Jeff In Rolling Stone

[conezone]

the new rolling stone (with the beatles on the cover... im interested to see how much new info/insight they will add on the break-up of the band...) apparently includes an article about jeff. the web preview of the features section reads as follows:

 

"Jeff Tweedy Lets Go:

Wilco's frontman used to be the most tortured guy in rock & roll. Then he learned the hardest thing of all: keeping it simple.

By Will Dana"

 

http://www.rollingstone.com/issue1086

 

i think the issue is on newstands friday

[WilcoOfTheDay]

I'll be patiently waiting for my copy in my mailbox for this article (as well as the John Hughes tribute).

[The High Heat]

 

"Jeff Tweedy Lets Go:

 

the most tortured guy in rock & roll

 

Back to the "haunted" thing again?

[Dude]

The interview is pretty weak, only two pages long and the same rehab questions that we've seen for the past 5 years. It has a pretty sweet ending, though.

[Dude]

RS dropped the ball. The rehab angle shows a lack of imagination on the part of the interviewer. It's far more exciting that a band with no radio airplay is able to sell records despite rampant downloading and shrinking industry sales as a whole, something Spin understood.

 

By the time the Jonas Brothers hit puberty, no one will remember who they were, but Wilco will still be making records and playing to bigger and bigger crowds.

[cryptique]

By the time the Jonas Brothers hit puberty, no one will remember who they were, but Wilco will still be making records and playing to bigger and bigger crowds.

...and Jeff will still be fielding questions about rehab.

[GtrPlyr]

The fact they went at the rehab angle is just more proof--not that we needed any--that RS is more about tabloid type fodder than actual music stories.

[Sir Stewart]

The fact they went at the rehab angle is just more proof--not that we needed any--that RS is more about tabloid type fodder than actual music stories.

 

That's not totally fair though - I can see that RS phones it in many times when it comes to topical music (ie Wilco has a new album, so throw a Wilco piece together for their rabid fans). But they've done some interesting stuff even recently: the Kris Kristofferson interview from a few months back and the Ginger Baker (what a nut) one in the latest Obama issue come to mind. Maybe those aren't great 'music' stories, but they're definitely compelling pieces about musicians.

[jakobnicholas]

I wish it was much longer, but not a bad piece.

 

Jay Bennett is mentioned, and Tweedy still seems reluctant to give him much credit. Rather, Tweedy says Bennett acted like he was the co-leader of the band, when he clearly wasn't. And that bothered Tweedy. I kinda wish Jeff could just say that Bennett added a LOT to Wilco's sound and song-structures, but that the 2 had personalities that couldn't co-exist. Then Tweedy says how he likes the current lineup, because adults work together better than babies.

 

 

It's all interesting, especially after the MAGNIFICENT Beatles article in the same issue. Lennon and McCartney clearly had major issues with each other. It's maybe a little apples and oranges to compare Lennon/McCartney to Tweedy/Bennett, but it's interesting to read how Lennon and McCartney (AND Harrison) were able to put up with various shit to allow themselves to keep creating great music. Especially McCartney, who LOVED to be able to write songs alongside Lennon.

 

I'm not claiming that Tweedy could have done a better job of keeping Bennett in Wilco, but as a fan of their music together, I wish he would have. The Beatles were able to put out the White Album in the midst of basically hating each other. Each member had a set of songs and essentially used the other members as studio musicians. And they later were able to put out Abby Road and Let it Be.....pretty decent records, most would agree.

 

As a fan, it would be VERY intersting to hear what a late 90's Wilco White Album might sound like. Imagine Tweedy, Bennett, Stirrat and Bach each putting 3-6 songs on a big double disc.

[jff]

RS dropped the ball. The rehab angle shows a lack of imagination on the part of the interviewer.

 

I'd say the cover story sets the tone for an entire issue devoid of imagination.

 

How many times has the Beatle's break up story been told? Are we suppsed to believe the story is MORE accurate now that 50% of the band is dead and everyone who is living who has any insight at all is dealing with 40 year old "facts" and emotions?

 

Makes you wonder what the "real story" of YHF and Tweedy's rehab will be 40 years after the fact.

 

EDIT: Not that I wouldn't read any of the above articles if a RS were handy.

[mybenito]

The interviewer says that Wilco's new album represents "grown-up" music. And Jeff kinda goes along with it. I've always thought Wilco was sort of grown-up music as compared to most popular music. Jeff's inteligently written lyrics always left me thinking that this music is emotionally deeper than anything I've heard in a long time. It may have been interpreted as "angst" but it was still at a deeper level than say an angst driven band like Limp Bizkit. Jeff may have grown personally and gotten healthier, and the band may have grown, but the music remains at an adult intellegence level. I do't agree with the whole "Wilco has grown-up" label because I always thought Wilco had matured way ahead of their peers in the first place. I agree that the new album is cleaner and simpler but Jeff's music has always been emotionally honest and to me that is being "grown-up." His honesty can be alarming, but so can the truth.

[Analogman]

I'd say the cover story sets the tone for an entire issue devoid of imagination.

 

How many times has the Beatle's break up story been told? Are we suppsed to believe the story is MORE accurate now that 50% of the band is dead and everyone who is living who has any insight at all is dealing with 40 year old "facts" and emotions?

 

Makes you wonder what the "real story" of YHF and Tweedy's rehab will be 40 years after the fact.

 

EDIT: Not that I wouldn't read any of the above articles if a RS were handy.

 

I think they still try to put something in there to appeal to the older readers. I received RS for most of the past year due to buying a bunch of stuff at Amazon. Now, they are trying to get me to re-new my subscription. That is not going to happen. Not to long ago, they had a multiple page article/interview with that guy from American Idol. Although it was nice to see a long article, I don't think that guy is worthy of that much ink.

 

Recently, there was an interview with Greg Allman in an issue, which was otherwise filled with Perez Hilton/TMZ/internet type articles. It stuck out like a sore thumb.

[jff]

I think they still try to put something in there to appeal to the older readers.

 

Good point. Cater to geezers who can't remember what happened last week, much less 40 years ago, and you can keep printing Beatles stories for eternity.

[GtrPlyr]

That's not totally fair though - I can see that RS phones it in many times when it comes to topical music (ie Wilco has a new album, so throw a Wilco piece together for their rabid fans). But they've done some interesting stuff even recently: the Kris Kristofferson interview from a few months back and the Ginger Baker (what a nut) one in the latest Obama issue come to mind. Maybe those aren't great 'music' stories, but they're definitely compelling pieces about musicians.

Maybe RS is better than I give them credit for, but in general I find the artists they cover--and put on the cover--seem to be mainly mainstream musicians that can move big numbers of magazines off the shelves, more so than artistically important artists. There are exceptions though, that Kristofferson article was pretty good from what I recall .

[Sir Stewart]

Maybe RS is better than I give them credit for, but in general I find the artists they cover--and put on the cover--seem to be mainly mainstream musicians that can move big numbers of magazines off the shelves, more so than artistically important artists. There are exceptions though, that Kristofferson article was pretty good from what I recall .

 

I just want to make clear I think I kind of over-defended RS in my post. It does suck a lot.

[Analogman]

That's not totally fair though - I can see that RS phones it in many times when it comes to topical music (ie Wilco has a new album, so throw a Wilco piece together for their rabid fans). But they've done some interesting stuff even recently: the Kris Kristofferson interview from a few months back and the Ginger Baker (what a nut) one in the latest Obama issue come to mind. Maybe those aren't great 'music' stories, but they're definitely compelling pieces about musicians.

 

There does seem to be a little something in each issue that may appeal to more of traditional rock fan. But still, those little bits are overwhelmed by the hype of the month. At least that is the way I see it. I suppose if I was a teenage girl (or whoever their fan base is), then I would be interested in reading about the Jonas Brothers. Rolling Stone has survived though, when a lot of other magazines have gone under. So I guess that is something.

 

No surprise on Ginger Baker. All of those Cream dudes were ego maniacs. But - they are all masters musicians, so they can be that way.

[jakobnicholas]

I consider myself fairly knowledgeable on the Beatles, but felt much of it was enlightening. I haven't read every book and article on the Beatles, so maybe this is just a great wrap-up piece for the group's last couple years.

 

It points out the good and bad in Lennon, McCartney and Harrison. This article doesn't portray John in a super light, and Paul was clearly the financial brains of the group. I also didn't know how much Paul loved the band in those last days and wanted to stay together....even at the end...even letting Yoko be "part of the band", as he knew John wanted her there. I get the sense Paul truly loved being writing partners with John in what he thought was the biggest and best band in the world.

 

Another interesting detail was John's admission that he just couldn't keep up with Paul's writing pace on the latter records. Some of that was John's psychological state....most of it drug-induced, I imagine.

[Analogman]

Paul is also a great revisionist. I have not read it, but I am not apt to go by what Paul says.

[jff]

In defense of Rolling Stone AND the Jonas Brothers, Elvis Costello's interview with Nick Jonas (I think it was Nick) last year was better than anything I've ever read in Paste.

[mpolak21]

Another interesting detail was John's admission that he just couldn't keep up with Paul's writing pace on the latter records. Some of that was John's psychological state....most of it drug-induced, I imagine.

 

If you've ever seen the Let it Be doc, Lennon seems so strung out and miserable it's almost unbearable. John also felt the band wouldn't try as much on his songs, I've read him complaining a lot about Paul and George scoffing at Revolution and Across the Universe. I actually might pick this RS up now. I usually get a few year, their music coverage isn't great on newer bands but they always handle the Beatles, Dylan, The Stones, Springsteen, etc. very well.

 

--Mike

[Dude]

I wish it was much longer, but not a bad piece.

 

Jay Bennett is mentioned, and Tweedy still seems reluctant to give him much credit. Rather, Tweedy says Bennett acted like he was the co-leader of the band, when he clearly wasn't. And that bothered Tweedy.

 

I would take a look again at his actual quote, as he doesn't really mention leadership issues, more that Bennett would be somewhat two-faced, being Jeff's best buddy when he was in the room and trashing him behind his back when he wasn't there.

[jakobnicholas]

The writer, Mikal Gilmore, explains how the article was written on Rolling Stone's website. He started over a year ago and went through 65 books and took 1,400 pages of notes. Here's a blurb and link:

 

 

To the degree that any of this is tragedy — given that all things must pass — then it's indeed a manifold tragedy. Harrison and Lennon were profound men who understood the necessity for hope and fellowship, and yet they were also men who could be profoundly petty and ungrateful. Both of them early on came to dislike the reality of the Beatles' massive audience — "Fucking bastards, sucking us to death," John Lennon told Rolling Stone in 1970 — and both men became uncharacteristically obsessed with financial eminence near the group's end.

 

But what I found most troubling, most tragic, in all of this was two things: Both Lennon and Harrison (Lennon, clearly, in particular) did their best to sabotage the Beatles from mid-1968 onward, and when it all came irrevocably apart, I believe that both men regretted what they had wrought. I don't think that John Lennon and George Harrison (but Lennon, again, in particular) truly meant the Beatles to end, even though they might not have known it in the moment. I think they meant to shift the balance of power, I think they meant for the Beatles to become, in a sense, a more casual form of collaboration, and I think they clearly intended to rein in Paul McCartney. But they overplayed their hand and — there's no way around it — they treated McCartney shamefully during 1969, and unforgivably in the early months of 1970.

 

 

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/29723450/why_the_beatles_broke_upbr_the_story_behind_our_cover/1

[jakobnicholas]

I would take a look again at his actual quote, as he doesn't really mention leadership issues, more that Bennett would be somewhat two-faced, being Jeff's best buddy when he was in the room and trashing him behind his back when he wasn't there.

 

 

No, I understand that. It's apparent that their personalities clashed. And I don't blame Jeff for getting irritated with Jay. I just have yet to read anything from Jeff where he gives Jay hardly any credit for the REMARKABLE stretch of music from Being There to Mermaid to Summerteeth to YHF. I think Jay had a LOT to do with Wilco's success.

 

I'm sure over time, Jeff will get less sour on Jay.

[MattZ]

 

But what I found most troubling, most tragic, in all of this was two things: Both Lennon and Harrison (Lennon, clearly, in particular) did their best to sabotage the Beatles from mid-1968 onward, and when it all came irrevocably apart, I believe that both men regretted what they had wrought. I don't think that John Lennon and George Harrison (but Lennon, again, in particular) truly meant the Beatles to end, even though they might not have known it in the moment. I think they meant to shift the balance of power, I think they meant for the Beatles to become, in a sense, a more casual form of collaboration, and I think they clearly intended to rein in Paul McCartney. But they overplayed their hand and — there's no way around it — they treated McCartney shamefully during 1969, and unforgivably in the early months of 1970.

 

Thanks for posting this. It's interesting, but I don't believe a single word of it.

[Analogman]

Thanks for posting this. It's interesting, but I don't believe a single word of it.

 

The other side of that is, of course, that Paul decided to run the show after Brian's death. I certainly don't believe him when he says anything nice about Yoko. They have been feuding for years. It is only when there is new money to be made that they seem to put aside their differences.

 

Also - Jeff or anyone else can bad mouth Jay all they want, but Wilco would not be where they are without him.

 

These are some good examples of why bands don't work as a democracy. Someone has to be in charge. But then, the rest of the dudes get tired of that - eventually.