couldn't care less about James 'rhyming slang' Blunt much m'self, but the mention by mark there makes me want to ask the question of those here in the parish?

"At what stage, assuming you used to read it, did you put down an issue of Q magazine and think 'no, it's shit actually' and stop buying it?"

(obv messrs hepworth et al can answer the question by replacing the word 'buying' with 'producing')...

I stopped reading Q when they got rid of the "who the hell does so and so think he is" column by Tom Hibbert. Whatever happened to him? He was funny...like Charlie Brooker but in the nineties, or was it the eighties?

I think what happens with magazines is that they have a few good solid few years and then they get rubbish... look at Q, Uncut is off in the same direction (lists of things all the time!) ...I hope its not going to happen to The Word....

Can't be doing with James myself, but throughly enjoy the effect he has on a car full of 11 year olds as they belt out Wise Men and You're Beautiful, especially as I inadvertently bought the sweary version. Brings a tear to the eye, which is no bad thing in my book.

I remember thinking at the time that the cover design of Blunt's album was meant to subliminally remind me of Jackson Browne's eponymously titled first album, so often wrongly referred to as Saturate Before Using. This was no doubt an attempt to place Blunt within the 'well crafted and sensitive' bracket that we're talking about. But Blunt has yet to write anything as good as Fountain Of Sorrow, Late For The Sky, or even Doctor My Eyes. Call me unfair, but I sense that he won't ever. This is not because he is the crown prince of what I like to call 'wetrock' (which does not take in decades of sensitive singer songwriters: merely the current trend of Coldplay, Blunt et al that poor old Jeff Buckley created without realising it), but because he's bloody awful. I don't care that he's of a certain class - inherently English but curiously feels a duty to refer to the tube as the subway because it sounds better in song - or that he's been in the army, or that his music is probably listened to more in kitchens than living rooms (and that's not a sexist remark: merely that there are certain CDs by Blunt, David Gray and Dido that I've only ever seen on those little wooden racks next to the toaster). I'm not having a go because he's fair game and his biggest hit has been played to death and often makes people think about contemplating the same. I just think that his music is poor. To be fair, he may have got away with it in other time or place, but that's showbiz.

Saw Blunt on Parkinson last night, and I have to say I think I've been a bit kind. The man is insufferable.

In fact, something I've been pondering for a while now: usually if Parky likes it, I don't. He seems to be endlessly banging on about good, proper music, and ramming Michael Buble or some other such vacuous inoffensive post-Rat Pack Radio 2 middle of the road tosh down our throats. AND he doesn't like Elvis.

Q magazine is a bit like comparing BBC London 94.9FM with GLR in the 'old days'. We've just got older is all. Q hasn't changed. We have. And that's why James Blunt isn't popular with our demographic. He's young - ish, wealthy, talented, and chicks really dig him. What is there to actually like about him? He probably drives a fast Italian sports car too - the bastard! So to those miserable, grumpy old men, I say this: Get over it. Your youth has gone. You will no longer be hanging out in discos like it was 1972 and your hair is either receding or you have already gone bald. Not to mention that your waist band has expanded, but you've kept all your old wardrobe because one day, just one day, you'll break free, buy a harley and... Need I go on? I too hate James Blunt, but at least I know why and I am being honest about it. Q is boring. Mojo is slightly better, but seems to be stuck in a rut, and Word is - interesting. The jury is still out on Word as far as I am conerned, but I am giving it a go. I'm no expert but I seem to keep confusing it on the newstand with Uncut. Both publications seem almost identical to look at, flick through etc.

I have to disagree with axevictim and his self flagellating analysis of Capt Blunt and Q. I don't know any kids who are actually into James Blunt and thats because he is loved precisely by people who think that Parky is the cutting edge of popular culture. I may be fatter, I may be balder, but rubbish is rubbish and I think if I was 18 again I would hate him even more.

And Lucas is right - Q use to be good once upon a time a very long time ago, and credit where credit is due, it was the original music monthly, But these days I can't even bring myself to buy it on a long haul flight, its corporate garbage with zero character. I think we are beyond the point of just tedious with the best ever lists - it is lazy journalism and easy copy for magazines who then try and charge us a fiver for the pleasure of reading yet another boring list which is probably the same as the one that was on Channel 4 the other week....

I confess that I still sometimes buy Mojo and Uncut. Its a habit akin to smoking except harder to give up.

I'd like to batter James Blunt with my own spinal column.

All done with affection...obviously.

I'm sure we all listen to lots of music - as I pass the big 40, I have never listened to so much in my life. And James Blunt has been one among many that has been reasonably enjoyable for me. Not my favourite, but I am happy to listen to it if it is on.

My wife really enjoyed the 1st James Blunt album (though not impressed by the new one), and so did my three kids aged 4,9,11 while travelling to school (of course Steph was quite adept at hitting the mute button when the swear words arrived).

We even went to see him live and I must admit, that although my expectations were not high, I enjoyed it. That was primarily because I believed that he really enjoyed his music, and I came away thinking he was a "proper musician" with some decent songs and actually he is committed to giving a good performance.

So though it makes a good discussion to jump from love and hate (or just hate so far in this thread!), and we all seem to need "targets" in our life, I think that James Blunt is actually not worthy of such aggressive attacks. In fact it's sort of sad that anyone can get so upset by it.

Funny captions. That's why I bought it. When they ended...so did my interest frankly. Glad to see The Word has kick-started the fine tradition, this month's 'they do like 2D b-sides the seaside' beneath the Gorillaz review was a classic ( give that man/woman a rise ). 'Uncut' is stuffed somewhat too liberally with alt-country drivel for my taste ( it's either country or it ain't brothers and sisters ) and 'Mojo' is alright but....yawn....you know what I mean. 'Record Collector' is good for reviews ( although it lacks attitude and is way too nice about everyone- even Queensryche and Jackson Browne ). I was brought up on spiky NME but these days I can't understand a word of it. ( And that's exactly how it should be of course). Actually, on a different subject, I met Captain James Blunt once. Thoroughly decent chap I thought. Crap music of course but a true 'stand up cat' ( as I believe they say in certain Harrovian quads ).

I don't hate James Blunt, I just find him extremely bland. And to bracket James Blunt with Jackson Browne, Tim Buckley, or for that matter James Taylor, just seems bizarre. Roger Whittaker sang and played guitar back in the 60's, but I don't recall anyone suggesting Durham Town was the equal of Lay, Lady Lay which was more or less contemporaneous. There's nothing wrong with sensitivity, but saccharine saturated mawkishness is never acceptable in my book.

On the question of Q and Mojo, I say both changed drastically a few years after their launch. Q became a magazine that was a record publicists dream. I suspect there would have been a correlation between the amount of advertising revenue from particular record companies and the cosy promotion of their acts. Mojo just became dull. Beatles / Pink Floyd / Queen and lists ad nauseum.

Going off at a tangent, do former writers / editors of these magazines see these magazines and sigh wistfully at the sight of publications that were once vibrant and and opionated but are now so piss poor, or do you just look at it, like the rest of us when we move on to another job as something you used to do? Apart from keeping in touch with a few ex-colleagues I don't have contact with former work whereas Word is part of the competition to Q and Mojo. Of course as part of the competition, you're probably glad they are so crap.

Fact:Q was good but it morphed into the Sun of the music mags.
Fact:Mojo is still good but not as good as it was - I am still a subscriber and have been since 1995 - its deterioration has nothing to do with my age but more to do with a diminishing subject list. How many more articles can they do on the Beatles for god sake?
Just wait to Emap sell them off and say what happens then!!!

Word is great but will eventually go the same way - pessimistic? No,realistic!!!

James Blunt is crap but in the same league as Dido,Sade,David Gray,Gilbert O'Sullivan and all the other bland fuckers who seem to get under the skin and into the psyche of our good lady wives - sexist on this matter?? You bet.

I think Q started going downhill when the Glimmer Twins left! Thank god they reformed for Word!

What constitutes a proper musician? Bob Dylan can't sing and Joe Strummer and John Lee Hooker couldn't play the guitar but Capt Blunty knows his Am7th's from his E Majors. Great. He is not even a singer-songwriter in the traditional sense - don't hitmakers "help" him write the songs? So he is a bit like Girls Aloud really. Except less honest.

I'm sorry Ian but being a "proper musician" does not cut it as an excuse for bland drivel. He is an easy target, but feeling passionate about music is surely a great thing in this globalised, pasturised, starbucksy corporate world we live in.

I fear that Word turned into that downward spiral when the magazine became the definitive article - by the way why was that? I hope I am wrong and maybe they will be the exception to prove the rule....

I can't speak for my wife, living in a post-sixties kind of relaxed liberal enviroment, but she did tell me that if I ever came home with a Blunty CD she would dump me. Which is fair enough really.

There's a long history of people calling music shit just because it's popular. Back to Bedlam didn't get a bad review anywhere until after You're Beautiful had been at number one forever. I specifically recall a good review in The Word. Can it have been a good record, by pretty much all accounts, one moment and awful the next? The music didn't change.

What if you were to write or sing a song that it turned out millions of people wanted to hear? Would you have known that was going to happen? Would it make you, when people got sick of it through other people overplaying it, someone to be detested? Or are you only to be respected if your appeal is limited?

If you don't know him personally and you must hate someone then why not save your hatred for people that you know to be truly bad, not someone writing and singing pop songs? And if you really need to hate a pop singer, there are some out there who can't play or write, so why does Blunt get all the stick? Answer: overexposure.

I don't think it's anything to do with exposure, except to say that having a terrible song played to death can make the pain worse. But make no mistake: You're Beautiful was shit the day it was recorded. And, for the record, I think that hatred is a fairly unhealthy emotion. I don't hate James Blunt, but I do think that his music and watching him perform it is extremely painful.

There are some great really really mega popular songs - off the top of my head:

Can't get you out of my head by Kylie
Wonderwall by Oasis
even
Angels by Robbie Williams

All better than You're Beautiful and all had the whole of the country singing.

I don't hate James Blunt as such and I don't dislike him because he's posh, I simply don't like his singing voice or songs. It's merely a matter of aural distinction for me, he sounds weird and whiny and I don't like it.

Apart from that I find most of his songs (that I've heard) bland, platitudinous and dull. I don't care if he can play the guitar, the music that he plays so allegedly well is boring.

Can't Get You Outta My Head a song? No way. A bit of a melody and a catchy chorus maybe, but no way it's a song. It sounds shit played on an acoustic guitar, where as the others work, with the production shine removed.

What constitutes a song?

REM's One I Love is just a few words, a melody and a catchy chorus.

You can play that on a acoustic guitar so is that the definition?

I think that, unlike Wonderwall, Can't Get You Out Of My Head is a superior pop song. I don't much like it, but I think it's a very clever combination of catchiness and wit - largely in that you can't get the song out of your head, and it knows it. I don't think that the fact (?) that it can't be played on a guitar means anything. Wonderwall, on the other hand, is meaningless nonsense with no redeeming factor whatsoever. Angels I suppose is diverting enough so that the content is irrelevant to its enjoyability, which is a talent, I guess. The One I Love is a wonderful example of a song that seems to about one thing while you're singing along to it, until you realise how nasty it is - ditto Every Breath You Take - which I think is an aspect of really clever, supposedly disposable music.

I see what you're doing here, you're applying the MAWBA *

Where (x) Pop + REM(y) = Good (Z)
but
(x) + anything else poppy (n) = Bad (a).
When in fact when the (rs)** + (agt)*** usually results in (Itts)****+(nmw)***** which in turn equals = (ikir)******

*Middle Aged White Bloke Argument
**Rock Snob
*** a good tune
**** i think it's shit
***** no matter what
****** I know I'm right

This theorem is proven by the statements like 'Angels I suppose is diverting enough so that the content is irrelevant to its enjoyability', If the content is irrelevant why did it strike such an emotional chord with so many people?

I rest my case. Back to the lab.

The lyrical content is not what grabs most listeners: it's the way it sounds. The way it makes them feel. Back to Blunt: You're Beautiful is about a woman the singer can and never will have, but this is irrelevant to people that want it played at their wedding. Every Breath You Take is a deeply unpleasant song that pretty amounts to the confession of a stalker - but who cares? Honestly, that's not a trick question. If a song uplifts people then who are we to say that listeners don't deserve their reaction just because they've missed the point of a song on a lyrical level? Angels is uplifting and sounds a bit spiritual. This is what I mean when I say it's diverting enough that it doesn't need to be analysed any further: people like to sing along to it. That's primarily where the chord is struck.

'Rock snob' is the label that's easy to dish out at people who don't mind a bit of analysis. If I was a rock snob, I'd tell people that they shouldn't listen to rubbish like James Blunt. I wouldn't dream of being so arrogant. You like what you like, and I don't like the music of James Blunt. However, I confess a fascination for records like The Wanderer, Dancing In The Dark or You've Lost That Lovin' Feelin': because they are firstly perfect pieces of pop, and secondly they're dark, twisted visions of human emotions and touching on a certain sense of nihilism. They're upbeat while you're listening to them, and then it occurs to you that they're saying something else. I like a bit of dimension in my music, sorry.

And not to be picky, but if you rest your case, why are you going back to the lab?

Further to previous arguments, I don't think it's fair to say that Q magazine didn't change, we just got older. I'm the ripe old age of 21 and I gave up on Q magazine a couple of years ago due to the poor quality of the articles and the poverty of ideas.

There's a bit of rock snob in me, but as someone who genuinely loves music, my feeling about James Blunt runs somewhere along the lines of "he's OK I guess, but there's so much better stuff around." It's the year 2007, why would anyone listen to him when there's a new album by David Ford, for example, and at the same time, over fifty years of popular music to go back and investigate? People are too willing to accept whatever they're fed (by commercial radio, Parkison, whoever) in my opinion, and all it takes is a bit of effort to find something you really enjoy and as pleasant/inoffensive/evil you find the music of James Blunt, you realise there's much, much more out there

Before reading this article I was blissfully unaware that JB was both posh (I knew he had been in the army but then so had Billy Bragg!)or a wimp (who cares? And anyway that puts him on my side!). I had assumed that the caterwauling emanating from the radio when his records are played was enjoyed by pet lovers because of the similarity between his voice and a frightened cat!

If this is a vote then my cross goes next to "Just Shit"

Whoever said Kylie's Greatest Moment isn't susceptible to being strummed on an acoustic guitar doesn't know what (s)he's talking about. I clearly recall some programme about songwriting on telly 2 or 3 years ago, in which various bards were talking about their art/craft/trade. Rob Davies did indeed play CGYOOMH on his acoustic, and it sounded lovely. I wanted to believe that it was precisely because it WAS composed on a guitar that it sounded so much more engaging than Brit's Hits, which to my ears sound 100% machine tooled.

No-one is forcing anyone to listen to Herr Blunt at gunpoint, are they? {insert punchline here}

So what's with the big old chest beating to State Your Preference Against him? If you don't like him, don't listen to him. If you do, do. No skin off my nose either way, because nothing said here's going to even make a dent on my opinions (and that's not committing myself either way) but it really looks like there's a "protesting too much" thing going on here, and that's interesting.

Other artists are available, but it seems that more people feel there's more kudos in slagging off an admittedly easy target, than keeping their own counsel and offering superior (in their opinion) alternatives, and I just don't get that.

The original comment that started this thread was not about whether James Blunt was any good or not (I know the answer to that), it was to take issue with David H's column in this months Word. My understanding of that article was that he thought that most people take a pop at Blunty because he is a "wimp" and "posh". Basically saying that people who didn't like You're Bootiful are snobs themselves and aren't in touch with their inner "wimp". Which I heartily disagree with. Usually David H is spot on - in this case I don't think he is. Sorry David.

The problem with the Good Capt is that his music is terrible, and there are loads of great (popular) artists who make sensitive and "wimpy" music who are leagues ahead of him.

Can we get back to when did Q become rubbish question??

So are a ton of acts. With someone like Blunt, once you decide they're awful, so many other reasons to dislike him present themselves. It's all that's on the radio, that woman I hate in the office loves him, he sells a stack of discs but decent bands are struggling etc etc. But bland drivel with a marketable angle will always find a niche, and we just have to live with it. And please don't get me started on...

Isn't that one of the great things about music? Inside all of us, there's a rock snob just dying to get out.

BTW, I stopped buy Q when for the fourth issue running they ran a "top 100" list. Might have been a feature on the best fonts ever used on classic album sleeve notes... And I lost interest in Uncut when they dumped The Reaper.

I actually most agree with Lucas Hares comments. I generally have an affinity with people who like music (books and movies too)as passionately as I do - they dont have to like the same stuff - I am happy to discuss the subject matter with them because I find it interesting.Artists themselves generally have a less snobbish outlook on this matter I would assume because they appreciate the effort that goes into making a song a listenable experience. For example Richard Thompsons cover of 'oops I did it again' and Elvis Costello's cover of 'She'are both covers of songs I didnt really care for in their original versions but both interpretations have appealed to me. And before someone comes out with the argument that its only because they are covers by artists I like I would say that Costellos cover of 'Days'is a complete non-starter.

Give me a break from the mag snobs. There's good and bad in all. Word gives me the shits for its pretentious refusal to award an album any stars, Q nominates so much crap to be the next big thing as to be embarrassing while Uncut's editor thinks we actually care about how many times he got pissed with Nick Lowe and missed another deadline in the good old days. But I buy them all and get my monthly fill for nostalgia, album reviews and new music that is on offer, which is always a challenge when you live in Australia and rely on the local version of Rolling Stone for your info on the latest music. Now that's a crap mag! Argument anyone?

Awful. Manufactured pap for the masses.

Lucas got it right several rungs up the blogladder; it's not that he's twee, soft, patronising and somewhat pathetic (and he is ALL these), it is because the music he creates is JUST BAD.

It's just BAD. How bad? We won't be re-visiting his output in 20 years with rose-tinted glasses like we do with the Durannies and Spandau, that's for sure.

There have been plenty of bad musicians you don't want to smack. Blunt isn't one of them.

His all-encompassing existence is bad enough, but I saw him on Top Gear recently, where he told what he thought was a jolly tale about how his sister met her husband; something to do with him (of course) inadvertantly setting them up by advertising his sister's need for a lift to somewhere on e-Bay. And guess what? She used his HELICOPTER to get there, and married the man she met. All said in terribly plumby voice after claiming he was the first man into Iraq (well bully for him).

Oh how we laughed.

Mr Hepworth, a rare mis-calculation, methinks.

I'm amazed he survived the Army.

Yes, point taken. Ish.

Do you believe the Bluntlash is largely to do with his upbringing, or because in 'Goodbye My Lover', he sings the following;

'Did I dissapoint you or let you down,
Should I be feeling guilty or let the judges frown?
'Cause I saw the end before we'd begun,
Yes I saw you were blinded and I knew I had won.'

This being just one of many crimes against poetry on his debut?

You've got to be kidding!. "In Rainbows" is brilliant - best thing they've ever done - they've invented a new genre - Krautsoul (I've made that up).

All the others, I agree, peaked years ago - apart from INXS (who have never peaked).