Sorry to bring bad vibes to the festive season, but I feel compelled to complain about Andrew Collins’s article in this month’s mag. This really was a tawdry piece of journalism: ill-informed and irresponsible. “Is the gun-toting “management” of the grey squirrel class war or animal racism?” he asks. Well, actually, it’s neither. It’s a government approved project done in consultation with the RSPB, The National Trust and the Forestry Commission. Andrew Collins doesn’t explain this, perhaps because it would get in the way of his rather smug rant about some of the aristocrats who are carrying out the cull, whom he accuses, among other things, of arrogance, racism, and (gulp), genocide. This sounds like the language of extremism.

“If one breed of squirrel does better than another, who am I to arrogantly step in and redress the balance?’ he then asks rhetorically. Applying the same perverse logic, it is also arrogant for scientists to seek cures for Aids (don’t viruses have rights too?), to kill malaria carrying mosquitoes, to rid Australia of the gluttonous and unwelcome cane toad, and so on. To make matters worse, Mr Collins substantiates his argument with an ancient quote from that renowned expert in conservation biology, Sir Paul friggin’ McCartney.

This article was crass populism of the highest order. It belongs in the tabloids, and its presence in your esteemed pages only serves to damage the otherwise excellent reputation of your mag.

Nice to see some ornithology filtering into the blog over the last few days, so here's a bit more. The task is simple: which bird goes with which rock star? Here's a few suggestions to get started:

Guy Garvey - Bearded tit
Van Morrison - Greylag goose
Bono - Great tit
Prince - Firecrest
Iggy Pop - Treecreeper

Ever done this?

Doubt anyone's done this:

Please don't do this:

I was browsing the Word merchandise store this afternoon and noticed that the T-shirts come in two styles: mens and, er, girls. I assume from this that Word’s female demographic is primarily adolescents. In which case, where’s all the Britney stuff?

From Wikipedia:

"The word woman can be used generally, to mean any female human, or specifically, to mean an adult female human as contrasted with girl. The word girl originally meant "young person of either sex" in English; it was only around the beginning of the 16th century that it came to mean specifically a female child. Nowadays girl sometimes is used colloquially to refer to a young or unmarried woman. During the early 1970s feminists challenged such use, and use of the word to refer to a fully grown woman may cause offence. In particular, previously common terms such as office girl are no longer used."

It's what rock musicians used to do best. Talk gibberish, half naked in bed. This being the Butthole Surfers there's a touch of menace here, and more than a hint of chemical assistance. Nevertheless this kind of shambolic display is fast becoming a dying art form.

This guy has a load of Nick Drake covers on YouTube. Pretty good I think.

Sarah Palin reveals her keen command of geography and, er ... little else.

You only need to watch the first 20 seconds of this video to pick out the salient points:

1. What, in heaven's name, is that guitarist playing? Did he really think that this would look cool?

2. The drummer's hairdo. A kind of lunatic goth/ponytail hybrid. Does it have a name?

3. The band calls itself Buck-Tick. Nice. What were they thinking?

Anthony Wilson does his best to coax the rudiments of record production out of a reluctant Martin Hannett.

Please can someone explain how the 99% True column got its name. If one story out of 18 is false (Word 66, 67, 68) then 17 out of 18, or 94.4% are true. If one story out of 16 is false (Word 65), then 15 out of 16, or 93.8%. are true, and so on. For the column to truly live up to its name you would need to print 100 stories, only one of which is false. Scary thought.

This is somewhat related to yesterday’s thread. But in David Hepworth’s typically trenchant commentary in this month’s issue he asks “What further aspects of the musical experience might be crowdsourced in the future?”. Well, might I suggest the contents of music magazines for a start. Of course, this blog is already an infant form of crowdsourcing. It is one way for editors to read the mood of the electorate, so to speak. But what if it went further. What if we, the readers, the paying punters, got to exercise far more choice over the content of the magazine. I, like many of the readers out there I’m sure, can think of numerous ways in which the magazine could be improved in terms of structure, content and writers. If we were willing to pay for these changes, would the magazine be willing to accommodate them? What if we said enough is enough for The Wire (fast becoming the Word equivalent of Freebird); no to the tedious trivia that is Word of Mouth (so Dan Snow likes the Verve – wow!); no to 99% True (100% crap) and no to Andrew Collins. And what if we said yes to a comprehensive review section that does all of that month’s new releases justice, a proper editorial page instead of a couple of paragraphs tossed off before deadline day, some vestiges of a news section that alerted people to the fact that this is 2008, and some passionate in-depth articles on music and musicians. Am I dreaming? Or must I search for intelligent life elsewhere?

Am I alone in yearning for a bit more depth and substance to Word features? Don't get me wrong. I like the magazine, and have been a subscriber for several years. But to me the magazine is let down by too many short, superficial features that demand little from the attention span. Take this month’s issue for example. What’s the point of sending Kate Mossman all the way to the south of France if you’re only going to give her two and a half pages to explore the complex, enigmatic cove that is Kevin Ayers? The articles on Boycott and Wakeman came across as comfy ten-minute chats – the literary equivalent of Parky – patently with products to plug. Only Paul Du Noyer’s feature on the new Lennon biography gave me something to get my teeth into.
I appreciate that all this griping may be the consequence of old age and nostalgia. I remember the great days of Q in the late 80s - a high water-mark of music journalism, and the place where I gained much of my musical education. I can still recall the thrill and anticipation that came with each new issue and I’ve been searching for that vital spark ever since. Where is Tom Hibbert when you need him?
Alas, time moves on. Word retains the same sense of humour - and many of the writers - from that golden period, but somehow lacks the magic mix of frivolity and seriousness that made Q so great. Mojo has already been admonished many times in these pages. It lacks personality and is far too reverent for it’s own good. But at least it allows its writers the space to tackle its subjects with sufficient depth and insight.
On a final, ironic note, do we really need a whole page review of yet another re-release of Carole King’s Tapestry when you can’t even find 100 words for the latest Durutti Column album?

Isn't it about time we had a feature on the great Vini Reilly? I can't remember the last time I read anything anywhere about him. He had a new album out in June that obviously went under the radar of Word HQ. He's been around for donkey's years, has released dozens of albums of beautiful and original music, and yet remains forever in the shadows. He should be a national treasure.