Entertainment For Lively Minds

Word RSS FeedsWord Magazine on YouTubeWord Magazine on Last FMWord Magazine on Share My PlaylistsWord Spotify PlaylistsWord Magazine on FacebookWord Magazine on Twitter

magazines we used to love.... but they've changed...... or I have.....

mojitojoe's picture

long standing subscriptions i've recently cancelled.....

Private Eye

The Word.

1

Razzle.

I miss the penetrating insights of old.

2
Bob | 7 March 2011 - 3:34pm

Of old what?

2
Joe R | 7 March 2011 - 3:35pm

Sorry, I meant "elderly".

0
Bob | 7 March 2011 - 3:41pm

50+ Jugs?

Given the traditional demographic of the jazz mag buying public, how the hell do they remain in print? Surely the 15-25 year olds have migrated to the internet where these things, so I'm told, are free and available without having to trot in to the local newsagents, reach for the top shelf, present copy to lovely young cashier, hide in a Daltons Weekly and shuffle out of the door without looking too conspicuous.

So - a) who buys this stuff nowadays and b) how are David Sullivan and Richard Desmond making it pay?

1
Six Dog | 7 March 2011 - 5:58pm

Cant comment on (a)

but (b) involves the internet too.

0
el toro calvo grande | 7 March 2011 - 6:57pm

A graphic designer I used to work with

had a stint working on Richard Desmond jazzmags (not uncommon among graphic designers). The budget-per-issue was astonishingly low; I can't remember the exact figure but my jaw hit the floor when she told me what it was.

The main reason was that content was reused over and over again. Even in the digital age, my friend informed me that she was sometimes cutting pictures from old issues out of the film and part-assembling the layout with sellotape.

0
Brookster | 8 March 2011 - 4:57pm

Surely

if they reuse the shots they have to , from time to time, do some airbrushing on the crotchal area to keep up with the trends in pubic topiary...

0
fatmanjez | 20 March 2011 - 9:30pm

Pubic Topiary

Thr...no, too easy...

1
Ruff-Diamond | 21 March 2011 - 1:47am

I know someone

who works as an editor on one of these magazines and she told me that the demographic is now mostly older men.

You're completely right; younger people looking for "rude ladies" will be on the internet watching videos rather than paying money for static images.

If you think the music industry is struggling against free content, I'd imagine the problem facing the grumble mag industry is even worse. It wouldn't surprise me if all these magazines ceased trading in the next 15 years or so.

0
Joe R | 8 March 2011 - 5:04pm

Too right

And unlike the record labels, they can't send their acts out on the road 'cause they'll get arrested.

0
Spartacus Mills | 8 March 2011 - 5:07pm

Ditto

the grumble flick industry (wasn't the adult film industry lobbying Congress recently for special dispensation?).

Although maybe the future is high-definition 3D grot.

0
Brookster | 8 March 2011 - 5:19pm

I just had a thought

Maybe our own Lenny Law is the Elton John of the bongo industry. "Downloads? Pah! I want something I can hold in my hand. My other hand."

5
Spartacus Mills | 8 March 2011 - 5:22pm

Jazz?

I quickly read this post and was momentarily picturing jazz fans collecting their copies of Jazzwise and Jazz Journal from the top shelf. It was only the reference to Sullivan and Desmond that caused the penny to drop.

0
jazzjet | 10 March 2011 - 10:47pm

I remember meeting 80's all girl Punk band

The Gymslips after a gig once and recognizing one of them from (someone else's copy of...) Razzle. Think it was the bassist Karen if I remember correctly...

1
Retro Man | 7 March 2011 - 6:00pm
Marky | 7 March 2011 - 7:48pm

Crikey is right...

That's her alright - although I'd better add an "allegedly" in there...no, no I'm alright, a quick Google, purely for research reasons of course, has just confirmed it, although it might have been someone's Fiesta not Razzle...!

Oh dear, I hope Mrs Retro isn't checking my search history...

0
Retro Man | 8 March 2011 - 12:39am

Retro

This is what the handy, "I was browsing for a present for my wife" secret browsing mode is for... allegedly...

1
Joe R | 8 March 2011 - 10:13am

Retro - when one is in a hole

one should stop digging

0
Junior Wells | 11 March 2011 - 3:41am

Story of my life

Junior...!

0
Retro Man | 11 March 2011 - 10:16am

Gaye Advert

...was in one of those types of magazine, once. Allegedly. It was very early on. '77 or '78. I was friendly with their manager Michael Dempsey at the time and I believe he had them pulped, or in some other way withdrawn, when he found out.

0
Derek Ridgers | 9 March 2011 - 3:44pm

Really...??!!

I'm just off to e-Bay and will note Bob's handy guide to stealthy surfing!

0
Retro Man | 9 March 2011 - 5:15pm

Slander and calumny.

That was Joe. He's the expert on left-handed websites: I'm pure as the fackin driven, me.

0
Bob | 9 March 2011 - 6:32pm

Sorry...

it's my eyesight going, dunno why...

2
Retro Man | 9 March 2011 - 8:25pm

Can I just say

that although I haven't seen the magazine to, ahem, make sure, I'm fairly sure an album review I wrote is published in this month's Fiesta.

2
Joe R | 10 March 2011 - 10:36am

Was it for the new Gymslips'

"Greatest *its" album??

Sorry, gets dirty raincoat and goes to join the Talksport Massive...

0
Retro Man | 10 March 2011 - 12:25pm

HOORAY!

(you won't be offended if I don't buy it though will you?)

1
Hannah | 10 March 2011 - 1:27pm

No offence at all

I'm certainly not buying it. I was sent a free copy earlier this year; "grim" would be the word I'd use to describe it.

Anyway, I'm guessing my work won't be credited to me, presumably because the readers of said esteemed organ like to believe everything is written by lustful young nymphs who are taking a well-earned break from a bout of frenetic lesbonic activity.

1
Joe R | 10 March 2011 - 3:09pm

That reminds me...

...of an interview I once read with some all-girl rock band in Kerrang magazine. They mentioned that they'd previously been interviewed in some sort of bongo mag. One of the members said her Dad had popped into the local corner shop to buy it, and when he registered the shocked look on the face of the newsagent he said 'it's alright, my daughter's in it'.

1
Spartacus Mills | 10 March 2011 - 1:37pm

I once owned a copy of amateur something or another

which featured not one, but two of the girls I worked with, their regular weekly wage presumably needing topping up somehow. I didn't mention it until well after I'd left the company when I bumped into 'Cindy' in the pub. She looked at me aghast. "I didn't think" (said the girl who'd actually featured *in* the magazine in a fairly splayed fashion) "That you were *that* kind of guy".

5
skirky | 11 March 2011 - 1:42pm

I can go one better/worse

After something of a barren period, there were a few advanced lingerie magazines lurking under the bed when I first started courting my now-wife.

I did the gentlemanly thing and said I'd get rid of said items. My girlfriend wasn't particularly bothered but I insisted. I got a carrier bag and fished out the three or four publications onto the bed.

"Oh, Club. My friend L_____ was in that magazine once," exclaimed my girlfriend, picking it up and scanning the pages. "She paid her way through university by modelling and emerged with absolutely no deb... Oh! It was actually *this* magazine..."

There was then a conversation about whether I'd ever looked at said photoshoot, but I shall say no more.

2
Fraser M | 14 March 2011 - 11:06am

Reminds me of

one of my favourite Onion stories: Apartment-Wide Porn Sweep Precedes Date's Arrival.

0
Brookster | 14 March 2011 - 12:17pm

Tanya from Tilbury

Very similar scenario. My now GLW described a friend of hers' photoshoot and it turned out that we had an acquaintance in common. Said magazine didn't get binned however, as 'Tanya' and her boyfriend were getting a house together and so we presented it to him as a moving in present. He was thrilled as he didn't have a copy of that one although he had "all the others".

0
skirky | 14 March 2011 - 12:22pm

This question has always intrigued me

Namely, the probability of picking up a grot mag and seeing someone you know. Never happened to me, but someone needs to do a statistical analysis.

0
Brookster | 14 March 2011 - 12:25pm

MUM?

1
Bob | 14 March 2011 - 12:29pm

The closest I've come

Is seeing a young lady in one of the aforemention periodicals, then spotting her later the same day in an ad for Vision Express, which ironically she was helping to create a demand for.

2
Spartacus Mills | 14 March 2011 - 12:29pm

Come to think of it

A girl in my class at school made several bongo flicks. Not as unlikely as I thought.

0
Brookster | 14 March 2011 - 1:24pm

One of life's great mysteries...

I've often pondered that one too...the statistical likeliehood of one actually knowing a jazz mag starlet and why did I never know any.

Now there's a spreadsheet that needs to be worked on.

0
Retro Man | 14 March 2011 - 12:37pm

Lucinda Harvey-Bristols

turned out to be an ex-schoolmate called Sharon.

0
Captain Underpants | 14 March 2011 - 12:55pm

I am exceptionally shocked

to find out that "Lucinda Harvey-Bristols" is a pseudonym.

4
Joe R | 14 March 2011 - 12:58pm

Lucinda Harvey-Bristols

is a terrific porno name. I can almost smell the leather of her riding crop.

[Goes for lie down in dark room.]

2
Brookster | 14 March 2011 - 2:21pm

No need for eBay

A carefully worded Google image search showed me all I needed to see, and possibly rather more.

0
Gatz | 15 March 2011 - 12:35am

I shied away from this thread

Thinking it'd be people just writing what I thought, ie. Q.

But up to here, it's been gold. Thanks folks.

2
JamesB | 29 March 2011 - 5:53pm

It's OK massive

I'll wade in.

And what's the problem with the Word?

0
jimmyshoes01 | 7 March 2011 - 3:44pm

Nowt

I still buy more records, books and films as a result of a Word review / article than any other source.

4
Spartacus Mills | 7 March 2011 - 4:09pm

Mojo, Uncut

Cancelled both a year or so back.

Still have The Word and Today's Golfer!

1
Neil Jung | 7 March 2011 - 4:05pm

The Word...

And the Health Service Journal for me.

One is more eagerly awaited than the other!

0
Uncle Wheaty | 7 March 2011 - 11:43pm

Yesterdays papers

Either NME or Q have got to top this one. Rather like being at the tail end of a party, after all the interesting people have long since left. And in the case of Q, the ones still left are trying to light their own farts for your attention. Oh how the mighty fall.

3
jonnyartist | 7 March 2011 - 4:39pm

Have not cancelled...

my Word subscription but I am allowing it to run out. The days of buying 2 or more monthly mags are sadly behind me and I will now opt each month for the issue of Word/Mojo/Uncut that interests me the most.
Also, and I hate to say it, but I look for much more in a review section than Word offers me.

2
Doug B | 7 March 2011 - 5:45pm

I'm surprised that a reviews section

would be a deal-breaker for anyone looking for a magazine subscription. Reviews are the opinion of one person, so surely you want to look at a range of them anyway?

...which is where the internet comes in. Sites like Metacritic and Album of the Year are pretty good at collating reviews and giving you a decent overall impression of what the press thinks of new releases.

8
Joe R | 7 March 2011 - 5:56pm

Not a deal breaker...

but it is handy for keeping up with new releases more than anything. I will now pick based on articles and if all is equal then the review section would swing it for me.
Let's face it we could stop reading all mags and use the internet for our entertainment so I don't see the "oh,reviews are available on the internet" argument to hold much water.

0
Doug B | 8 March 2011 - 12:19pm

I don't think it's quite the same

With reviews you're looking for an opinion on something. Whether you think the writing is good quality or not, the main thing you get out of a review is whether it's worth shelling out a tenner for it or not. Thus, if you're after a recommendation, you'd feel more comfortable asking several people rather than just one.

You're right that there are lots of magazine articles on the internet but it doesn't mean they're any good. The quality of the writing is more important in non-review articles I'd argue, because you're looking for little more than to get enjoyment out of them. This is why people do buy magazines rather than just trawl blogs for free; with a magazine comes a guarantee of professionalism, a high standard of journalism, writing and editing that free websites just can't compete with.

1
Joe R | 8 March 2011 - 12:47pm

Reviews

I think the Word approach is right. Historically, the only reasons why magazines carried hundreds of reviews was because there wasn't an internet alternative, and being comprehensive was a bona-fide selling point. Nowadays, you're could fill an entire magazine with reviews and it still wouldn't be anything like as comprehensive as what's available online. So why not focus on what you think are the more interesting releases, and write more about them? That way you're getting more of the personality of the magazine and of the writers across, which is probably what the people who don't need 140+ reviews each month are attracted by in the first place...

1
Bela Legosis Dad | 8 March 2011 - 12:50pm

Absolutely

Plus - why should Alexis Petridis' opinion of the new Radiohead record carry any more weight than Jimbo Jones leaving a user review on Amazon?

0
Six Dog | 8 March 2011 - 3:33pm

Well

Alexis Petridis (other journalists are available) is a professional and, as such, knows his onions. Jimbo Jones is likely to be a big Radiohead fan who would proclaim a new release by them to be a milestone in popular music if it consisted of nothing but Thom Yorke throwing a variety of root vegetables at a Theremin.

However, there are lots of good bloggers and online journalists who write well, and whose opinion is just as valid as a professional's IMHO. Those ones tend to get featured on the aggregation sites I mentioned above, and are often well worth checking out.

1
Joe R | 8 March 2011 - 4:05pm

As a Radiohead completetist

I am alarmed to find out I've missed out on the "Thom Yorke throwing a variety of root vegetables at a Theremin" album.

I must have a copy of it, there's an empty space on my shelves inbetween "Johnny Greenwood sneezes the classics" and "Radiohead vs Mrs Miller"

5
Hannah | 8 March 2011 - 4:33pm

If you´re such a fan

Surely you must have heard Kid A?

It´s one of my favourites.

0
Ola Claesson | 11 March 2011 - 10:12pm

TYTAVORVAAT

Is the Theremin switched on at the time?

0
stimpy | 12 March 2011 - 11:39am

Well....

Alexis is a great journo but it is still "only his opinion". Many journo's we know and love can have predispositions to certain bands and styles.

As individual's, we review everything ourselves with our own ears. Cloth or not!

0
Six Dog | 10 March 2011 - 12:19pm

I subscibe to three mags

Word alongside two others (THAT ONE and Fortean Times, although that may go soon) and that stops me going into newagents and impulse buying other mags that I don't really need to.

0
DogFacedBoy | 7 March 2011 - 6:00pm

See above

the answer to (a) clearly isn't DFB either.

1
el toro calvo grande | 7 March 2011 - 6:58pm

NME is the easy one...

Truly amazing how something so good went downhill so quickly.

Whether these are rose tinted glasses or not, I couldn't tell you but from the cursory glances I've given it since the last wave of brilliant journo's upped sticks post Britpop, it's been truly shocking.

S'pose there's not been much to write about.

I cancelled Mojo a couple of years back - only picking up the issues that catch my eye. Became very dull. Cancelled Nat Geo too. Used to get them for my son but he lost interest and it was mag too many. Just sub to The Word now.

0
Six Dog | 7 March 2011 - 6:08pm

I think everyone would agree that the NME went downhill quickly.

But people would argue over when that happened.

For me it was about 1979 when the invigorating punk-NME became the wanky post-punk NME of Penman and Morley.

3
stimpy | 7 March 2011 - 8:03pm

2002 for me

...when the Libertines and their unimpressive ilk came along and I voted with my feet. Although for me the heyday was 1989-1995: the alternative going mainstream via baggy, grunge and Britpop; Quantick, Maconie, Collins, etc.

Demographics are implicated with one's judgement on this one I suspect.

1
Auntie Beryl | 7 March 2011 - 9:56pm

Some of us liked the Penman/Morley/Bohn era

Even when they were wrong, they were entertaining. Better by far than the 'a good time was had by all' type of journo. Plus, NME still had Baker, Du Noyer, Hoskyns...

NME lost the plot in the mid-to-late 80s when suddenly the Beatles became the worst band in the history of pop and the Mighty Mighty Lemon Drops were the dog's bollocks.

2
sourdust | 8 March 2011 - 12:32pm

I actually think that NME is on the way up again.

Last year's relaunch and new editor did it the world of good.

0
Nick | 11 March 2011 - 1:54am

Depends...

Had flick through latest issue yesterday. List-o-mania. The target audience demographic seems to have slipped further down. Looks to me as if it's now aimed at your average 15 year old whereas previously it had a broader church of 14 - 25 year olds.

Maybe I'm just getting old but I've not seen any writing in there to match my heyday of Ellen (B and M), Collins, Maconie, Price, Barron and Swells

0
Six Dog | 11 March 2011 - 10:59am

I was there, maan...

I loved that era...all the Hard Times nonsense and Kid Creole covers! I know it killed circulation but it helped shape my eclectic musical tastes and got me away from the post punk ghetto I would otherwise have resided in.

There was something both grubby and glamorous about it back then. These days it's just so glossy and predictable.

0
V66ALD | 23 March 2011 - 6:13pm

Mayfair

Never the same after Paul Raymond took over.

I think magazines and readers have a natural lifespan - I was an avid buyer of Fortean Times for years until one day I just realised that I was no longer interested in it. Practical Fishkeeping ceased to be practical after about a year, as, let's face it, how many times can you read an article about "Setting up your first aquarium" - all hobbyist magazines suffer the same fate - the articles needed to attract new readers won't necessarily be pertinent to the more experienced enthusiast.

0
nicktf | 7 March 2011 - 6:31pm

Subscribe, don't subscribe it's up to you

but why shout about it? I'm sure Fraser and the team will be thrilled with your news. Do you want a gold clock or something to commemorate the occasion?
I'd love to stay and chat but the new issue has arrived.

13
Dr Volume | 7 March 2011 - 6:44pm

Crumbs,

Doctor!

If everyone on the blog was to take that attitude, the pickings on here would be thin indeed, wouldn't they?

Let's assume for argument's sake that the OP was, gasp, written to elicit comment, then it has achieved its purpose. The fact that it clearly riled you is neither here nor there but it seems a little harsh to be quite so sarcastic even if you are entitled to your opinion blah blah blah?

Having posted something similar recently, I would assume Fraser et al would definitely want to know, the magazine being their living and all. No-one wants a gold clock, we're simply using a forum provided to us to say that a magazine we once cherished has, for numerous reasons, become less important to us. The Word can't allow readers a blog to sound off on and then not expect some of us to occasionally record something on it other than glowing praise, or has it turned into the Q letters page?

I thoroughly enjoy reading the blog entries. They make me laugh, they introduce me to new music, new films and new books. Occasionally, I try and reciprocate, less so since fatherhood came along. Some of the entries from regular posters are worth their weight in gold and equal to anything from the professionals.

How sad that a lot of us on here can purposefully push others' buttons with regards to their entertainment tastes (a game we all like to play) but a statement about someone's involvement in the printed copy (the reason we're all here in the first place, in case anyone had forgotten) is met with a response that sounds disappointingly similar to 'If you don't want to be in our gang, push off'. The day this ever turns into a love-in is the day we all need to find something new to do.

Rant over. As you were.

20
Oeufman | 7 March 2011 - 10:46pm

It was a bit 'chippy' of me I suppose

but I'm sorry if you're going to cancel your sub, I fail to see why you should then want to broadcast the fact on here unless you have some reason why, or a particular gripe. It's not as if the OP left any useful feedback.

4
Dr Volume | 8 March 2011 - 2:33am

That's

a valid point - I am assuming the cancellation is for the same reasons I no longer buy the magazine, when for all I know they could just have been wanting a rise out of the massive.

Which they got.

Equilibrium resumed. I will continue to take your prescriptions good Doctor!

0
Oeufman | 9 March 2011 - 9:31am

I love..

the postings from The Word fundamentalists:- "I would gladly pay twice the cover price and declare Jihad against those who criticise the reviews section"
Gotta go, I'm off to find any postings from staff members so I can give them an up arrow.

9
Doug B | 11 March 2011 - 1:22pm

And while you're about it...

...don't forget to show how slavishly loyal to the cause you are by substituting some of the letters in the names of well-known rival magazines with asterisks.

That always goes down well ;-)

1
mojoworking | 11 March 2011 - 3:20pm

Although, to be fair, DH has asked on several occasions

that posters refrain from publicising rival magazines at Dev Hell's expense. Given the blog is provided by Dev Hell, that doesn't seem too unreasonable.

2
stimpy | 12 March 2011 - 11:42am

We can't pretend

that other mags don't exist though.

0
mojoworking | 12 March 2011 - 12:26pm

Indeed, so the asterisks prevent Google picking up the reference

to other magazines and returning it in any searches.

0
stimpy | 12 March 2011 - 12:31pm

Can't see how

a Google search returing mostly negative comments from the Word blog would benefit any other magazines.

0
mojoworking | 12 March 2011 - 12:56pm
stimpy | 12 March 2011 - 1:01pm

Not if you are

Gary Glitter.

2
Ola Claesson | 12 March 2011 - 1:12pm
Ruff-Diamond | 11 March 2011 - 10:13pm

Did I say that?

No I don't believe I did so please don't attribute quotes to me or refer to me as a 'Word Fundementalist'. Offence taken

1
Dr Volume | 12 March 2011 - 3:38pm

Oh Dear Lord...

The remark was made in general about the small amount of fawning posters that get their knickers rather in a twist over any implied criticism of the mag. As you have done both with the OP and myself.
A thousand apologies for the terrible offence that I have obviously caused you though. I do hope you can recover from my horrendous slur asap.

5
Doug B | 13 March 2011 - 4:19pm

Let me make one thing clear

I am not this blinkered, fawning fanboy that you're trying to paint me as, I don't think that applies to anyone else on the blog either.

I am a big supporter of the Magazine that is true but it has it's faults and is certainly not beyond criticism at all. I don't particularly like a lot of the music that gets bigged-up in it's pages, I don't agree with all the opinions expressed, I don't believe Rock music peaked in 1971 etc.

Nevertheless I can't help thinking we're increasingly lucky to have such a thing in the current climate and I'm very concious of the maxim 'Use it, or Lose it'. We all get a lot of entertainment from this blog, the Podcasts and I've met some lovely people via the Word. It just seemed to me a bit unnecessary of the OP to make that rather stark announcement, without giving any particular reasons. I was a bit narky with the OP but I already apologised for that. I don't recall having a pop at you.

1
Dr Volume | 14 March 2011 - 1:57am

As it was I...

who jokingly used the term "Word fundalmentalist" to refer to the slavish (and we all know there are some) posters who get upset whenever the mag is debated, and you said that that offended you, then it seems that you were taking what was intended as a general remark rather personally.
However, to say that there are no fawning fanboys here makes me wonder if we are even reading the same blog.
It seems that the minute anyone posts about the content or changes in quality of the Magazine there are a number of people who start to question the motives of the poster and whether he has any right to criticise it on the Blog.
I actually find the lack of debate about quality of content to be the weak point of the Blog and everytime that someone is belittled for daring to say so it weakens it further.
We are indeed as you say lucky to have this site, but it risks becoming just a Beatles/R.Thompson wankfest where we all slap each other on the back about our mutual gret taste in music if we are not careful.
Still, what do I know, I even like The Clash and The Fall.

7
Doug B | 14 March 2011 - 11:25am

Absolutely agree with you.

While it is healthy to acknowledge the quality of a bloody good magazine and blog, the fawning and toadying from the fundamentalist minority can be a little embarrasing to read.
And you are right in pointing out that it's the belittling and sneering that grates, and not the fact that someone disagrees with your opinion.
Does all this agreeing with you mean I'm a toady now? Bugger!

2
mark0510 | 14 March 2011 - 11:53am

Funny one.

Does the fact that I don't recognise the description of this fundamentalist minority mean I'm a member of it? I don't think I am: there are things I love about The Word and other things I tend to skip, but on balance I'm extremely grateful to have it, and the blog and the podcasts. I don't particularly see anything wrong with praising The Word openly any more than I do with publicly thanking Fraser for his excellent light-touch moderation. I'm not currying favour or fawning: just thanking some people who provide a valued service.

Constructive criticism is a very good thing, and while Word Towers might secretly prefer to only ever see praise on here, I can't remember anyone censoring dissent. But just saying "don't like it" à la Lou and Andy is purposeless and bordering on a bit rude, somehow - again, all IMO. I don't want to see censorship of stuff like that: I just don't like reading it very much, as it leaves a bit of a bad taste.

The best critical posts are the ones that pick a specific feature or review or trend in the magazine's coverage and unpick it, and actually start a debate by example. But some people just want to have a moan, pure and simple, and I think it's understandable if many others don't like to see that.

3
Bob | 14 March 2011 - 12:08pm

There is a clique on here

But then I've never known a web community where there wasn't.

7
Spartacus Mills | 14 March 2011 - 12:12pm
Six Dog | 14 March 2011 - 12:54pm

Sorry to butt in...

but I think you'll find there is often some healthy debate about the magazine on here - whether it's subscription problems, content, the free CD and in my case, how bloody awful the Elton John cover was. Apparently it's the most popular cover of all time...although I've never met anyone in person who has admitted to liking to it!.

I don't feel any "fundamentalist" vibe here, if someone has a comment or idea/suggestion I think they can post with impunity. We're all adults and I'm sure the Word management would take note of people's comments and complaints as much as they would any gushing fan-boy (or girl of course) praise.

Anyway, in this issue they put Joe Strummer on the cover and even mentioned the P*nk word so I'm happy!

0
Retro Man | 14 March 2011 - 12:11pm

Great

I love Pink. I'm off to WH Smiths

2
jimmyshoes01 | 14 March 2011 - 12:51pm

I set you up...

you deliver the punchline...we're here all week.

1
Retro Man | 14 March 2011 - 1:06pm

Finding it

difficult to see how your point relates to what it was that Dr. Volume was reacting to. You claim the lack of debate on here as a weak point of the Blog. I think your opinion on that issue is wrong but I would argue that the OP is symptomatic of what makes a weak and unappreciated approach to debate on here simply because a) it says nothing, b) it implies everything and c) it was abandoned by the person who made it. Plenty of weak points there which is what Dr. Volume was getting riled about, plenty of valid reasons to question what motivated the OP. His criticism was essentially 'if you're going to criticise at least do it in a manner that gives some kind of a context' or in other words, gives a substantive basis for debate. I still don't know what the OP's intentions were.

There is plenty of stimulating debate on here but there is a preference to conduct debate in a manner that doesn't rely on using critical words like "slavish", "fawning" and "fundamentalist" to make generalisations that ultimately reflect your negative opinion rather than a valid and substantive criticism. To me these seem to be words chosen for the purpose of "belittling" those you are criticising, something you claim to object to.

It's true there are also plenty of threads on here that celebrate mutual admiration of artists and genres. What specifically is wrong with that?

Either way it's a mixed bag on here so to make a reductivist argument that there is a danger of it all becoming some kind of love-in is frankly crap. You don't have to read threads that don't interest you and you don't have to react to posts that you don't like. Similarly no one is stopping you from starting the mother of all debates about topics such as 'Wings piss all over The Beatles' or that '2009 was the greatest year for albums ever'.

The problem as I see it is that it's difficult to debate on a blog without either laying or setting off booby-traps, particularly if you choose to set out your stall as the OP does. At least Dr.Volume makes his points lucidly, even when he expresses them as someone in a grump in his initial response.

3
Ahh_Bisto | 14 March 2011 - 1:58pm

Once again...

I was not referring to any poster in particular with the jokey Fundamentalist remark and I will fully stick with the opinion that there IS a fawning attitude towards any criticism of the Mag. It has been proven many times before when the review section was criticised or the Lilly Allen/downloading article was seen to be nasty and of course the time DH's "review" of The Fall was remarked upon.
Instead of suggesting that the OP didn't have a fair criticsm because "it was abandoned" by him, perhaps the reaction to his post made him think "why bother".
And to say there is no element of a "love-in" between what another poster referred to as the clique element on here frankly beggars belief.
Still your suggestion that the level of debate on here is conducted on some level where my words or the manner in which I use them should not reach,frankly says more than I ever could.

4
Doug B | 14 March 2011 - 3:27pm

I'm so

happy for you that you will stick to your opinion. I'd hate for your opinion to become a matter for personal reappraisal in response to an opinion that was different to yours. God forbid such a thing would happen in a debate on a Blog site. Christ knows we don't have enough people on here with entrenched opinions. Bring 'em on so we can all dig our heels in as part of a mass(ive) outbreak of cranial sand burying!

You've misunderstood what I said. I never claimed there was no element of a "love-in" on the blog. There is, but it is restricted to certain types of threads which do not make up the majority of threads on here. I refuted your generalisation that the Blog as a whole was in danger of sliding into a mass self-congratulatory society. That's my opinion but hey, I might change it if someone provides a decent enough refutation, something more than telling me they're not changing their own. I dunno maybe I've misunderstood what constitutes a debate or an exchange of opinion about a subject.

At the very least we have you to help prevent us from getting too pleased with ourselves in our exclusive cliques. In my clique I like nothing more than reading criticism of certain types of posters and threads on the Blog by people who take exception to reading criticism of certain types of posters and threads that criticise the magazine. It seems such a productive and exponentially beneficial theme to develop at any given opportunity on the Blog and I hope they become the norm rather than those sycophantic threads where people find common ground and revel in their shared appreciation of music or some other cultural topic.

So please conduct "debate" at whatever level you like using words and whatever manner you like because I'd hate for you to be open to what other people suggest on here. I mean FFS you may end up in a clique if that happened or think differently about something.

Wow, you know this generalisation really works. I feel so much better for spouting all that. And to think I'd been wasting my time trying to be receptive to other people's opinions.

2
Ahh_Bisto | 14 March 2011 - 4:54pm

Y'know what?...

I knew I'd be letting myself in for it by remarking on the venom that is often directed at posters who dare to not toe the party line about the mag but you take the biscuit to go with your gravy.
Oh and thanks for letting me debate at a lower level, the air must be so purified up where you are.

10
Doug B | 14 March 2011 - 5:07pm

You must

be so happy to have reaped what you sowed.

0
Ahh_Bisto | 14 March 2011 - 5:19pm

Come on girls

Put the handbags down.

1
Five-Centres | 14 March 2011 - 5:22pm

Sorry

I just got caught up in demonstrating what apparently constitutes "healthy debate" on here.

QED and all that.

0
Ahh_Bisto | 14 March 2011 - 5:26pm

A language clarification may

A language clarification may be in order.

A Word fundamentalist would be bemoaning the "new" state of things and wanting to go back to the Older Testament version of the Magazine.

A Born Again Worder (BAW) would be wanting to spread the joy around and not hearing any kind of word of criticism because, well, that would kill the joyful buzz. Man.

0
sitheref2409 | 14 March 2011 - 5:27pm

Doug

I can't PM you as your profile on here doesn't allow it so I'll have to go public.

I've consciously and deliberately set about deconstructing your argument to make a point that I felt needed to be made about what all this kind of negativity means in relation to a debate on this Blog. In doing so I've overstepped the mark which in some respects was kind of the point as well. But I now realise I'm being an arse about it and have gone about this the wrong way because all I'm doing is alienating you. In fact I've probably done more to prove your original point about anal Word readers so it's been a pointless exercise on my part.

I should just have said that criticism is always valid but that how that criticism is made is sometimes more valid otherwise debate gets lost in a fog of "handbags".

I apologise unreservedly for the way I've responded to you directly.

1
Ahh_Bisto | 14 March 2011 - 5:51pm

No sweat...

A bit of handbags can do as much good as a cleverly constructed debate anyday.
Have a virtual pint on me and let's discuss Mark E's vocal technique long into the night.

1
Doug B | 14 March 2011 - 6:04pm

Thanks

Doug.

0
Ahh_Bisto | 14 March 2011 - 6:33pm

No its my round I insist,

and we're having Mark E Smiths tipple, a pint of Joey Holts, and a chaser of cheap scotch, and a handfull of snuff (which I believe MES has become fond of since the smoking ban)

0
Dr Volume | 14 March 2011 - 6:34pm

A Fog of Handbags

'80s haircut no-hopers, surely?

0
Captain Underpants | 14 March 2011 - 7:04pm

Best known

for their song trilogy, At Five Paces, At Dawn and The Gay Husband

0
Ahh_Bisto | 14 March 2011 - 7:15pm

On subscriptions...

I'm a bit fed up with the digs at people who choose to support their local newsagent. Last year we were 'unspeakable cads' or similar and now we're to be 'shunned in the streets by urchins.'

You expect this from the big publishers, but a small independent like DH could cut similar tiny businesses a bit of slack, especially vital supply chain partners who distribute a large proportion of their product.

6
Captain Underpants | 9 March 2011 - 10:50am

Hear hear!

I often like to play a sad little game which involves waiting till the last moment to buy Word...ensuring that I can buy the next month's copy the following day. Just me then?...*

*Alternatively, like today, I buy it straight away.

0
Mr Fade | 10 March 2011 - 11:02pm

If you don´t like it , don´t buy it

I have just renewed my subscription the The Word, I buy half a dozen copies of The Mojo and The Uncut every year but stopped buying The NME 20 years ago, when I grew up.

5
On The Fence | 7 March 2011 - 7:07pm

Still subscribe to

Both The Word and The Eye. I occasionally toy with cancelling the Eye just because the stories never seem to change. People are still inherently sleazy which gets depressing after many years.

0
pompeygeorge | 7 March 2011 - 7:37pm

Double post so...

I'll list my all time fave mags.
Crash - ZX Spectrum
When Saturday Comes - footie
Smash Hits - 80s essential
The Word - true. wished I found it earlier.
Frattonise - Pompey fanzine
All ones where I read every word.

0
pompeygeorge | 7 March 2011 - 7:47pm

WSC

So far up it's own rectum these days (and has been for the past 10 years) it should have a perennial place in Pseud's corner.
Didn't really go downhill as so much fall off a cliff.

Off The Ball was much better back in the day.

0
Six Dog | 8 March 2011 - 3:35pm

Their forum remains excellent

...but I appear to have stopped buying the print WSC. Don't miss it.

0
Auntie Beryl | 10 March 2011 - 7:43am

Used to subscribe to numerous magazines...

Q, Time Out, BBC Good Food and Word.

Word's the only subscription still standing. Can't see that changing either, still love reading the mag.

0
Hannah | 7 March 2011 - 7:39pm

I maintain my subs to

I maintain my subs to Private Eye and WSC. I buy Word every month.
The Eye, in particular, has changed over the years, but I still find a great deal of its journalism to be important.

I buy Empire more often than not.

Q I've dropped. $10 a magazine makes me think about where I spend the dollars.

0
sitheref2409 | 7 March 2011 - 7:47pm

The OP

mojitojoe - Do your friends call you Mojo?

1
Uncle Sil | 7 March 2011 - 7:51pm

In Praise (or at least defence) of the NME

I stopped buying the NME around the time I went to University, since then I've seen around two or three issues a year (left in a cafe or whatever) and it did seem to become an appalling pile of drivel for a while BUT I actually bought an issue a few months back (Elliott Smith Cover. Had to be done) and was quite taken aback. The word count had risen - at one point a few years back it had begun to resemble a poster book - and it seemed better written and...well it had an Elliott Smith cover.

All this is presumably since the new editor replaced the ridiculous twit who had been running it - Conor something.

I still wouldn't buy it. It's not really aimed at me. The opinions are very 'posed' and it's all a bit in love with style and newness - but that's what 6th form's like. I don't know if der Kidz bother with magazines anymore, but for the type who do - slightly obsessive indie kids I would presume - it seems ok. And, at least on the basis of the last couple of issues I've seen, it's doing it's job as well (better, probably if I'm honest) as when I was last in a 'common room'.

1
sam and janet e... | 7 March 2011 - 7:53pm

someone has to say it

I have just given up my subscription to 'Nocturnal, Semi-Aquatic Rodents Monthly'. It used to be quite a classy publication, but has recently gone a bit downmarket.

It now has too many beaver shots for my liking.

I will, indeed, get my coat.

3
DC Eisenhower | 7 March 2011 - 8:36pm

I miss Select

I thought this was a top music magazine back in the 1990s. Good articles, witty writers and it always had super pull out posters. This isn't a teen nostalgia thing as I was in my thirties at the time. (Yes, far too old to stick up pull out posters).

I still really enjoy The Word and read it page to page. Love the new cartoony covers.

6
Zanti Misfit | 7 March 2011 - 9:04pm

Select

I remember when it came in a cereal box, containing a small can of pop, some sweets and a bag of Nik Naks. Beat that The Word!

4
Spartacus Mills | 7 March 2011 - 10:58pm

Still has pride of place

on top of my cd shelves.

0
Cadabra | 7 March 2011 - 11:55pm

I had that too

plus one of Tura Satana, but I think that may have come from Bizarre (and the reason I bought it).

0
Fraser M | 8 March 2011 - 10:18am

I've still got mine

up in the loft somewhere.
I must have thought it might be a collectors item one day.
Probably best not to eat the Nik Naks

1
Mrxsg | 8 March 2011 - 10:54pm

I could go into a 30 page rant about it

but I won't - all I'll say is White Dwarf

1
simonperrins | 7 March 2011 - 9:29pm

I feel your pain

WD went screaming downhill when it became the house magazine for GW. It was one of those formative moments, when you realise that anything that achieves a modicum of success will, eventually, sell out. And not in a good way.

0
Con Coleman | 8 March 2011 - 2:53pm

I cancelled The Spectator a few months ago.

I was too broke to continue to contribute to the salaries of Liddle, Delingpole and Young. Plus, frankly, I got pissed off with the climate change denial.

0
ganglesprocket | 7 March 2011 - 10:03pm

Ah Jesus, man, why did you do have to do that?

*Leave country as tit-for-tat opens up*

0
PaddyH | 7 March 2011 - 10:30pm

Its ok

My first issue as a subscriber came through today, so equilibrium is maintained.

1
mr.stu | 7 March 2011 - 10:42pm

Bought Soso this month

for the first (and last) time in eons because of a combination of being an ex avid Smiths fan and having to wait for a train and the proceeding journey. I found it so dull I've read less than half of it two weeks later. The Word's the only mag I buy without fail and - perhaps not coincidently - the only one I read every single page of.
I now realise there's nothing Heyho or Unread could ever tell me about my favourite bands that I don't already know, often feeling I've read more books and interviews with the cover artists than the hacks writing the pieces. I prefer The Word because it has writers whose opinions I'm actually interested in. These seem to be writers who aren't as in awe of successful popstars as other mags are, but at the same time they manage to convey an enthusiasm that doesn't include posterior cleansing.
I'm amazed The Word isn't the best selling periodical in the country, but then again I've only ever seen it on sale in WH Smiths.

0
Mr Fade | 7 March 2011 - 10:55pm

Viz

Last year I ended a 23 year relationship and stopped buying Viz. Truth of the matter is things had been strained between us about the last 10 years but we ploughed on until the relationship could go no further. We're still good friends though and I will continue to flick through each new copy in the newsagents to read the Drunken Bakers and tut at the continuing inclusion of the fat slags. Then I'll leave all melancoly remembering the days back in the late 80's when new Viz day was a big event indeed in my little world and the first read would frequently reduce me to helpless laughter much to the bemusement of the other communters on the 8.05 Amersham to Marylebone.

1
apend01 | 7 March 2011 - 11:05pm

Viz

Not as funny as it used to be...

I maintain the best bits in Viz were the fake ads. The merciless and continual poking at the likes of the Danbury Mint were brilliant. The Elvis Dambusters Tutenkhamum carriage clock. The Life of Christ in Cats presentation plate (complete with an evil looking Judas) and the one that still gets me crying with laughter, the Situation Vacant for Vagrants page - with faux local authority typefaces.

Never as funny since Postman Plod stopped being a regular.

0
Six Dog | 8 March 2011 - 11:12am

Never as funny since Paul Whicker The Tall Vicar

stopped being a regular.

The advent of the shiny colour cover seemed to mark a watershed as well, although I suspect, in reality it was the departure of Chris Donald that changed the character of the magazine for good.

0
stimpy | 8 March 2011 - 3:38pm
dilbert01 | 8 March 2011 - 10:37pm

The Drunken Bakers

Possibly the least funny thing ever to appear in Viz?

Can anyone explain the appeal of this mirthless strip in an otherwise brilliant comic?

1
mojoworking | 15 March 2011 - 12:09am

It was one of the strips that stopped me buying Viz

I found it too sad and a little tragic. Not want I wanted from Viz to be honest.

0
stimpy | 18 March 2011 - 2:51pm

It's a pot boiler I think

We are gradually finding out why they are the way they are. It's not hilarious but at least it's an attempt at Mike Leigh-type drama in a comic strip. That hasn't been tried since AXA in The Sun.

0
Austin | 18 March 2011 - 8:08pm

Never had...

A subscription to any magazine, and used to just buy one a month according to the features, but now only buy the word, mostly out of a sense of fairness for the hours of enjoyment I get from the website.

I did used to be a regular guardian reader but now buy no newspapers, instead I get my news on BBC online and comment/polemic on blogs. Had enough of newspapers full of often ill informed speculation on what might happen next and poor analysis of what already happened. Also sick of the broadsheet weekend supplements presumption that every reader is looking for a 700k house and 150quid throws, and don't get me started on columnists called Dee who bleat on about how little Skye and Alfie were so well behaved on the flight to Laos for the family yurt holiday.

1
art vanderlay | 7 March 2011 - 11:52pm

The Word and Entertainment Weekly

are my only subs. The rest I get for free (Mojo, Q, Empire - and if they didn't come free, I wouldn't buy them).

I also buy Record Collector, Private Eye and sometimes, if I want a long read, The New Yorker, but I feel like a pretentious urban twat reading it on the Tube.

0
Five-Centres | 8 March 2011 - 10:54am

I'm a "from the shop" kind of guy

A few years back I subscribed to a few magazines in order to save money, but invariably found the magazine would turn up in the shops long before my subscription copy, plus the one I bought in the shop wouldn't arrive ripped, bent, or missing anything mounted to the cover (a bit of an issue when two of the mags I subscribed to were computer ones) because the packaging had torn or split.

Since then I've picked the magazines up in the shop and bought them the old fashioned way. Yes it might be more expensive, but to be honest I'm not overwhelmingly arsed about getting a "special" cover as once I've read the magazine it goes into the recycling bin.

So which ones do I still read?

"The Word". Don't like it as much as I used to as it seems to have "aged" somewhat, apparently obsessed with bearded musicians whose work I don't care for, and there is now less and less I read in each issue (plus the CD instantly goes in the bin without being played). I still get it though.

"Q". A shadow of its former self. Used to be a bit of a bible for me back in the early 1990s but not as much these days.

"Empire". The best film magazine IMHO, but there are fewer and fewer films coming out that I really want to see, so it seems.

"FHM". I'm still clinging onto my youth, but the endless beer & boobs in there is a bit tiresome. Still mildly entertaining though.

1
Nasalhair | 8 March 2011 - 11:15am

I’m a magazine tart…

I was loyal to Word for a couple of years, but I only need so many “state of the music industry what with downloading and all that…” articles. I’ve also never gotten on with the new format, it’s too dense and the cover now looks a bit like an 80s computer game magazine. I loved word originally because it brought a quality of writing back into music journalism that I felt had been lost in the overly commercial NME, Q and Mojo – which had all become a little formulaic.

I love the podcast and would probably pay for it if I had to but there is a sense with the magazine that they may be running out of things to write about. The cover story often follows a fairly loose un-inspiring theme (the “great cover versions” was a low point for me, there is no way this should have been THE main feature). So I will still buy Word if it looks like it has a couple of things that will interest me but I have found myself straying increasingly in recent months… that said I DO want Word to be the one I buy – I still respect it’s independence and the quality of it’s writing staff but I think it needs a change of direction.

5
walker182 | 8 March 2011 - 4:40pm

Here's our new direction...

For me, it'd be better if The Word moved toward more text and less pictures. Think Private Eye or Loops; dense text-only articles.

There's a place for good photography but we don't need pictures to illustrate everything.

1
stimpy | 18 March 2011 - 2:56pm

Word reviews

I like the in depth Word reviews because thy seem to focus less on adulation and more on providing ther reader with an insight. A good example is the Paul Simon review in this months magazine - a perfect review by David Hepworth which appears to be praiseworthy but certainly not fawning.

1
Steve Turner | 8 March 2011 - 4:42pm

each mag has its time based on personnel i think

Loaded under James Brown then Tim Southwell, but not subsequently
i-D under Matthew Collin but not subsequently
Deadline comic when it had Tank Girl in
Wallpaper* until Tyler Brule left
The Spectator when Boris was editor but not now
Wired, when the internet seemed new and shiny
Scotland on Sunday (a newspaper) when having a Scottish quality Sunday seemed radical and interesting (from 1988 until sometime in the 1990s when as a grizzled 30something i realised that the country was actually *quite small* so it was hard not to simply rehash stuff after a few years)

0
Glenbervie | 8 March 2011 - 5:13pm

So when was

the Word's golden age?

0
Cadabra | 8 March 2011 - 7:49pm

In the beginning

/coat

6
Glenbervie | 8 March 2011 - 10:04pm

Loaded

Used to be really really good. No-one believes me these days but it used to funny, clever, smart. Articles about a variety of unusual subjects written by great writers. Not that different from the Word. I think Loaded changed - but I may have too.

7
pompeygeorge | 8 March 2011 - 10:26pm

off the top of my head...

... men on the cover rather than 'babes', surreal pic-story comic strips (Newsagent Provocateur, My Bedside Lamp), record reviews by a cuddly toy monkey, features by writers like...
Jon Ronson (who went on to make TV documentaries, also wrote The Men Who Stare At Goats, later adapted into that Clooney movie)
Phil Robinson (who drove around Europe doing a road story on the continent's sites of genocide and mass death i seem to recall ... Robinson seemed a bit crazed at the time)

general sense of "getting away with it" while operating under the corporate umbrella of IPC magazines ... [quick google later] and music mag bloke Alan Lewis was instrumental behind the scenes ...

"Lewis ... joined IPC in 1986 and was credited with reviving the then ailing NME, for which he was voted PPA Editor of the Year in 1991. He went on to be closely involved in the launch of Loaded, Muzik, Uncut and Later and won the prestigious British Society of Magazine Editors' Lifetime Achievement Award in 1997."

0
Glenbervie | 11 March 2011 - 10:46am

Record Collector

Had a golden age around about 1992 - 1997 with huge articles on pre-war blues, the history of record shops, pop music in film, pop music books etc. and is now a pale shadow of its former self.
Far too much metal, far too many lists, and the rise of the moderate and crap from the 1980s and 1990s as RC favourites has killed it (e.g. Madonna).
It was also a magazine which made alarmingly few errors but now each issue is littered with them 'cos the 12-year-olds have never heard of Gene Vincent etc.
My favourite was a few years ago in the letters page when a Bowie 60s 45 re-issue from 1980 was declared to be an original and worth £500!.....bet that guy was happy when he found out it was worth a fiver!

1
ranger | 8 March 2011 - 6:04pm

Not as many errors as The Word though

I hate to say it - far be it for me to criticise my favourite magazine - but it's full of literals. That TV piece was not great factually, either.

0
Five-Centres | 8 March 2011 - 6:18pm

Errors

I spotted one in the Beady Eye review. The drummer (Chris Sharrock - The La's, Lightning Seeds, Robbie Williams and many, many more) was not part of Oasis's late 90s line-up. He'd only played with them since 2008.

0
Spartacus Mills | 9 March 2011 - 10:28am

What's a

literal?

0
Stephen Merrick | 10 March 2011 - 2:09am

Dunno

You're better off asking F-C, because it was him who mentioned it.

0
Spartacus Mills | 10 March 2011 - 9:36am

It used to be

a typesetter's mistake with the hot metal that led to a misspelling on the printed page. Now that we don't have typesetters, editors can't blame their farts on the dog- like the one two paragraphs into the new issue (there's an 'E' missing from Eliza Carthy).

0
Captain Underpants | 10 March 2011 - 10:14pm

I like the literals

they're part of the charm. However, not checking advertisement page proofs (Cropredy, P25) is probably taking the shamateurism a bit too far.

0
Captain Underpants | 9 March 2011 - 10:38am

Cropredy

That ad was checked, and approved - the black mark occurred during production.

0
Fraser Lewry | 9 March 2011 - 10:53am

Record collector is an odd

Record collector is an odd case. In the 80s-90s it could be very interesting and pleasingly obscure; Mark Paytress,Brian Hogg and (I think) John Platt did the sort of informed and enthusiastic retropectives on psych/prog/post-punk/other that later became the staple of the reissue labels and websites. But it is also very much a trade mag, which means too many anodyne articles on hair metal, MOR and Queen rarities.

1
pessoa | 14 March 2011 - 10:22am

Dandy and Beano

OK, they're comics, not mags, but the romance has long gone out them now they're pitched at the Play Station generation.

For half a century they used to be inky weeklies, printed on newsprint. Now they've gone monthly, the shape has changed AND they're printed on glossy paper.

They've gone worryingly PC as well. Dennis the Menace's dad hasn't been allowed to slipper him since the early 80s (I checked) and Walter the Softie is no longer quite so blatantly, well, soft.

Lord Snooty now gets around in modern dress and appears not to be nobility any longer.

Thank god the Numbskulls are still going strong!

0
mojoworking | 9 March 2011 - 11:22am

I have seen a few recent Beanos

I think the humour is much smarter now, where you see a character in the Bash Street Kids look directly at the reader and say, "who writes this rubbish"? Or an unlikely plot twist to get a cheap laugh is acknowledged as such.

Walter the Softy is a bit more of a pretentious pain these days (gadding about with a new gadget, showing off) rather than being a target for simply being effeminate. Walter also doesn't get bashed any more and doesn't appear as afraid. Despite this I still think there's comedy to be had from Dennis and Walter.

And Derek the Sheep is one of the funniest comic strips I have ever seen.

So the old Beano has gone - but it was never wall-to-wall hilarity. I wrote a letter to them when I was about 9, asking them to dismiss Grandpa because it simply wasn't funny. I must have felt pretty strongly about it.

0
Austin | 14 March 2011 - 5:21am

You're correct

of course. But for me the D.C. Thompson comics are forever trapped in an austere post-war world of catapults, peashooters, soapbox carts, short pants and cow pie.

Perhaps it's nostalgia, but I don't want them to come up to date.

Having said that, it seems that catapults do still exist in the modern Beano world. I read an issue recently which featured the Little Britain characters Lou and Andy guesting in the Dennis the Menace strip.

In this strip Lou got out of his wheelchair and used a catapult to fire tomatoes at Walter the Softy. He then returned to the wheelchair, so it looked like Dennis did it.

0
mojoworking | 14 March 2011 - 8:01am

Wish I'd seen that

It made me laugh out loud. Fortunately I'm in an empty warehouse so don't have to explain myself (or justify why I'm reading this and not doing any work)

0
davebigpicture | 14 March 2011 - 10:17am

In defence of WSC

I'd broadly disagree with Six Centres that When Saturday Comes has gone posteriorwards, though there are too many features on football abroad at the expense of insights into the game here in issues for the past couple of years - their editorials are great, and could easily be expanded into features.
The mag I'm on the verge of giving up with is Private Eye. Never mind the stories being the same, the jokes have been the same for ages now. You know exactly what to expect from Glenda Slagg, The Premiershits, Polly Filler, Ron Knee et al. The last good idea was the spoof message boards, and even that's become formulaic rather rapidly.

0
Vexed | 9 March 2011 - 6:17pm

The whole point of that part of the Eye

is that it's always the same jokes - it's been that way since about 1965 :-)

0
stimpy | 9 March 2011 - 7:29pm

Bit like...

...I'm Sorry I Haven't A Clue. The audience cheer at the familiarity.

0
Bob | 10 March 2011 - 10:34am

Continued on page 94

...

0
milkybarnick | 14 March 2011 - 2:35pm

.

The last good idea was the spoof message boards, and even that's become formulaic rather rapidly.

If anyone comes near my girls with a spoof message board I swear I'll do time.

1
Ahh_Bisto | 14 March 2011 - 2:43pm

nope

the spoof message boards on PE came across as tabloid newspaper message boards as occasionally browsed by PE contributors who never hang around on *any* message boards ...

when i think of the kind of message boards it is possible to find on the net - and plainly if i say "this one" i'll be slagged off as a Word evangelist, but heigh ho - it was almost as if they were damning the entire press for being the Daily Star ... bit weak i thought

0
Glenbervie | 14 March 2011 - 11:51pm

getting the balance right

like many I'd like more reviews in Word but I buy songlines and occasionally "ojom" and find I get overwhelmed by em.

Hard to please eh what?

I subscribe to Word and will continue to do so as shop shelf copies are too rare down here ,and too late, plus I know that it is the regular income stream from subscribers that is critical to a small outfit such as this.

I also subscribe to Rhythms magazine a roots magazine on Australian bands and visiting artists.

http://www.rhythms.com.au/

I concur with the comment that "I liked NME until I grew up". I liked Rolling Stone until it got an Australian franchise -it's heyday was the US version when folded over into an A4 cover if you know what I mean.

I also miss Black Music and Jazz edited Chris May

I think it is mean spirited to pronounce on this forum and in an OP no less, that you no longer read or subscribe to Word. Fine -your call but why put a downer,and it is a downer , on everyone else on the blog?

1
Junior Wells | 11 March 2011 - 3:58am

He didn't say that

He just said he no longer subscribes, not that he wouldn't pick up the odd copy if it looked interesting. Not the same thing, and you might want to reconsider calling the OP "mean-spirited". I agree that a bit more explanation of why he hadn't resubscribed might have been more constructive, but why on earth should it be taboo to say that you don't find the magazine as much of a must-have as you once did?

Nobody seems to have any problem with people saying they rip off the covermount CD and chuck it unplayed, as many quite often do. Why, then, is it a no-no to say you're no longer gripped by the content or have lost patience with an inept/overpriced subscription service or whatever, if those are your true feelings?

Posters here provide free content for the website, and very good much of it is too. It's obviously PR for the magazine, but - and this is the important bit - we are not PRs hired to promote it. As long as people post within the guidelines - which the OP did - surely they're entitled to describe their relationship with the magazine in any terms they like, even if they aren't always the most positive. Even the recent "that other mag is brilliant this month!" thread, while hardly tactful, wasn't unacceptable - and that's presumably why, to their credit, DH and Fraser didn't pull it.

If only glowing praise and gushing puffery is to be allowed when the quality of the magazine is under discussion, then this place risks fast turning into the court of the emperor with no clothes.

12
Archie Valparaiso | 11 March 2011 - 9:15am

Well

said Archie.

The site must remain a balanced one for it to thrive. At the very least, those of us who no longer buy the magazine religiously every month will still be around in the Word-0-sphere and I for one am more likely to buy the odd copy if the discussions on the blog suggest it's worth the time.

Negative, or shall we say, neutral, OPs fuel the fire. Gushing odes to the mags eternal magnificence are a complete turn-off.

2
Oeufman | 11 March 2011 - 10:01pm

archie and oeufman......

.... you're very wise..... thanks !

0
mojitojoe | 20 March 2011 - 8:52pm

ok fair point

he didn't say that if you want to argue pedantically.

the header was
magazines we used to love.... but they've changed...... or I have.....

It clearly suggests: end of relationship. It deosn't say "magazines I now prefer to purchase from a newstand."

I think it is fair to say that the author was announcing to the Word Massive I dont like this mag any more -for whatever reason.

I am not saying criticism should not be made or aired.But this is hardly a critique as you seem to suggest yourself.

A couple of years ago I posted a thread criticising a review of a bad seeds remaster and got hammered. In this thread i cite a preference for more reviews -so it is not a case of a gushing fan.

3
Junior Wells | 11 March 2011 - 11:18am

Given

that mojitojoe hasn't contributed anything other than the OP I'm tending to think of his intention as little more than a troll flicking some bum fluff in our direction.

Fantastic that it's spawned so much hand-wringing and porn wrangling though

0
Ahh_Bisto | 12 March 2011 - 1:09pm

Depends...

...on how you define contribution. If starting a thread is the only measure, then that's true. But the contributions to other threads go over to a second page, so I'm inclined to cut him a bit more slack.

0
Malc | 14 March 2011 - 1:14pm

thank you.....

... and goodnight !

3
mojitojoe | 12 March 2011 - 2:42pm

Are you happy now?

See what you've done with your metaphorical "throw a stink bomb in the playground and run away" trick!

You even got someone to drag out the old "clique" chestnut, there will be people going on about "slippery slopes" and "smugness" next - thanks very much...your work here was done haha.

0
Retro Man | 14 March 2011 - 6:03pm

I've not read every post in this thread

just skimmed it really, have I missed it or has the most blatant of all nosedives been missed completely?

Viz.

0
Neil Dyson | 14 March 2011 - 3:04pm

Scorcher and Score circa 1971-77

Roy of the Rovers and his thinly disguised Manchester United parody, Hot Shot Hamish and his hideously deformed biceps, the groovy and oh-so right on sporty crime fighting team of Johhny Couger (native American wrestler) and Splash Gorton (Likely dope smoking, Zappaish swimmer) Billy and his spookily possessed footwear...whats not to like?

It's all Beyonce, Big Brother and Jordans tits (Peter and the other one) now.

0
BernkastelCues | 29 March 2011 - 6:19pm
Privacy Statement    ©  2006 - 2012 Development Hell Ltd