<i>The Village Voice</i> thinks you're stupid

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Like Freaky Trigger, the Village Voice is getting a new format. Don't have the story exact, but it's more or less this: Pages will have fewer words (down to approx. 1,400 from 1,600 or 1,700), no pieces in the music section or any of the arts sections allowed to break onto a second page, two or three pieces to a page, so no piece over 900 words, probably, maybe even down to 750, listings moved into the sections rather than in a separate listings section, but sections not made larger to comprensate. So there will be even less criticism in it. The same will apply to all the arts sections. Features, in the front of the book, will be the only pieces allowed to break over more than a page. So lots of oldtimers (Xgau, Giddins, Hoberman) will find themselves truncated (and will get paid less).

I can think of some potential good results of this (some people need to be truncated, two 750-word pieces will earn me a lot more than one 1,500 word piece, maybe fewer writers will mean fewer bad writers, maybe the trimming of the Voice will finally get people to realize that if they want good criticism, they will have to start a magazine that prints actual criticism), and I'm willing to keep going to see what will happen, but I assume that the bad will far outweigh the good. With Frank Kogan, more is more, and truncating me is never a good idea. Also, this may ruin some of my pieces that work short, as well, since, being so tightly formatted, a 200-word piece might have to be lengthened to 300, or 600 to 750.

The Voice format was appallingly narrow already (can think of good writers who fell flat on the Voice's page, or whom I couldn't even imagine writing for them), and their truncating of me wasn't so much a matter of space as of whole aspects of my personality rarely getting in there (and this is not Chuck's fault, obviously, and I got more in there than most could). And maybe the magazine is old and tired (reading online, I don't browse it much). But this is one of those "solutions" that doesn't solve anything, like term limits and mandatory sentencing. If the problem is that the content bores the readers, then changing the format doesn't address the problem. But actually the people who mandated this (who are "they," as Tim McGraw might ask) want to get new readers at the expense of the old or want to retain some readers at the expense of others; really, what they want the articles reduced to little consumer niblets for the reader to glance while going to the listings and personals and classifieds. And the official rationale that I've heard is that they think young people raised on MTV and video games want the text equivalent of soundbites, and won't turn the page or read long. This is bullshit; reminds me of all the morons who claimed in the '60s that young people wanted instant gratification. What the Voice ownership wants is stupider readers with bigger pockets. But really, you know, they've lost circulation to Time Out, and this isn't going to get it back, I don't think.

But this is really bad. Think of what it means. For all its faults, and its decline, the Voice was one of the few national publications to encourage thought and to assume that to gain your interest meant challenging and ruffling you. Not that we still can't try, but you can see which direction things are going.

― Frank Kogan (Frank Kogan), Wednesday, 6 August 2003 20:10 (twenty years ago) link

That's okay. I am stupid. I just read the voice for the sex ads.

― scaredy cat, Wednesday, 6 August 2003 20:15 (twenty years ago) link

My friend John Wójtowicz suggests that we could compromise: Voice management lets us write longer pieces if we agree to use shorter words.

― Frank Kogan (Frank Kogan), Wednesday, 6 August 2003 20:18 (twenty years ago) link

listings moved into the sections rather than in a separate listings section

This move actually seems kind of smart. I think the publishers may have realized how many people just remove the listings section and toss the rest.

― o. nate (onate), Wednesday, 6 August 2003 20:20 (twenty years ago) link

It means that the sections have less criticism, since they're not getting extra pages to compensate.

― Frank Kogan (Frank Kogan), Wednesday, 6 August 2003 20:22 (twenty years ago) link

Um, I'm gonna stay out of this discussion -- I'm a too close to the action for comfort, for reasons that should be obvious. Just three factual ammendments to what Frank wrote: (1) pay cuts for the senior writers aren't exactly definite; (2) the actual page-total of the section not including listings doesn't change; basically the listings pages will just begin *after* a section that's about 3 1/2 pages, same length as it's pretty much been for a long time (something similar will be happening in the other arts sections); and (3) given the number of sidebar-length pieces that will probably be running, I really don't see THIS scenario that Frank predicted happening: "a 200-word piece might have to be lengthened to 300, or 600 to 750." Okay.

― chuck, Wednesday, 6 August 2003 20:25 (twenty years ago) link

Sort of related question to all critics: If the voice isn't critic friendly (or is heading in that direction, etc. etc.) and isn't intelligence friendly (" "), which magazines, newspapers are? Or at least, are the most?

― David Allen, Wednesday, 6 August 2003 20:27 (twenty years ago) link

it's unfortunately the way of most newspapers these days. and the voice has never been immune to it's owners whims. maybe there is a way to sneak some crit onto the voice radio page on the web-site. web-only if you will. see how my world is all half-full and shit like that?

― scott seward, Wednesday, 6 August 2003 20:28 (twenty years ago) link

And one more thing: (4) the sections will almost definitely include a greater NUMBER of reviews (which could possibly add up to MORE criticism, depending how you define it), since the page total hasn't changed, and reviews will be shorter than they've been in the past.

― chuck, Wednesday, 6 August 2003 20:30 (twenty years ago) link

Sort of related question to all critics: If the voice isn't critic friendly (or is heading in that direction, etc. etc.) and isn't intelligence
friendly (" "), which magazines, newspapers are? Or at least, are the most?

The New York Review Of Books? Harper's? The Atlantic? The Believer? or you mean music. um, nobody?

― scott seward, Wednesday, 6 August 2003 20:33 (twenty years ago) link

It sounds like the danger is that the whole back half of the Voice (i.e., the arts pages - not the sex stuff) will be turned into one big listings sections - meaning that short blurbs will predominate over longer think pieces. I think that would be a shame. While I'm not sure I've ever made it through an entire Giddins column, I would definitely miss the pleasure of Hoberman, Christgau and others (including many illustrious ILMers - Kogan, mark s et al.) pontificating at length.

― o. nate (onate), Wednesday, 6 August 2003 20:34 (twenty years ago) link

Well, let me pontificate: To paraphrase something that Peter van der Merwe once said, artists crave constraints, musicians crave constraints, writers crave constraints. And sometimes arbitrary demands of a format can unleash creativity (having to cut something means finding a new way to say it, having to lengthen it means creating a new idea, the need for specious but plausible-seeming paragraph transitions means inserting new - though entirely irrelevant - thoughts [though there'll be fewer chances for specious transitions in the new format]).

But speaking of surfboards, if we were all required to write everything in limerick form, I might develop new and hitherto unknown talents, but overall you wouldn't be getting the best out of me.

There once was an album named Caesars
That nary had mention of skeezers
What should I say next?
I can't even flext
You see! this sucks! jeepers! or jeezers.

So, it has to be the right form.

― Frank Kogan (Frank Kogan), Wednesday, 6 August 2003 20:49 (twenty years ago) link

The Village Voice thinks you're stupid

So? I think The Village Voice looks fat in those jeans.

― Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Wednesday, 6 August 2003 20:51 (twenty years ago) link

yeah I vaguely bitched about this elsewhere, but I can't overstate how bad an idea this is - driving away your current readership in an attempt to attract readers that don't actually exist (um, what competition are they hoping to cut off here? and can't they just buy out that competition as always?) is a BAD IDEA. I could see maybe changing it so you dump one normal album review for a view short single nylpm-type blurbs (sorta like chuck's or jane darks singles columns only with just one single), but to go full tilt USA Today is bad business and bad editorial judgment.

― nnnh oh oh nnnh nnnh oh (James Blount), Wednesday, 6 August 2003 20:52 (twenty years ago) link

I mean, I'd love to see the music section equivalent of jockbeat*, but I still want kogan, sinker, xgau, giddins working it 12" stylee. this is a bad bad bad idea.

* and yeah, sotc, but that's more 'live reviews + news'.

― nnnh oh oh nnnh nnnh oh (James Blount), Wednesday, 6 August 2003 20:54 (twenty years ago) link

I wanna see the voice music section equiv. of uni watch too!

― nnnh oh oh nnnh nnnh oh (James Blount), Wednesday, 6 August 2003 20:55 (twenty years ago) link

I don't know enough to judge whether the decision is business-savvy, but I can conceive of other ways to do business. That is, if you're losing circulation in comparison to Time Out, you don't make yourself more like Time Out, since then you'll just split the market between the two mags, but instead make yourself less like Time Out, go for the readers that no one is currently serving. If there are enough of these readers...

― Frank Kogan (Frank Kogan), Wednesday, 6 August 2003 21:01 (twenty years ago) link

I won't say that they're going after readers who don't exist. The Voice's commercial success had a lot to do with being in the right place at the right time: as the most successful of what I'll laughingly call the "underground" papers in the '60s, it was in position to talk about a lot of youth entertainment stuff about which the "mainstream" press was clueless, and so it naturally became the listings paper, too, for a lot of that entertainment, and the cheap-apartment ads paper, and the porn-ads-that-can't-be-printed-elsewhere paper, and the rock-club ads paper, and so forth, and so became a cash cow based only somewhat on the actual articles. But then "underground" culture became everybody's culture, so lots of other mags were free to compete, and with the Net people can get a lot of their listings elsewhere. And so there's less of a coherent readership for the Voice to get dibs on, and the readers on the fringe of the Voice demographic now have other places to go, and lots of media can encroach on the Voice readership. Still...

― Frank Kogan (Frank Kogan), Wednesday, 6 August 2003 21:23 (twenty years ago) link

is the voice really hurting anyway? I find it hard to believe time out is taking anymore of a bite out of their market than any other alt-weekly would do. (then again, I found it hard to believe that seattle weekly, and not the stranger, was the seattle alt-weekly).

― nnnh oh oh nnnh nnnh oh (James Blount), Wednesday, 6 August 2003 21:30 (twenty years ago) link

I mean, they're still the gold standard, market dominator - the alt-weekly ny times.

― nnnh oh oh nnnh nnnh oh (James Blount), Wednesday, 6 August 2003 21:31 (twenty years ago) link

I don't know their financial situation. But they laid off six people last month.

― Frank Kogan (Frank Kogan), Wednesday, 6 August 2003 21:45 (twenty years ago) link

so when's the Dizzee Rascal review gonna show? or did I miss it?

― Paul (scifisoul), Thursday, 7 August 2003 00:29 (twenty years ago) link

Change is never welcome. Unless w/r/t to the MF Yankees, but that's another board entirely. I will admit that I will miss some of those longer music think pieces, which, basically don't exist anywhere. But we aren't talking about BLENDER here, we're still talking about fairly sizeable reviews, and, at the risk of earning critical enmity, at least half of the long-form pieces weren't worth the length. When done well they were great, but personally, given the eclectic tastes VV covers, I think this MAY be a good thing. It opens it up to more pieces and, maybe more writers. But as I say, change is hard. (Fair Note: I have NEVER been able to write a good 1500 word music think piece, and stopped pitching them out of personal embarrassment. I guess I'm just one of those dumb, Maxim-ized, TV ADD-led, McPaper generation types.)

― Chris P, Thursday, 7 August 2003 02:13 (twenty years ago) link

i already reviewed the single, paul, back in may; i don't think chuck wants to run an album review too (but if he does, he knows where to find me. cough, cough.)

i bitched about this elsewhere, but i can't honestly, in 2003, in america's current uh cultural climate, think that word counts dropping anywhere, anymore, are a good thing.

also, it was a really nice feeling the two times i basically had the frontpage of the voice section to myself. < /selfish>

― jess (dubplatestyle), Thursday, 7 August 2003 03:21 (twenty years ago) link

this really disgusts me

― nnnh oh oh nnnh nnnh oh (James Blount), Thursday, 7 August 2003 03:22 (twenty years ago) link

http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0318/harvell.php

― jess (dubplatestyle), Thursday, 7 August 2003 03:23 (twenty years ago) link

again, on some levels, i'm with frank: more space = more possible sales. but i've never been 100% certain about what the use of a 125-250 word review is anyway. (i mean, yeah, it pays the bills and feeds the cats, but does it nourish the soul, either the writer or readers, etc etc etc.) it's kind of pathetic that i feel all corny for trying to put a. myself and b. real, actual content into a 250 word review when everywhere else i look is telling me just to hack it out and do the bare minimum since there are so many other scraps of media space that need filling since we've chopped them up so much to fit our fabulous on the go lifestyles.

― strongo hulkington (dubplatestyle), Thursday, 7 August 2003 03:27 (twenty years ago) link

a 125-250 word review: $15 to $150

kogan's contortions review: priceless.

and so on.

― strongo hulkington (dubplatestyle), Thursday, 7 August 2003 03:29 (twenty years ago) link

having to always write 350 words and never ever any more on any given film is frustrating

― s1utsky (slutsky), Thursday, 7 August 2003 03:30 (twenty years ago) link

and I do appreciate the form of the capsule movie review (which is more like 80-125), but still

― s1utsky (slutsky), Thursday, 7 August 2003 03:31 (twenty years ago) link

see, that's the other thing: having to write within the constraints of the short review - after years of being able to write whatever and however long i wanted online - has improved my work immensely, i think.

― strongo hulkington (dubplatestyle), Thursday, 7 August 2003 03:32 (twenty years ago) link

totally! I've nothing against brevity but I've never really written that type of thing without a word count (or a word count of 550 or more, really).

― s1utsky (slutsky), Thursday, 7 August 2003 03:34 (twenty years ago) link

Agreed, brevity is a most handy skill on many levels, and I'm still learning how best to use it.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 7 August 2003 03:41 (twenty years ago) link

I'm with Chris P. and the most recent posters on this. I'm sure if someone writes 1 billion words that are all mind-bogglingly good, the story will see publication. But most long-format reviews in the Voice and pretty much anywhere else drone on and on with little to say. Hopefully other alternative papers around the nation will take the Voice's cue and learn how to edit.

― Phantroll, Thursday, 7 August 2003 03:45 (twenty years ago) link

deja vu, harvell

(i wrote an equally long screed elsewhere, but it never showed up)

― Yanc3y (ystrickler), Thursday, 7 August 2003 03:46 (twenty years ago) link

Oops, my link was bad, and I was trying to be sly. I was referring to Pitchfork.

― Phantroll, Thursday, 7 August 2003 03:47 (twenty years ago) link

I don't think anyone claiming to be anti-editing or anti-efficient-writing.

― s1utsky (slutsky), Thursday, 7 August 2003 03:50 (twenty years ago) link

yeah, i think it's more the enforced shrinkage that's the problem, not the brevity is...wit mindset.

― strongo hulkington (dubplatestyle), Thursday, 7 August 2003 03:53 (twenty years ago) link

living in New York makes me feel stupid. And poor. And I feel like I don't have all the cool stuff I need. And poor. When I want to feel better i skip the VOICE. and surf over to http://the morning news.com then I feel better...

― kelly denison-cole (dustjacket), Thursday, 7 August 2003 04:33 (twenty years ago) link

oops
http://the morning news.com

― kelly denison-cole (dustjacket), Thursday, 7 August 2003 04:34 (twenty years ago) link

ok ill try it this way
http://themorningnews.com

― kelly denison-cole (dustjacket), Thursday, 7 August 2003 04:35 (twenty years ago) link

alright this time i got it right. i still feel stupid but im going to;
http://themorningnews.org
thats what im talkin about

― kelly denison-cole (dustjacket), Thursday, 7 August 2003 04:38 (twenty years ago) link

Yeah, perhaps cutting back on length might be a good thing ... longest crit piece I've written professionally was 1,400 words or so, and it felt pretty indulgent. The couple 900-worders I've written for Chuck at the Voice felt great because at that length, it forced me to get to the fucking point and turn the crux of my argument on a dime, making for swifter pieces that covered more ground with a lot less "post-rock in the age of the desconstructionist behemoths blah blah blah" bullshit. In Phoenix, wehere I work, I rarely assign reviews above 300 words ... that's the toughest length but also the most satisfying when my writers get it right.

On another note, I'm sad to see that paycuts for the Giddins and the Xgaus is even on the table. Shows, to me anyway, how impossible this goddamn Dubya economy is right now ... art, talent and the advancement of culture don't mean shit when only a few people get all the perks and there's no incentive for the powers-that-be to give a shit about the contributions of their workers. Keep fighting the good fight, VV folks. Hi Chuck and Chris P.!

― Chris O'Connor, Thursday, 7 August 2003 06:45 (twenty years ago) link

Sadly enough, aren't business marketing folks at media publications everywhere suggesting that short and abbreviated copy is the only way to reach the so-called 18 to 35 demographic. The Washington Post is now handing out a short little Mon thru Friday freebie called the Express at downtown DC subway stations and near college campusses. The alt-weekly Washington City Paper did a parody issue called the Expresso the first day and handed it out as well...

Frank, People have to buy Time Out NY right, while the Voice is free and available online? Will these changes bring in more Time Out NY readers or advertisers???

― Steve Kiviat (Steve K), Thursday, 7 August 2003 14:36 (twenty years ago) link

Steve, what you're describing to me sounds like the Metro, which is this thing that the Londoners can tell you about -- it's a freebie version of one of the tabloids over there, I forget which, and I only ever saw it on the Tube.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 7 August 2003 14:41 (twenty years ago) link

the metro is pretty good for a freebie though. cuts out so much of the crap that inhabits regular papers. and its arts/music review section is pretty good really

― Bob Shaw (Bob Shaw), Thursday, 7 August 2003 14:45 (twenty years ago) link

Some(many?) American alt-weeklies still have writers go long, but none of those weeklies have the national exposure and reputation of the Voice. The Washington City Paper doesn't put its arts features online because they want people to pick up the weekly and theoretically read the ads...

To bring Simon Reynolds into this(Oh No! not again!) I see he's been raving on his blog about all the blogs he reads, and how he doesn't have time to read music features in newspapers and magazines (even if he could find music magazines he'd like)...

― Steve Kiviat (Steve K), Thursday, 7 August 2003 15:40 (twenty years ago) link

This thread (and I admit, I haven't read all of it - far too many words!) seems to use review/criticism pretty much interchangeably. Surely, a review is just descriptive, often a buyer's guide, that tells you what something sounds like. Criticism should make you listen to something with new ears, even if you've already heard it a million times. Falling word-counts mean criticism disappearing and in the UK this has been a commercial disaster (all the music papers shutting) as well as an 'artistic/intellectual/whatever' one. I hear the Observer are going to start a Music Monthly (to go with their Sport and Food ones) though, which might be interesting. Other than that it's 'The Wire' or the blogs. (Write for free, Frank!)
ps I went to college with the Nina Caplan, who writes the film reviews for Metro, which for a Daily Mail owned free rag, are excellent, if short.

― Jamie Smith, Thursday, 7 August 2003 15:55 (twenty years ago) link

(TS: Metro vs The Village Voice).

― David. (Cozen), Thursday, 7 August 2003 16:19 (twenty years ago) link

writing for free has distinctly lost it's tang since i started writing for peanuts.

― strongo hulkington (dubplatestyle), Thursday, 7 August 2003 16:33 (twenty years ago) link

Skipping 227 messages at this point... Click here if you want to load them all.

maybe that's why/how cynthia cotts got tossed too, some sort of 'saturday night massacre' scenario

― cinniblount (James Blount), Thursday, 12 August 2004 15:53 (nineteen years ago) link

which makes ta-nehisi coates robert bork i guess

― cinniblount (James Blount), Thursday, 12 August 2004 15:54 (nineteen years ago) link

Coates's "press clips" this week made me miss Goldstein. Urgh.

― hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 12 August 2004 15:56 (nineteen years ago) link

cynthia cotts' press clips always made me miss many people including but not limited to james ledbetter and geoffrey stokes.

― fact checking cuz (fcc), Thursday, 12 August 2004 16:01 (nineteen years ago) link

i'm really sad abt cynhtia cotts' departure. her media column was something i got into in college years and I enjoyed following on and off for the last 15 years. It's departure depresses me.

All the other stuff hapeening at the Voice is also sad, even tho it has very little connection with my life now - I still feel attached to the paper - sadly, no longer the place I fell in love with.

― H (Heruy), Friday, 13 August 2004 00:41 (nineteen years ago) link

Hmm. I was Goldstein's intern in the fall of 1998. He was very nice... gave me an "additional reporting" credit on a bunch of his articles I didn't lift a finger for. His writing is onn and off, and he is as quick to see homophobia in everything as Armand White is to see racism (not to say that both aren't right sometimes!), but this is sad news.

― joseph cotten (joseph cotten), Friday, 13 August 2004 00:49 (nineteen years ago) link

"onn and off." so's mine.

― joseph cotten (joseph cotten), Friday, 13 August 2004 00:55 (nineteen years ago) link

two years pass...

anybody know how the New Times takeover has impacted the circulation/# of website hits of teh Voice (avoiding obv. crack about impact of writing quality)

― gershy, Sunday, 11 March 2007 20:08 (seventeen years ago) link

I'm curious about whether the promise of more hard news, reporters on the street digging up stories, etc. has panned out.

― Mark Rich@rdson, Sunday, 11 March 2007 20:15 (seventeen years ago) link

Another one of those bizarre things: NT says they're committed to investigative journalism, and they are, just not nearly as much as they used to. They decided five years ago that the way to reach younger viewers was to do obnoxious features on club-goers and retard sex and the such. So for them to still use that line about them being on the forefront of real jourtnalism is a little disingeuous.

Our view on ILM is skewed, obviously, because the back of the book SUCKS across the board. They don;t really care that much, and they have no real sense for what separates the good from the dumb.

― Jiminy Krokus, Sunday, 11 March 2007 21:22 (seventeen years ago) link

that guff about better news reporting in the voice is the usual empty rhetoric. the recent feature about some disabled guy's sex life was just unbelievable, like an inept attention-getting attempt in yr college newspaper. BRING BACK THE YAM LADY

― m coleman, Sunday, 11 March 2007 21:23 (seventeen years ago) link

you'd have to be out of your mind to read the voice for news reporting anyway

― m coleman, Sunday, 11 March 2007 21:26 (seventeen years ago) link

I'm still taken aback a little, btw, that a former line editor of mine in Phoenix is the new editor of the Voice. Small f'n world -- brings back the best of that experience for me (which was working with Tony O., btw) and the worst of it (everything else).

― Jiminy Krokus, Sunday, 11 March 2007 21:30 (seventeen years ago) link

you'd have to be out of your mind to read the voice for news reporting anyway

Well, yeah, 90% of the folks who pick up an alt-weekly are wondering what time White Chicks is playing at the mall or looking for Tom Tomorrow. :-)

― Jiminy Krokus, Sunday, 11 March 2007 21:32 (seventeen years ago) link

http://altweeklydeathwatch.blogspot.com/

― xhuxk, Sunday, 11 March 2007 22:49 (seventeen years ago) link

"the 30-year-old lesbian marriage pioneer "

― m coleman, Sunday, 11 March 2007 22:56 (seventeen years ago) link

a girl named kevin?

― m coleman, Sunday, 11 March 2007 22:56 (seventeen years ago) link

I've avoided getting into this here, but I've known Kevin for over a decade and worked with him on publications in college; dude was in my wedding party. That blog post - and some of the things I've seen elsewhere on the web about his hiring - make me wanna smash a PC. He isn't some carpetbagger with zero experience, he paid his dues several times over and is an amazing journalist; and he just bloody started in Minneapolis, this is his first editor-in-chief job. I understand why some longtime CPages people are peeved, but give the dude some time to settle in.

-Ray Cummings

― Beatrix Kiddo, Monday, 12 March 2007 21:58 (seventeen years ago) link

one year passes...

Much much much smaller tabloid format on the way.

― forksclovetofu, Wednesday, 23 April 2008 20:36 (sixteen years ago) link

"kevin" still seems like a total douchebag!

― omar little, Wednesday, 23 April 2008 20:42 (sixteen years ago) link

eight months pass...

just wading thru rss from over new years -- hentoff is out? wow

― goole, Friday, 2 January 2009 22:20 (fifteen years ago) link

― HOOSytime steenman (BIG HOOS aka the steendriver), Friday, 2 January 2009 22:46 (fifteen years ago) link

Wow. Trica Romano wrote the following:

http://www.popandpolitics.com/2008/12/30/village-voice-fires-three-in-editorial-including-nat-hentoff/

This just in: Adding to the media meltdown, my former alma mater, the Village Voice, just laid off three more in editorial. [Full disclosure, I was laid off myself for "matters of taste" in 2007]. Among those laid off is Nat Hentoff, who’s been at the paper since 1958, writing about jazz, and later, civil liberties in his weekly long-running column. Fashion writer Lynn Yaeger, who has worked with the paper over 15 30 years, starting in classifieds, before moving into editorial, was laid off, along with staff writer Chloe Hilliard, who was hired under the current editor, Tony Ortega in 2007. We know, we keep saying this, but we continue to be amazed that there is anyone left to lay off.

― curmudgeon, Saturday, 3 January 2009 04:01 (fifteen years ago) link

Tricia

― curmudgeon, Saturday, 3 January 2009 04:02 (fifteen years ago) link

Hentoff? Jesus shit.

― If Timi Yuro would be still alive, most other singers could shut up, Saturday, 3 January 2009 05:21 (fifteen years ago) link

With Frank Kogan, more is more, and truncating me is never a good idea.
Frank Kogan (Frank Kogan), Wednesday, 6 August 2003

― the pinefox, Saturday, 3 January 2009 21:41 (fifteen years ago) link

one year passes...

so this is basically a porn site now?

― goole, Saturday, 27 February 2010 16:43 (fourteen years ago) link

i pretty much fritter away 10 minutes of every day clicking on a NSFW photo gallery on the Voice site, i'm not gonna lie

― zsockster (Whiney G. Weingarten), Saturday, 27 February 2010 16:48 (fourteen years ago) link

i have no idea where these parties happen or who gets invited to them

― zsockster (Whiney G. Weingarten), Saturday, 27 February 2010 16:48 (fourteen years ago) link

not a huge fan of the new page layout

― ksh, Saturday, 27 February 2010 16:49 (fourteen years ago) link

i havent been by the site in a while but it looks like theyve got like 2-3 good writers left and a whole lot of fifty-photo slideshows of parties where chicks flash the camera?

― max, Saturday, 27 February 2010 17:41 (fourteen years ago) link

so i guess its kind of like vice magazine now?

― max, Saturday, 27 February 2010 17:41 (fourteen years ago) link

http://www.80stees.com/images/products/Anchorman_Camp_Kid_Sports-T-link.jpg

― epic board man (history mayne), Saturday, 27 February 2010 17:43 (fourteen years ago) link

hey, village voice, you're right.. i am stupid !

― tramp steamer, Sunday, 28 February 2010 04:20 (fourteen years ago) link

The Village Voice thinks you like tits, is probably right

― dora the explaro (some dude), Sunday, 28 February 2010 06:44 (fourteen years ago) link

one year passes...

So, I guess this is official now. (Fwiw, I've secretly known about Rob leaving for a couple weeks, but didn't know Maura was coming in until three minutes ago.)

http://blogs.villagevoice.com/music/2011/03/please_welcome_10.php

― xhuxk, Monday, 14 March 2011 20:02 (thirteen years ago) link

you got scooped on another voice thread 47 minutes ago chuck!

― scott seward, Monday, 14 March 2011 20:09 (thirteen years ago) link

okay not scooped.

anyhoo, congrats maura!

― scott seward, Monday, 14 March 2011 20:09 (thirteen years ago) link

if congrats are in order. they are, right? probably!

― scott seward, Monday, 14 March 2011 20:10 (thirteen years ago) link

four years pass...

ok this article being published on a VV site, given what they've done to freelancers is pretty. fucking. rich.

http://www.citypages.com/music/can-professional-concert-photography-survive-7446275

― kurt kobaïan (upper mississippi sh@kedown), Thursday, 2 July 2015 14:11 (eight years ago) link

(or whatever they call the VV/new times whatever clusterfuck now)

― kurt kobaïan (upper mississippi sh@kedown), Thursday, 2 July 2015 14:11 (eight years ago) link

Yep. As for one little aspect of the article, the below is kinda the same issue in my town. Punk and indie rock shows get documented on local media, but go-go, r'n'b, jazz, and myriad international styles exist only in instagram land among friends.

There are so many shows going on in this town where nobody is shooting.

― curmudgeon, Thursday, 2 July 2015 16:03 (eight years ago) link

city pages got sold in may
http://www.startribune.com/star-tribune-buys-city-pages/302763201/

― maura, Thursday, 2 July 2015 17:28 (eight years ago) link

Oh yeah well I hope they've stopped stealing local band photos of ppl flickr accounts and running then w/o paying or giving credit

― kurt kobaïan (upper mississippi sh@kedown), Thursday, 2 July 2015 17:40 (eight years ago) link

nine months pass...

Hilary Hughes who was their 2015 music editor is no longer listed on the masthead. Now they just list a "culture editor"

― curmudgeon, Tuesday, 5 April 2016 13:16 (eight years ago) link

i remember her announcing on twitter that she was leaving VV maybe...a month ago? i didn't see anything about looking for or announcing a new music ed, wouldn't be surprised if that position was being eliminated.

― "Robots are sexy as shit" - Big Sean (some dude), Tuesday, 5 April 2016 14:04 (eight years ago) link

ah, fuck
i liked Hilary.

― ulysses, Tuesday, 5 April 2016 17:49 (eight years ago) link

x-post - yep now I see it. She tweeted Feb. 17th that it was her last day at the Voice.

― curmudgeon, Wednesday, 6 April 2016 16:18 (eight years ago) link

one month passes...

http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/media/2016/05/8599589/village-voice-hires-new-publisher-ahead-extensive-relaunch

― ulysses, Friday, 20 May 2016 17:15 (seven years ago) link

one year passes...

well, fuck.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/22/nyregion/village-voice-to-end-print-publication.html

― Chocolate-covered gummy bears? Not ruling those lil' guys out. (ulysses), Tuesday, 22 August 2017 19:41 (six years ago) link

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.

The Village Voice thinks you're stupid