Heartland

I used to buy this many years ago, and bought it last month as it was half price in WHSmiths. Awful.

It used to be the sort of magazine you could happily read a ten page article about a band or a style of music in which you had no interest as it was informative, well written, and had a bit of depth. The reviews section was enormous, and once a month I bought an album by a band I didn't know on the basis of the reviews which are intelligent and enlightening - this was how I bought Document by REM, and how I first got into The Fall.

Now? A Heat style book of lists, a big article being one covering 5 pages with maybe 3 of them consisting of pictures.

This appears to me to be a microcosm of the decline in intelligence in the media. The assumption now seems to be that the average member of the public has the attention span of a forgetful gnat and we are fed media to match that expectation. I'd argue though that the demand is still there - plenty of people want to read some depth - but where to find it?

Or am I wrong?

I agree, Q used to be a regular purchase but is
rarely now. As you said I bought a few albums I would
never have considered on their recommendation.

Q did of course launch Mojo as a supposed deeper
read, but mostly that seems to be Led Zep et al.
Nothing intrisically wrong with it, but it has been
done to death.

Bring back Sounds

Ah, the dumbing-down argument. The magazine that might come closest to answering your question is Word, IMHO, but I wouldn't get carried away. See below for the rant!

roffers wrote:I'd argue though that the demand is still there - plenty of people want to read some depth - but where to find it?

If the demand is still there, why is the growth area in magazines following the Heat, Nuts, Zoo trend of pictures of scantily-clad women and unchallenging editorial? You can chart this through the decline of Playboy from a lifestyle mag with a few tits into a tit mag without (enough) flange to count as hardcore porn.

People want to read some depth: maybe they do, but perhaps not if you have to pay staff according to the time it takes to research and write a 10-page article that will be of interest to the uninitiated reader as much as the fan. That takes time, which most publishers don't really have. It also takes cash, which most publishers don't like to spend.

At the same time bands are increasingly protective of their public image (or more accurately, perhaps, labels are more protective of the public image of their acts). Therefore a well-researched and informative piece is a threat, because in many cases it won't convey the requisite breathless excitement. If you're paying for access to the acts, you can't afford to write that cheque and then have a PR veto half your copy. But if you don't pay, and you don't accept the editorial interference you don't get the big names and nobody reads about it.

If you want detailed writing, you're better off looking at the web and the fan publications. They will at least tell you about the bands (in far more detail than you could ever want). Of course the quality is hugely variable. A committed fan may not be much of a writer (that's not a dig from a professional ivory tower - style and fluency really do matter). It won't automatically swallow the approved PR line. But it may not be very accurate, balanced or enlightening. You filter in where you can find bits of quality.

Finally, what about the reporter? If I've got a choice between doing my job quickly and effortlessly, if in an ultimately unsatisfactory way, or working my butt off to produce the in-depth 10-page epic you (and I) want to read, what will motivate me? I'm getting paid the same, and if I stick to the straightforward I can be in the pub quicker.

As an aside, I work in sports journalism (not at any exalted level). Our industry is dominated by the need for quote-led scandal. Arsene says something nasty about Alex, Alex says something nasty back; Jose patronises them both for squabbling so they turn and tut at him for being a pervenu. Meanwhile Craig Bellamy and a cast of assorted s**t at Newcastle manage to be petulant, spoiled and utterly dislikeable while the phone-ins hiss and boo. And it's all rubbish.

What you don't see is much meaningful analysis of the stuff that happens on the pitch: why did Arsenal fall apart against Man Utd last night? Don't ask the Sun's reporter ... he doesn't actually know. He was too busy watching to see if something "outrageous" happened. I've successfully insisted on incorporating proper match analysis into our coverage of local teams (West Ham, Southend and Canvey), only to find that two our of three reporters can't actually do it very well (not just my opinion). So do we stick to a Conference version of Arsene pulling Alex's hair and pee-ing in the sandpit?

^

what he said

Was a reader of Q from day one till about 8 years ago when they did the Beatles/Beach Boys/Sgt. Pepper/Pet Snounds thing into the ground, started buying Mojo, again from day one and stopped for the same reason. I never got round to Word and from what I hear on The Word Forum it's following in the wake of it's two elder siblings.

I quite liked that X-FM magazine although it was too expensive to be bought every month. I think that has folded now as well.

Maybe part of the problem is that any serious music magazine can't afford to get too involved with the contemporary scene for fear of seeming to ignore the quality of what has gone before.

After all, no serious "greatest album/song of all time poll" would be complete with Beatles, Stones, Pepsi and Shirley or Beach Boys in it, so no magazine can adequately escape that path.

Plus journalists grow old like the rest of us ... and after a while you tend to feel you've heard it all before. The number of big new things I've heard recently and thought "I'd love them if I was 15" before putting on a Jesus & Mary Chain CD ...

Enforced culling of journalists at age 26 ... send them to work on dull books for dull fans of dull old bands after that. Replace with hip young gunslingers (I waited a long time before deploying that phrase today!) and everyone's a navel-gazing winner.

Except in the case of British Sea Power, where obviously one is a naval-gazer instead!

andymackem wrote:... send them to work on dull books for dull fans of dull old bands

very harsh words