I suspect they were turned down for a staff job myself ;-)

He or she doesn't even have the guts to write under his or her own name.

I don't know how The Guardian can justify publishing such bullshit, I really don't. That's about the third time I've read a column by Maggoty Lamb that someone's posted on here, and I have yet to understand a bloody thing.

Normally I'd just ignore something like this, but it's pissed me off. I love this magazine in all its guises and couldn't give a vole's testicle what some twenty-something media whore from Hoxton thinks of it. Maggoty Lamb? Go fuck yourself, you utter waste of space... and you can shove your Frappuccino up your arse while you're about it.

His brother George is even worse.

I think they may have a point.

...I may or may not agree with Mr/Ms Lamb, but I don't remotely understand what s/he is trying to say.

I did think the mag had got into a bit of a rut, but the last couple of months have picked up for me. I really like the "business" articles and the Rules from an expert.

I understand the need to interview, say, Kate Bush when a new LP comes out and the Word can only interview people willing to be interviewed, hence getting people on the promo round, but it does sometimes feel as if every time I turn on radio/pick up a mag the same people are being interviewed, and I always felt Word got the interviewees other people weren't getting, which I don't so much at the moment.

I didn't think I'd say it, but I do actually wish there were more record reviews and that they were more varied.

..if we stop buying it then the blog would disappear. And then what would we all do? Something constructive? God forbid. Like all media it goes through phases where it appeals and then it doesn't - I still miss the days of numerous reviews and never bother with the Hepworth and Mossman roundup as it invariably features stuff that isn't for me, (which is why the mag needs a much more diverse range of new and reissued albums reviewed by a diverse range of reviewers, I think).

A comment on their personal taste. It isn't fact.

I think Maggoty Lamb is a bell-end.

That, too, is an opinion and a comment on my personal taste.

The difference is that it IS fact.

presumably "Maggoty" read the blog to see what the reaction was - largely indifference, apart from a general agreement that it was tortuous, impenetrable guff.

My guess is that "Maggoty" was miffed and this is his/her "revenge" ie: more tortuous, impenetrable guff that no-one can be arsed reading to the end. As Patrick Crowther says, it's just some helmet wandering around Hoxton, not someone whose opinion matters.

on the whole I'd say the mag is as good/bad as ever. By that I mean there are parts of it I like more than others and the parts I like, I like just as much as I liked the bits I used to like, and the other bits, well I don't like them just as much (or less - I'm not sure).

That said, this bit of the article - 'The new M83 album, it says here, promises "a huge great romantic sound that could almost occupy the space the Moody Blues marked out in the late 60s or, more recently, World Party." Here's the clue, readers: it could only almost occupy the space so freshly vacated in all our hearts by Karl Wallinger's mid-80s tribute band to some of the Beatles' old skin. It's not even good enough to actually occupy it.' - has a point

Blind loyalty to the mag is honourable, but it's only a short stagger from there, to here http://wordmagazine.co.uk/content/bob-dylan-its-all-about-walk

(before you send out the lynch mob, I have two words for you - Bruce Forsyth)

I was hoping for something funny but it's rather weak. Someone trying hard to have a go despite a lack of material to work with - case in point, the repeated "I dislike this article so much that I'm going to pretend it wasn't really written by the stated author" gag. I am sure that there are many people here who could have done a better (ie more amusing) job.

...lives under a bridge and has a liking for getting people's goat.

I've done my fair share of trolling too, the success of which can be judged by the scale of the reaction that you provoke. On that criteria Mr Lamb's piece has served its purpose well.

Most online disputes are battles that are not worth fighting and cannot be won, only prolonged. The only way to come out with any dignity is to starve your opponent of attention. If you don't engage them, they are reduced to the equivalent of the man who I sometimes see on my way home from work, arguing with his reflection in the windows of Southend bus station.

in much the same way I used to enjoy Clive James' acerbic TV reviews in The Observer many years ago. A little colourful criticism is always entertaining.

I don't see why everyone is getting quite so defensive/outraged/hot under the collar, it's just a magazine review. He/she hasn't violated your granny.

But honestly, is there any alternative?

The writing is superb, the contributors are funny and opinionated. And lest we forget the massive!

I genuinely feel affection for the magazine and it's staff (who come over so well on the podcast). I want Word to do well.

I gave up on Q when it started referring to itself in the third person (see also empire).

Who is Maggoty Lamb though? Will this lead to a massive witch hunt?

as he's known down Hoxton way, is, I believe, several different writers each commentating on different aspects of the publishing industry and are at the beck and call of one Tim Jonze (note the Z) - editor of the paper's online music dept and part-time Morrisey aggro-stirrer.

On occasions the articles are pretty well written and on others are dreadful. I've had to re-read a few to make sure I hadn't missed a paragraph in an attempt to make sense of it all.
This latest one is utterly cock-snappingly bad. Not so much for the points the author is lamely trying to make but for the appallingly useless fashion they are presented in.

* for the record, I quite like The Word's review section.
* also for the record, Gerry Rafferty is still dead.

... are so obsessed with "the quality of the writing" why are they even reading a) a magazine, and b) a magazine about rock music and films - and not some acclaimed piece of literature. I'm not arsed about the quality of the writing - as long as I can read it and it entertains me. I read the magazine because it's a music magazine and I like music. Why are people bothered by what this person thinks?

Sadly Evelyn Waugh has very little to say about popular culture and never produced a magazine, so I read The Word as well.

...was brilliant on dubstep, though.

Unsurprisingly I've been really enjoying the 90s nostalgia pieces recently - Suede, Noel Gallagher etc. It's the future of old man nostalgia for ten years at least!!!

and once The Guardian employs a translator for him, I may then find out what it is.

I guess it's one of the less pleasurable parts of writing a music magazine - listening to new stuff for hours on end, having to hear it at least 3 times before you know what you think of it, and then having to use words to describe it to the uninitiated - so I can well understand why a music mag would choose to minimise reviews.

But what fills the gap? I love the incisive features, some of the "biz" articles, but I thought the headphone review / HMV advertorial pushed it a bit too far, even though I like reading reviews of such hardware. But somehow the paid-for nature of it smelt a bit odd, and I found myself suspiciously looking for ads that might have influenced other editorial.

So, unpopular though it might be with the poor staff writer who'd have to listen to more music, I too would like to see more reviews of new music. It's how I got into Camille - by reading a review of Le Fil a few years back, and I'm very grateful.

Don't they share a fair few writers? Their main music people are all Word friendly. I like the Grauniad and Word. It seems odd to me that people are getting so bloody touchy about a fairly frivolous piece of blogging. The fact that Maggotty didn't pick up on the more pricklier recent controversies especially podcastgate and Freecargate goes to show its not really an attack, just some flippant banter.

but I'm a bit worried as I find myself agreeing with Maggot about this recent trend for sponsored Advertorials in the mag...there was the headphones one then this latest music devices thingy. They do take up a fair few pages too that might be better off displaying some writings on bands or records or something like that. I imagine the next issue will feature about six pages of the pick of the year's Box set DVDs, it's Christmas available from HMV type "feature".

But, to summarise the points in the blog (for those that are having understandable trouble) - is the Magazine ..

• Hopelessly Conservative, and "about as diverse as a Wilco concert"? ... yes
• Lacking "fluidity"? - yes
• And does "David Hepwumf", or whoever make cowardly, guileful points in fear of nailing his colors to the mast.. yes. But to be fair, a lifetime of writing reviews that hype up the interminably dull and forgotten, must lead to a growing suspicion about your own judgment. At least one would hope so.

Whoever Maggoty Lamb is, has seriously got to make their stuff more readable though. Last one was hilarious it was so wankily written.

Maggoty Lamb seems like Project Witchcraft in Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy; he writes like an individual mole, but is really a committee of concerned journos trying to distract us from the overall crisis of the music media by generating some controversy. Revenues are sinking and it's not clear how to keep hold on to a demographic. I sense this in many magazines lately: The Wire published a dreadfully sexist full-page ad last year (which was ripped by readers and writers), because they couldn't dare to decline the revenue. I think The Word is doing ok.

This Maggoty Lamb guy is clearly an arse. I don't even see the point of his jibe at David Hepworth's review of M83. Positioning it with reference to the Moody Blues and Word Party gives me a rough idea what it might sound like and whether I might be interested. Surely the whole point of a review?
As far as other comments about the standard of the magazine are concerned, I've always accepted that each edition will contain a proportion of articles etc that are of minimal interest to me. I've been through the whole Q to Mojo to Word cycle, and stopped buying Q and then Mojo when there was a higher proportion of uninteresting ( to me ) articles than interesting ones. Word is a long way from this situation for me and has been since the beginning.
Not sure what the next magazine in the cycle would be. 'The Oldie'? Maybe it would be easier to open the desk drawer and reach for the pearl handed revolver...

[muffled whispers]
Well I've never heard of them...

Maggoty is trying to attract music, film and lit loving readers back to such great titles as OMM.

..oh, wait.

...Part I agree with him is the bit about the HMV Advertorial - I didn't like that. So much, if not all of The Word is so clearly written with "care" - as in caring about the subject, or at least being genuinely interested in the subject, whoever or whatever it might be. It's that care that comes through the pages and makes the Mag so good. It's not personality writing, it's the subject not the writer - the best kind of writing is like the best kind of refereeing - you just don't notice the writer is there, though it's clearly a major talent to be able to write that way. An advertorial for headphones/HMV done like interviews with the writers is the exact opposite of good the writing I enjoy throughout the Word. It appears obvious HMV paid Word for their writers to say (good) things about headphones HMV sell. It just didn't sit right, I guess.

don't bother me. Sign of the times. These commissions keeps the magazine going. It was only a couple of pages, just skip them. I actually found it quite informative.

I thought the comment from M Lamb lacked validity. I've been moved to write the following comment under my Guardian handle 'Steeleye':

"I personally find The Word the best music mag available these days. It's a damn good read that goes beyond music and taps into both popular and nostalgic culture.

The article on the 'O Brother, Where Art Thou' soundtrack made the point that the music in that film served to reinvigorate interest in American country, folk and blues music and introduced this to a new, appreciative audience. It also provided a boost in some musician's careers, particularly Alison Krauss who went on to global fame with her collaboration with Robert Plant in their superb album 'Raising Sand'.

Maggoty Lamb (Lamb - what a ridiculous name for a 'trying to be carnivorous' journalist) fails to share that, preferring to use what was actually an interesting article to illustrate that The Word is rather boring. Not only is that cheap and misconceived, but it also illustrates that M Lamb is a sensation-seeking sniper, rather than a serious reader. We all know who the mischief-maker really is, don't we Maggoty."

I must say I now feel better!

I meet Maggot E. Lamb, the rising superstar of new media, in the tearooms at The Dorchester. Woolly of head and cloven of hoof, he is, despite his name, free of visible parasites. The maggots, he reassures me, are strictly metaphorical.

“Existential maggots then.”

“Oh very much so. They didn’t exist so I had to invent them.”

He brushes aside an angular, dyed black fringe revealing Kholed eyes.

“You were discovered in Hoxton by the Christian youth group leader, Tim Jonze.”

“Tim was leading a two day teen abstinence seminar. On Sunday things got a bit wild. He broke out his acoustic guitar and led us all through a 45 minute chorus of ‘He’s Got The Whole World In His Hands.’ I said: “Hey asshole, you think God doesn’t have hooves?”

“Later we got talking. Tim has an interesting theory that if Jesus was around today he would spell his name Jezuz and communicate with his followers via Twitter and the NME.”

“Tim later employed you to give a rolling sheep’s-eye view of adult contemporary rock magazines for the Guardian.”

“Oh that... Look, to be perfectly honest, every few weeks somebody claiming to be vet immerses their arm halfway up my backside. In that situation you’ll pretty much say whatever you’re asked to. I’m not proud of it but it keeps me out of the job centre...”

That's gotta hurt for all you Guardian readers. I'd say probably 80% of the massiv lean that way. 'Oooh look what the Guardian says on this *link*' Who gives a shit what the Guardian says on ANYTHING?

And btw, what's all this stuff about this maggoty guy being a "Hoxton" media whore? He sounds exactly like half the posters on here - only much more incisive.

I swear I could write the opinion of 4 or 5 Word posters on ANY subject and you wouldn't see the join. All trendy received opinion.

Re the article, I agree with some of what he gets at - I mean that Queen piece a couple of issues ago ffs. Beatifully written I'm sure - I'm not knocking the sentiment - but no matter how I tried I just couldn't muster the interest to read about bleedin Queen, who cares about a crap act that were crap 30 years ago.

Andrew Harrison's writing makes the subscription worthwhile in itself. No I don't know him either.

I pine for the down arrow.

Since I don't ever buy a newspaper any more because I am so fed up of them its hard to see where I am supposed to be receiving MY opinions from. Maybe my children. Maybe I make up my own mind.

Here was me thinking there was a lot less sheeple behaviour on here than most places, and that was why I liked it - what a contemptible middle class middle aged trendy loser that makes me.

PS Good stuff backwards7 as ever, I prefer your parallel universe I think!