Whats The Worst Music Magazine In The World?

I'd like to see Blender - the CD-ROM version - resurrected. But that might just be dotcom nostalgia on my part.

I'm not much of a Relix guy myself....

I miss Rip magazine....it was good for metal. It also introduced me to Mission of Burma, strangely.

I wish they'd bring back New Times L.A. (okay, not music, but still...) Screw Village Voice Media.

I know it's not the done thing round here to confess to reading Q, but it's a guilty habit of mine, despite its being very deeply flawed. That said, has anyone else noticed the extent to which it has resurrected a lot of the features and slapdash nature of mid-90s Select magazine, but without the charm? Even their reviews are written in can't-really-be-arsed Select-ese nowadays.

It's everything you ever wanted to know
Blender megazine!
When the wind and rain are falling outside
I take an interactive ride
On a spinning carousel
That spins me down to hell
Or to the gates of paradise

I always wondered how the wind and rain could both be 'falling'?

It was especially galling because I wrote and sang the bloody thing!

Generally genre based mags are dud. Mags should write about a huge variety of different musical genres, like Q does.

Q seems to me to have gone downhill over the last few issues, not sure if there's been a change in editorship or something??

I did flick through the X-Ray magazine in Smiths the other day, and couldn't understand why anyone would want to buy it.

I know its not strictly a Music magazine, but I do like 'Word' mag, the journalism in it is excellent, and I like the fact that they concentrate on fewer articles in greater depth, although they sill insist on putting people like Dido on the cover.

It's like a bloody comic now.

Anyone who thinks Terrorizer is shit is a madman and plain wrong. Melody Maker 94-96 (my period) would be a nice return. and perhaps Lime Lizard, which I was too young for and which may well have been shit, but I like the free tapes they did.

Not stuff like "Dear Dimebag, i have a smelly discharge".

Please add any magazines you like to the discussion

Terrorizer is a fine specialist magazine, I just assumed some would have opinions on it.
Geir, you are so very wrong with your attitude.

It was good to see Marcello's Kevin Ayers re-issues piece given some level of prominence in a recent Uncut, fairly short though it evidently was... "Joy of a Toy" I must acquire; having had the wonderful "Whatevershebrings..." in my collection for years certainly induces an appetite for more.

But, indeed, I can only be rather aghast at a publication which relegated a brief (in itself a constraint which cheapens the writing) Marcello review of Girls Aloud's "The Sound of the Underground" to, IIRC, the August issue, when the record had been released a whole 2 months earlier! :-/

I sorta liked Raygun. And Bikini was okay too.

Gone will be the traditional pattern of album reviews and band interviews, with sport, film and computer games filling large parts of the magazine. There's even a TV column.

Isn't this exactly the way Q started, interviews with TV/film people, pieces on other aspects of popular culture, consumer goodies.

I was once berated for my "ludicrous opinions" by a gang of Q journalists at a wedding when I drunkenly thought saying the arctic monkeys were shit would be a fun way to start a conversation with a Q journalist.

Advertising needs to be quality, both financially and aesthetically - not quantity.

Requests for doffing critical cap in exchange for ads - NO DEAL.

London as centre of CRITICAL QUALITY rather than focus - must NOT be Smoke but with records.

Hmm, the high-end advertising is beginning to make it sound like this http://www.moreintelligentlife.com/node/912

Ugh!

Unfortunately it started off with Sasha Frere-Jones so I didn't go any further. If I'm not mentioned then it's inaccurate and misleading in any event.

Why Q is going to the wall - it abandoned its heartland readership.

Fatal flaw of all music magazines - looking for more, younger, more fickle readers.

But if they're fickle they'll just keep moving on; they won't necessarily stick with you.

Meanwhile the content and approach are modified so much that the heartland feels deserted, abandoned, betrayed - the magazine has taken them for granted and they slowly disappear, leaving the ship rudderless.

Intelligent Life actually made me burst out laughing when I saw it on the WH Smith shelves. I give it four issues.

xp

Meanwhile the content and approach are modified so much that the heartland feels deserted, abandoned, betrayed - the magazine has taken them for granted and they slowly disappear, leaving the ship rudderless.

― Couldn't care less about bikey Jasper Milvain I'm afraid (Marcello Carlin), Friday, 26 September 2008 15:17 (2 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

Which is why, as stated above, Classic Rock is one of the few magazines that has, from an editorial/sales viewpoint, "got it right".

Plus, due to the age of its readership, it doesn't need to worry about "carrying the brand"

Ie, Connor Mack is a fucking dreadful magazine editor but when it comes to brand ambassadors he's probably top five in the country.

The motto must be - establish QUALITY first, then establish BRAND.

Too many useless magazines try to do it vice versa and fall at the first hurdle like Colin Jackson when it mattered.

No hype until the magazine is proved good enough to warrant it.

Then reputation builds up demand - enabling secure brand establishment.

Long-term success of LRB proves that people will be attracted to a good and extensive read if it has SUBSTANCE.

The motto must be - establish QUALITY first, then establish BRAND.

Rong. You need decent quality from the very first issue but unless you work out who you're aiming that magazine at and what you want it to stand for you're going to end up with an incoherent mess of a first issue.

Unfortunately in music magazine terms, 'establishing the brand' usually means 'treat readers like idiots'.

Which is why I worry that most music magazine pitching sessions will eventually devolve into a Lee McQueen "our target market shaves his balls" style discussion.

It should be aimed at those who want to read it and also (eventually) those who didn't know they wanted to read it.

It should not stand for anything except quality of writing - as with LRB, it should stand as a thing in itself rather than a batterable symbol of transient ideology.

Advertising does not necessarily have to equal hype.

Q is the worst music magazine, and the new look is useless too

Q magazine unveils stylish new look
http://news.q4music.com/2008/09/q_magazine_unveils_stylish_new.html

Angus Young in short trousers, it's not 1985 anymore folks !

you think they don't already? you want to try working in my office, chum. oh wait...

(xpost to dom!)

Holy shit will you look at that cover

http://images.q4music.com/content/q/theqdaily/other/qissue160.jpg

What the hell is that?

Why have they stolen fonts from The Face circa 1999?

And are ACDC really the right band to relaunch Q with? Surely they should have stuck to Coldplay/Springsteen/U2?

Logo's too big as well.

In conclusion: merged with Empire within a year.

Alternative blue plaques (Q nominated sites of real national interest)

ARGH

David Quantick patrolling the streets of London dressed as a schoolboy?

Readers, if you're had it up to your eyeballs with this - try the London Review of Music.

It should not stand for anything except quality of writing - as with LRB, it should stand as a thing in itself rather than a batterable symbol of transient ideology.

see, that's what Word was going for at launch, but now it seems to have settled in to a far older target audience than I expected or wanted, i.e. there's still no music mag for me anywhere!

The London Review of Music - Music writing that believes in Bangs, not Beadle.

That doesn't really work and smartarses will say yes what about Jeremy J Beadle late lamented author of Will Pop Eat Itself but you see where it's going.

I love the concept of Marcello sitting here going 'WE WILL HAVE NO BRAND VALUES' while sitting here, erm, establishing brand values.

Must strive to avoid either/or trap, that's true.

I just want the message to be conveyed that LRM won't be about sending musicians and writers out on stupid Game For A Laugh-type stunts and won't treat its readers as having the intelligence level of an 18-month-old Down's infant.

Wait what's the difference between that brand new look Q cover and all the others?

Bob Dylan, U2, REM, they're not cool, but they sell magazines.

It should not stand for anything except quality of writing - as with LRB, it should stand as a thing in itself rather than a batterable symbol of transient ideology

yes, but who's going to fund that these days? publishers are all irredeemable cunts understandably concerned about the bottom line and the bottom line only, and are so caught up in the kind of focus-group (shaved) bollocks that dom mentions that there's no way they'd take a punt on something as EDGY and RADICAL as, umm, a really solid music magazine packed full of beautiful writing.

the only person who's likely to publish such a thing is a bored millionaire who can afford to take the risk. but why is he or she going bother, when there's a wealth of EDGY and RADICAL music writing spattered across the web? sure, 99.9% of it is utter fucking shit, but with a bit of time and effort you can track down the odd gem. and i fear the kind of person who'd buy this proposed magazine is already putting in that time and effort.

personally, yes, i'd love such a thing. but i'm old. and i'm a hack.

all of which is a long-winded way of saying: music magazines fucked; publishers almost entirely to blame; is anyone really surprised?

which came first - front cover variations or people who really give a fuck about the picture on the cover when it comes to deciding whether to buy it or not?

Wait what's the difference between that brand new look Q cover and all the others?

The background isn't white, foreground doesn't feature "Bono's face".

Well, we could all sit in our armchairs arguing the case for never getting our arses off them or we could do something to change the situation.

This is why I need other people to come in and get involved.

Nothing's going to change unless we TRY.

Remember - investors can only say no but they don't necessarily say only "no."

Also only one story on the cover, as opposed to that plus sidebar full of tiddlers (though that may be the indecipherable pink lines down the bottom, I can't actually tell).

Anyone got Felix Dennis's mobile number. We could always tell him that we'll publish his bloody awful poetry.

Also, wtf does "All new look issue" even mean?

"All new" I get. "New-look issue" I get. Allnewlookissue? That's not even English.

All new! Look! Issue!

OK, fair enough, I'll go somewhere else and ask people who might have some genuine interest in doing something like this. I ought to know better with ILM but I never learn... :-(

ac/dc is always a good idea

xpost

seriously, if i hadn't just begun an MSc, i'd be saying, fuck it, you might be right. as it is, i am time-poor and cynicism-rich. sorry.

Being constructive, I would suggest if you're going to pitch it to anyone who's going to put actual money into it, you shouldn't show such disdain for, like, actually marketing it or promoting it.

My gut feeling is the LRB does so well because there are more people who want to read lengthy essays about, say, David Foster Wallace, than there are people who want to read lengthy essays about dubstep or Lil Wayne or the Pet Shop Boys. You're going to need to come up with a compelling argument that a sufficiently large audience exists that wants to read this sort of thing, and something more than "if the quality is high enough, people will read it".

ie the LRB does well and survives as a realistic commercial proposition because of the obvious existence of a large community of people across every university English department and elsewhere who are reading and thinking at this level. That is not immediately obvious with pop (although if you were to throw in classical and jazz you'd widen that net to a large extent, but I'm not sure this is what you're talking about).

I'd love to read something like this, and if I were a wealthy man, would gladly invest. Sadly I'm not, so all I could give would be moral support.

Speaking personally, I would want it to look good too. I don't think it's enough just to have good written content, great photography and illustration have an important part to play in any journalistic endeavour and in positioning a brand. If it's just the words people will read it online. If they're going to purchase it, especially in such an image driven field as the music business then it's got to look good as an artefact too. Also something any prospective (music business) advertisers would demand too.

The big difference between LRB and 'LRM' is that the audience for LRB are already of the mindset to continue with the print medium. The audience for 'LRM' may need that little extra to go offline and into print.

How many more times do I have to say that I AM NOT OPPOSED TO ADVERTISING IN PRINCIPLE I AM OPPOSED TO HYPE before it sinks in?

I KNOW it's got to be marketed and promoted. I'm not stupid. I don't live on a cloud.

All I am saying is that there are better and cleverer ways of marketing and promoting something like this than other failed music magazines have done over the last 4-5 years. Ways which flatter the prospective readers' intelligence rather than flatten it. Which is why I need other people on board who are good at coming up with ways of doing this.

One thing's for sure; I'm not going to any of the Dragons' Den lot since their patronage of Hamfatter proves beyond question that they know fuck all about music.

the real problem facing music mags at the moment is record company ad depts have much less money than before, and are now spending it on websites and (moreover) tv ads where they used to on magazine ads. that's what'll close magazines in the near future, much moreso than ailing circulation figures.

although the two go hand in hand, perpetually ... i mean, if there was a sudden massive rise in music-mag circulation, you can bet ad departments would be scrambling to get a piece of that.

but fuck me, that's an unlikely if, isn't it?

i think its more to do with the kind of return they get from the different media - a tv ad with music and video clips 'sells' the band more effectively (or not) than a print ad with photos and review quotes, and promotional budgets are so tight now that the money needs to be spent in a way that is more reliable to pay back.

but this industry is hell of cyclical, so who knows. but i still think the labels need to get healthier before the magazines will. its tough out there at the moment.

One thing's for sure; I'm not going to any of the Dragons' Den lot since their patronage of Hamfatter proves beyond question that they know fuck all about music.

This makes no sense, Marcello. They don't have to know a tin pot about music to invest in a MAGAZINE.