Rolling Stone has never been my cup of tea. On a minor note, I don’t like the format. The magazine’s too big to hold comfortably. My main complaint about it, though, is that it’s far too self-congratulatory for my taste. Jann Wenner writes that a “Rolling Stone interview is still the most intimate, penetrating and perceptive conversation going.” I disagree. Whenever I read Rolling Stone, I think about what Lester Bangs said in “Almost Famous” about writers not letting the musicians think they’re friends: “My advice to you. I know you think those guys are your friends. You wanna be a true friend to them? Be honest, and unmerciful.” Rolling Stone reads like their writers have definitely fallen for the friend thing, and they’re far from unmerciful.

So why’d I pick “The Rolling Stone Interviews” up at the library? I wanted to read the Neil Young interview, and I knew Rockford would probably enjoy the whole book.

Regardless of my anti-Rolling Stone bias, “The Rolling Stone Interviews” was an interesting read. Musicians I didn’t think much of before — Jim Morrison, for example — came across as more interesting and less irritating than I’d expected. Others — and here I’m specifically thinking of John Lennon — surprised me with their arrogance and general nastiness. Morrison had quite a bit to say about manipulating the media, and the interview left me with the impression that he was a pretty savvy character. Lennon emphasized his genius repeatedly. Maybe so, but it sure doesn’t make you likeable, fella. I wish I hadn’t read the Lennon interview, because I like the Beatles’ music quite a lot and I’m afraid this is going to taint it.

“The Rolling Stone Interviews” might not be the deepest tome ever written, but it’s certainly interesting. If you don’t read anything else in it, be sure to check out Andy Warhol’s “interview” with Truman Capote. As you might expect, it’s terrifically weird.