Nevermind was released in September 24th, 1991 and the review, a three star effort by Ira Robbins, showed two months later in the November 28th issue. Which meant Review Editor Anthony deCurtis held it for three issues. And when Anthony published it was buried between Warren Zevon and Antenna. Better than Nirvana's Sub Pop debut Bleach, which they missed entirely.
This is hardly the first time Rolling Stone missed the rock and roll story completely. Both US and UK Punk took them completely by surprise and, while never much of a fan to begin with, by 1976 I didn't take the magazine very seriously. In 2013 Rolling Stone are the standard bearer for bad music writing and good artist profiles. They get the big story and one reason is begin they are in bed with the industry so deep they never come within a miles of the truth.
In 2011 Jody Rosen wrote a (terrible) review of Nevermind giving it 4 stars while failing to mention it initial received 3 stars and in the years since Cobain's suicide they've done nothing but make money off him. Without bothering to mention that grunge took them totally by surprise. They were completely clueless, yet again, when it mattered most.
Among the reasons Cobain killed himself was a hatred of the entertainment industry machine so at odds with the punk ethos Rolling Stone ignored for a year. He felt like a hypocrite. No, success did, in fact, suck. Rolling Stone's response to Cobain's death was to publish a hardcover commemorative special. An expensive commemorative. To show their appreciation for the hardcore honesty rooted in punk, they lied through omission. Instead of stating the obvious: that they got scooped by David Geffen, they pretend they always knew Cobain was a genius and chronicled his life in real time.
At the moment, RS has this posted for the original review. Robbins missed it in his 3 star review, but he wasn't a million miles off. What was a million miles off was changing the 3 star review to a 4 star review. If, when writing about Cobain, Rolling Stone had done the right thing and started by explaining the problems their writers had with grunge it would make for an interesting story. Maybe a little self-awareness would be useful, maybe a mea culpa would make the story more interesting. Even, with all their resources, even Rolling Stone could miss the story. Jann Wenner and his henchmen don't give a damn, they are like the folks who sell flowers at graveyards. Nevermind breaking pop was no surprise, the buzz on the album was pretty deafening at the time. Only an insulated bunch of know it alls who fire any one who disagrees with them could get it wrong.
If memory serves it was the UK weekly music tabloid Sounds that broke the Seattle scene to a wider audience. Our "rock and roll Bible" were, as always, clueless until somebody told them. Who have you read about first in Stone? I can't remember one band they broke for me since the early 1970s. Not one. They aren't in the business of breaking music, or even really detailing a scene. They are in the business of one hand washing the other. A rock and roll billionaires club and celebrity fellatio machine. No wonder rock writing is dead, if this is the crap we are getting.
So what RS did was take the ethos of a man who killed himself because of the celebrity machine and churn him up and spit him out while being completely and totally clueless when it mattered most.
This is what Jann Wenner does. This is what Rolling Stone exists as, the complete opposite of everything we love(d) about rock and roll: lazy, hypocritical, deaf, poorly written lies about music so they can pal with their superstar friends and make money. There should be a law against Rolling Stone. They should be made to wear earphones.