I seem to recall that at the time the new britpop related stars of the mid 90s pushed a lot of people from the late 1970s off the racks. Coverage of Sting, Costello, XTC, faded a little. I was a big Q reader at the time, and it seemed obvious in that mag. Even Morrissey got sidetracked, but he found his way back. Maybe it's time for another pop putsch.

Or maybe there's no one interesting around at the minute.

Or maybe in the iPod driven Noughties, the past is more homogenic and less era-specific.

The new issue of Paste has The Decemberists "adorning" the cover - I really can't see it selling very many issues on the strength of it though.

Jarvis Cocker is all over the magazines with another solo album only a few hundred people have any interest in. File him along with M Faithful as having better PR than talent.

They are all pushing "product" of some form or other...

The Roses (well Zomba anyway) have a 20th anniversary edition of the album coming out.

Oasis struggling to shift tour tickets (despite the hype) - Manics have the new, Richey written, album out. Green Day's latest offering about to hit the shelves (I LIKE them, but can't quite work out why!)...

Not forgetting Uncle Bruce on the cover of Uncut with a Glasto appearance and UK stadium jaunt happening in June (great CD with that by the way)

Word and Mojo seemed to have pinged Island and Drake out there on a whim....not going to entice a rake of floating readers to purchase the mags? Good on yer!

if it gets rid of the music press' reliance on Beatles/stones/hendrix covers in quiet months then it's a good thing. I think the readership age of music monthlies has always been mainly 30+. Some of the older readers might find it hard to believe but to many of us feel that the 80's and into the 90's with eg. the smiths, new order, the roses, radiohead and even oasis represent just as an exciting time in music as the 60's did for you.

all read? There seem to be many a new cover appearing even in W.H.Smiths with strange faces on their fronts (and even stranger content.) One called "Clash" for instance, nothing to do with the band of same name. And then all the freebies in shops I wouldn't frequent. E-zines as well. Maybe the printed word as in magazines in shops is not for other than us oldies?

manages to find plenty of mags with High School Musical, Sugababes, Girls Aloud, Taylor Swift, Miley Cyrus articles in them so they are definitely about. Comments about artists being on covers wanting to shift product are accurate but it was ever thus. Magazines I would imagine would definitely want to have articles in them that have some current relevance so I dont really see any problem with that. Exception is Record Collector which as its name implies is specifically dedicated to Record collectors.

I certainly agree that the bands featured in the magazines I mentioned have something to sell, but I disagree that the mainstream music press has always been a 30+ thing. I bought Word at issue 1 when I was about 24, and I'd been buying Q since I was 15 (then it seemed to turn into a rap magazine, so I stopped). The NME always marketed itself as a voice for youth and seemed to latch itself onto various half-hearted new 'scenes', then began to re-attach itself to Verve, Oasis etc - even Morrissey - when sales began to dwindle. Is it always possible to blame the internet for this? Do people actually read interviews online?

Whilst it's dangerous to be too nostalgic, I do seem to recall that some of the fun with a band/singer was reading their interviews and hearing their opinions on various subjects. I agree that it's a generational thing, to an extent, but I couldn't care less what Alex Turner thinks about the Euro, or Jonny Borrell's view on the Ontological Argument. However, I'd like to hear Jarvis Cocker's thoughts on lettuce, and I wouldn't mind hearing Julian Cope's views on hill walking...because they're interesting people. And, before I'm accused of denigrating the youth of today, I'm only about six months older than Jonny Borrell.

I suppose I'm looking for someone interesting to read about: a quotable, intelligent, articulate singer - regardless of their age/gender. Any suggestions?

that magazines will always feature established artists in order to maximise sales. These established artists will inevitably be from an era that appeals mostly to the age of the magazine's core audience (I did say majority 30+, not all). The magazine will know it's core audience in some detail for advertising purposes. Therefore, it's obvious we are now in an age where the main readership of the mags grew up in the 80's and 90's (30+) and why, hopefully, we will soon no longer be required to read about the making of the 'white album' again (Mojo/uncut). Here's hoping for some insight into the making of 'the queen is dead' / 'technique' / 'spirit of eden' and other such landmarks.

that a magazine wants established artists on their covers to maximise sales. These established artists will be taken from an era that appeals to the majority of its readers (i did say MAJORITY not all are 30+). As the magazine has a very good idea who its audience is for advertising revenue purposes then it's clear that most monthly music mag readers are now from the 80's and 90's as can be seen from recent covers. If this development brings an end to 34 page 'making of the white album' features in Mojo or Uncut with added insight from the studio hamster then all the better. Lets see some insight into 'queen is dead', 'technique', 'spirit of eden' and other landmarks.

i thought my first post hadn't worked so re-wrote it - anyway, you get the gist.

Yeah, I generally agree with what you're saying, but surely if the readership of music monthlies has 'always been mainly 30+', why were the Prodigy, Stone Roses, Oasis etc usually on magazine covers in the mid 90s, as opposed to Elvis Costello and Sting? When I was a student, most of my friends bought at least one music monthly, which would be full of contemporary bands.

Please don't think this is one of those tiresome one-upmanship posts; I agree that the demographic has changed, and you're spot on when you say that, obviously, magazines will be produced to appeal to their core audience - especially in the current climate, as circulations dwindle. The core audience now is, as you say, fans of 80s/90s groups. My point is: where are the contemporary bands that will fill the magazines in 10 years time? Will we be treated to an in-depth feature of the making of Heathen Chemistry? Will there be music mags in 10 yrs?

People aged 20-30 still obviously like music, but do they care about who makes it - their opinions etc? Is it a good thing that people, perhaps, aren't interested? Is the whole music scene now so ephemeral that opinions are just puffs of smoke?

Incidentally, I'm sure I once read a 'making of the Queen is Dead' feature in Uncut! I'll try and dig it out for you.