For almost 60 years, Rolling Stone magazine has dominated music journalism and hasn’t shied away from naming the good and the bad. John Vilanova, assistant professor of journalism and communication, is delving into the influential publication and its role in shaping narratives around popular music and rock and roll.  

Vilanova’s research focuses on how institutions make larger claims about the music industry. His Ph.D. dissertation on the GRAMMY awards explored how the awards communicate what is “good music” and how it often contains longer held ideas about gender, race, and power. The music industry, and the conversations we have around it, can reinforce inequalities. 

Vilanova’s time as a contributor to Rolling Stone over the past decade granted him an inside look. By examining early years of Rolling Stone, starting from its inception in 1967, Vilanova is examining the role of music criticism in establishing the magazine’s credibility and status as a serious journalistic publication. Employing a multi-methodological approach, he is diving into the archives and talking to writers who published extremely negative reviews in the first five years.  

“I’m thinking through and about what it means to write an extremely negative review of an album, and the ways that might have been an opportunity for the magazine to separate itself,” Vilanova says. “How did Rolling Stone become the publication that won out?” 

Part of what Vilanova is discovering is that the majority of writing about popular music of the time was designed for children or women and not taken seriously. While Rolling Stone would never have explicitly labeled itself a “men’s magazine,” its content and critical approach often catered to a male readership.  

The publication didn’t shy away from critiquing iconic albums and popular artists, and Rolling Stone famously published extremely negative reviews on Led Zeppelin, Neil Young, and Bob Dylan. “They were willing to be contrarian,” Vilanova notes, believing those reviews helped the magazine become a journalistic institution.  

Another way Rolling Stone has codified “good music” is its “500 Greatest Albums of All Time” list. By analyzing the composition of the voters who curated such a popular list, Vilanova is uncovering the racial and gender biases that shape the rankings. The list reflects the preferences of a select group of industry insiders, comprised of record executives and artists. “The people who are making those decisions are always people who have stakes because oftentimes they're advocating for the artists that have,” he says, “and the art they find valuable and important.” 

“What you get is the music that a small number of people believe is truly excellent. And the more time you spend thinking through and about the role of popular music in our shared histories, you realize how much of this is just kind of hangovers of longer running dynamics of power,” Vilanova says. 

“Ultimately, it becomes this question of who speaks for the music industry?”