Entertainment For Lively Minds
12 Months On !
Was sorting out some old magazines to put away, when I came across March 2010 issue of The Word, and realised it has been a year since the magazine had its re-launch.
Was wondering what the readers make of the new style magazine, now it's had plenty of time to settle? Does the illustrated cover still rankle? Do you still enjoy the plethora of editorial? Or do you bemoan the reduction in music reviews?
I've got to say that I find there is consistently more to read, and still of the high standard we've come to expect. Flicking through a few pre make over issues I was struck how little has really changed in terms of content, many of the old features I loved, Word to the Wise, Foreword, Word of Mouth and the legendary Best and Worst still remain.
However aesthetically the magazine is not what it was, the stapled and illustrated covers, which divided opinion at the time, still do nothing for me. I look back at some of the wonderful photography used on previous covers, and they are strong, striking and bold. A grizzly photo of Robert Wyatt or Iggy Pop is more attention grabbing on a magazine shelf, than an illustration of Dylan or Springsteen any day of the week.
As far as reviews go, i've long realised that for my fix of music reviews, Word mag is not where i'll head for. Having said that, the reviews are always well balanced and refreshingly lacking the daft hyperbole of other magazines.
The Footnotes from the beyond section is always a joy, interesting pieces in bitesize chunks. And the revelation of the relaunch was the introduction of the First Person section this has consistently had some of the most enjoyable and stimulating writing of the past year.
I guess in these troubling times we should count ourselves lucky for still having this plucky little independant magazine in our midst. Oh and one other thing the cover cd Now Hear This, is pretty damn good
- More from Mint.
- Login or register to post comments
-
I never knew there was so much in it!
I like the items that appear without fanfare usually near the front, starting at the last column of the previous page and moving on to most of the next two pages. The brief is so wide, the subject matter could be anything - and I quite like the "lucky dip" element of that. It also reflects the character of the Word magazine.
I am not so concerned about the cover.
Your point..
about the old photo covers being more likely to catch the eye is bang on I think. Very few of the illustrated covers would have grabbed me as a potential punter - it was Nick Cave glaring from issue 1 or 2 (or 3?) that sold me my first copy.
Just to clarify that..
What I was trying to say is that I think the photo covers are much more likely to reel in new buyers. I've stuck with the magazine ever since that early issue because the content quality has never dipped, (though I miss the old reviews section). The covers literally don't matter because I'm a subscriber, and even if I wasn't I'd still cough because I know what's inside.
Well...
I'm still buying it!
And I still find myself reading it pretty much cover-to-cover.
Unless it's an article about Richard chuffin' Thompson....or any of the other Fairport Unmentionables.
I´m glad Word Of Mouth came back
It´s one of my favourite segments, especially when it´s a peak into the personal taste of someone in my record collection/bookshelf/DVD collection/you get the point.
Also, I don´t miss the huge review section. I find it easier to digest in its current shape and volume.
I like it!
The only thing I'd add is a couple of extra pages of album reviews, but that's just me.
more please
i really miss the larger reviews section still to be honest - always held more value to me in the magazine, aling with the better writing and interviews - will it return, i hope so; like everything else otherwise, just was very baffled by the massive decrease in new release/reissues reviews...
Much better now
I thought the re-do made the magazine come into its own. The old bound spines made the magazine feel a bit wan - which was not a fair description for what would be inside.
The stapled version reminds me of the New Yorker: Illustrated cover, front loaded section of mini-articles and staking its reputation on the quality of the writers, rather than just having access to the biggest stars.
I don't want to re-ignite The Reviews Section Debate (TMFTL) but I don't want a reviews sections that's expansive just for the sake of it.
In a word: thumbsaloft.
Not convinced on the cover illustrations....
To the point where if I were looking for a music magazine with no prior knowledge of any them then I'm not sure i would pick the word up.
Content however remains excellent, and as others have said the regular columns and word of mouth are for me the best bits.
so is it just me that loves the illustrated covers?
I genuinely think it's a wonderful idea. If I wasn't already a subscriber, the cover would definitely entice me to pick the mag off the shelf. They set it apart from the crowd.
More thumbs up for illustration
I want to add my thanks for, and support of, the illustrated covers. The illustrations are a bold choice and help set The Word apart.
Photography is cheap these days. And ubiquitous. Do we really need another publication with a Photoshopped PR shot on the cover? I say no. Illustration is also practical: it's not always financially or physically possible to commission a photo of a chosen cover subject. And good archival shots can be hard to find and often expensive.
My one wish is that the art directors mix up the style a little more. I know that it's not the same artist over and over again, but I think too many of the covers have been cartoonish caricatures. (Perhaps that's what readers are reacting negatively to.) I'd really like to see a range of different looks and approaches. There is a huge talent pool out there -- and a wide range of styles. The masthead and "brand" can handle more experimentation and I for one would welcome it.
Perhaps your right moko....
It's possibly just the cartoonish or caricature nature of some of the covers that im not sure about.
On the reviews section If
On the reviews section
If you wade through all the broadsheets' arts pages, they're all covering the same ground, it gets boring ... same with Q, NME, etc ...
I guess the idea behind Word's reviews section is it's really selective, with a handful of releases cherry-picked for special attention, which you can then really buy into. You can get gargantuan reviews sections elsewhere anyway, no sense repeating what's widely available in other publications.
I'm sure I'm in a small minority
but I'd happily accept fewer but longer reviews.
As for general thoughts on
As for general thoughts on the new look, still love it, the writing's always great and in terms of presentation, everything's all beautifully wrapped together. Love Mark's diary at the start. The covers - some I like, some I don't - but I subscribe anyway.
True or False
While the front end (ie all but the back page) goes from strength to strength, perhaps the last item each issue is an idea that needs refreshing: true or false?
It's the part of the mag I rarely bother with
...and ends each month's read on a low, relatively speaking. I'd consider swapping it with Word Of Mouth, or similar.
99% True
I always enjoy that page.
I much
prefer the latest format because it has increased the type of content I like, namely a diverse range of cultural articles and features that in the majority stay well off the beaten track but rarely fail to stimulate and engage. I wasn't too sure about Mark Ellen's diary but I rather like it a lot now and it feels in many ways like a nice bridge between the Blog and the Mag.
Word always feels like a magazine with articles that the writers want to write rather than writing "to order" or to fit to a corporate brand which is often the case with other magazines where my biggest gripe is the constant need to mythologise about anyone who's been in the business for more than a nanosecond.
David Hepworth's piece on Alex Chilton and Paul Du Noyer's piece on Brian Epstein are two cases in point: articles about the person which acknowledge the myth but don't pander to it and therefore actually reveal something rather than dazzle with hyperbole to detract the reader from the lack of real substance in the piece itself. Word just seems to know how to find an angle that reveals a new picture to the one you thought you knew.
It's a box of delights
I never flick through, I discover it page by page. I'm glad it's a broad church. It never fails to please and it's my favourite read of the month.
Not mad on the covers though.