribe to. That no matter how old we get, we remain for every young in our spirit, in our attitude, in our beliefs, in our hopes, in our optimism.

ISAACSON: Well, the other icon in the book and so is the title of character, in a way is Mick Jagger and the Rolling Stones. And they become very much a part of your life, not just your journalism. Tell me about how the relationship evolved?

WENNER: Well, again, Nick was — I met early on, I mean, by coincidence when I was 22. And I think he was 25 at the time. He was mixing “Beggars Banquet”, one of their great records. And I was invited to the session. He invited me to come down because I was in the same town at the same time. And we just hit it off. You know, I mean, he’s a smart guy. He’s a very educated guy. A more elegant and thoughtful most of rock or roll people you run into. And of course, I’m, you know — kind of, starstruck or, you know, mesmerized. I mean, here I am. I’m still a kid. I just started — and now I’m with Mick Jagger all of a sudden, hanging out. And just over the years, we went into business together and to publish “Rolling Stone” in England and — towards the end of the 60s, like, ’69 maybe. And we spent a lot of time there, working together. And then there was a crucible of Altamont. Where when we went to cover that, we had to decide whether we were going to be objective and lay the blame among the various parties were to blame for that event, which included the “Rolling Stones” among other things, or whether we are going to pull back from that. And, you know, out of fear from my friendship with Mick, we were in danger (ph) and what he meant in the magazine which is that we made without hesitation. I made the decision that we would go with the journalistic necessity and the need to insist upon our own integrity and honesty in the situation and survived that. And then it just went on for years. We’d be — we’re social friends and vacationing together. And you know, it was a pleasure to be with him.

ISAACSON: Tell me about Dr. Hunter Thompson in bringing him aboard, what it was like working with him.

WENNER: Hunter was time consuming person to work with. And had a lot of quirks and craziness. But I never enjoyed something as much in my life as I enjoyed my relationship with Hunter. We’re very close with each other. We were really, for many years, partners in what we were doing. His writing in my magazine. I look at — after he’s back, he was always coming up with story ideas. People to hire, you know. And we just saw things the same way. We had the same sense of humor. And I knew, with him, I had a talent with a voice that can mind so many different things. You know, and also, it was funny to read. So, fulfilling. And he knew he had a place in “Rolling Stone” and with me that was both a place that would give him freedom at length to do whatever he wanted to do. But he was the DNA of Rolling Stone, his cover in the ’72 campaign. Singularly lifted us up into the journalism stratosphere of putting one of the best flyers of the time to one of the biggest national story there is, and usually the elections. And it was incredibly funny. As this copy would come in and I just cackle and cackle. Just laugh. We just had so much fun together and did a lot. We got a lot of important stuff done.

ISAACSON: The cover photo of you on this book is from the great Annie Leibovitz. Somebody you sort of, discovered and helped make into an iconic photographer. She did many covers of “Rolling Stone”. Tell me, what were your favorite Annie Leibovitz and other covers of “Rolling Stone”?

WENNER: Well, that’s a hard one to answer. I mean, the most iconic and probably photographically great cover is the picture that she took of John Lennon and Yoko together, with him curled up naked around her in bed which was taken on the eve of his death. So, that photograph’s not only powerful itself but as it — the way it came into the world, it was kind of a death mask or what. One of our writers called it, PA Todd (ph) of our times. She, like Hunter, gave “Rolling Stone” a kind of a style, and a look, and intimacy in power. Just shear stopping power that characterized our first dozen years.

ISAACSON: One of the challenges for “Rolling Stone”, perhaps even a criticism of it was it got stuck in our music. The baby boomer music. A lot of Neil Young and stuff. And that as music changed, it tried to keep the same readership. That seems like a difficult thing to square. Getting a new readership, losing the old readership. How did you navigate that and would you do it differently now in retrospect?

WENNER: No, I think we navigated it really well. And I wouldn’t do it differently. I mean, we had a whole bunch of advantages to being able to do this. First off with just the technology so that every kid of any age could hear The Beatles. The Beatles remained the favorite group of our readership throughout the years. And kids can get it, you know. So — then technology. So, there wasn’t a generation gap between my generation and the next ones, they’re coming along 20 years later as it was between ourselves and our parents. I mean, there’s different social times like that. The second-generation of music that followed the Neil Youngs and the Bobs and so forth, which was like — I don’t know, the Foo Fighters, The Crews, or whoever you have, they all worshipped openly the earlier artists. So, it was easy to bring those things and it was a great mix. We’ve kept the music vital. And we used to be — we’d have as often a cover of Pearl Jam, of Bob Dylan, and later of Jay-Z and Bob Dylan, or Kanye and Bob Dylan. You know, Puffy and Bob Dylan or — and the “Stones”. And the state of modulus, in a way, for many years. Only with the rise of rap or after that and this, kind of, combination between pop and rap. Did it really start — that the music get to be — start to be rather different in its sound and its feeling. But we went with that wholeheartedly. We were first and often rap. I mean, the idea that we didn’t cover that is crazy. I’ll bet some people like to criticize it for it or say that we don’t, which is not true. But I also judge things about, what is in the news? Given a news judgment. What are people talking about? And people are talking about either the new Dylan or the new Justin Timberlake album, you know. Is what — is most compelling to a broad readership we had. And we had a broad readership and it crossed generations. And it crossed into politics and just general interest in American culture. So, we had a broad franchise and covered it in a broad way.

ISAACSON: Can magazine still matter these days?

WENNER: I — I’m afraid I don’t think so. I mean, I — there’s just — you can’t get the audience together. Beside the young, you can’t quite — it’s hard to get the money to finance some of the good journalism because the internet stole all the advertising and stole all our readers. I think that the magazine business itself, the editors have responded not very strategically to it. It was a whole differ medium. It didn’t — nobody wanted long form journalism anymore or great photography, which were the strengths of magazines. Nobody wanted a strong point of view in a — when I was in magazines, when you were in magazines. People lived by their magazine and view. It shaped your world view. You know, you can be a “Vanity Fair” person, you know, a “Time Magazine” person, or a “Rolling Stone” person. And it kind of told you what to think, what to like. It was great. That doesn’t happen anymore. The short answer is, I regret not. I think there will still be magazines. There could still be some really good thought magazine. Somebody could mount a really great photo magazine. You know, there’s a fashion magazine have a place. Certain service magazines. But the general interest magazine, as we know it, as Rolling Stone was, I think, has seen its day.

ISAACSON: Is music still a great cultural force driving our politics in our thinking?

WENNER: I think it is. The moment is different than when it fused with this war and with the assassinations and drugs and technology, on stuff in the rise of the generation. And where it was the only method communication among the generation various parts. Now, there’s another means of communication available to your people. All mediums are open to young people and to music. Some music is not the only thing. So, it doesn’t have some of that same power. But does it still speak to the hopes and the aspirations of young people and to its audience? I think, of course. I think — obviously in rap as — carry powerful stuff. Stuff that, you know, great rhythm, great criticism, and serious important to peoples’ lives. I mean, the messages of that to try and empower its audience are deep. And in — the pop music thing of it, you know, Taylor Swift or whatever, I think they communicate serious message to young people, to young women about how or what love is about, what interrelationships are about, and all that kind of stuff in that same way. You know, they are so important. That music still has that emotional power that music is rhythm. Its beat. Its dance ability. The soulfulness it always had. And I still think it speaks very much in the same way. Not to me. (INAUDIBLE). Bob Dylan still speaks to me.

ISAACSON: Jan Wenner. OK. Boomer, thanks for joining us.

WENNER: OK. You Boomer too. Boomers. Thank you, Walter.