Will the staples stand the test of time, or will they do a Roy Of The Rovers and rust?

I was fairly sceptical I must admit. I even chewed Fraser's ear off at the London meet-up - to the effect that abandoning perfect binding must signal that the mag was on the ropes financially and it was downhill all the way from here.

Anyway, it plopped onto the mat half an hour ago and... it's BRILLIANT. I LOVE it. I find I don't really care about the binding at all. The content and layout are just superb. It just looks so damn readable and interesting. I like the full pages devoted to columnists bits, the 'best/worst' plot twists is an excellent choice, the interviews are people I want to know more about or always have time for (Sean Lock, the wonderful Danny Thompson, Jack Bruce, Chris Addison, John Hiatt, Simon Mayo, Danny Baker and Tim Minchin - sorry - Duke Special) and the features inspired (Sherlock Holmes, the jazz take on Hendrix and Beefheart, the studio system etc).

It feels like you've recharged your batteries and really put some thought into what we (and maybe you) want to read. I'm as excited about it as my teenage self used to be about a new Q arriving, which is saying something in this media, content and opinion saturated day and age.

I guess I'm partly reacting to how disappointing I found the Xmas roundup issue - it's just nice to get a magazine brimful of things I want to read - but I do think that the new size makes the thing more readable - it just seems to demand that I abandon my work and sit down for a good immersion. I personally always love it when I find out about new recordings and so to find there's a new Who live retrospective (sadly bolted on to yet another Greatest Hits), Toumani Diabaté and Josh Rouse release tickles me pink. I love the 'Divide and Rule' roundup of recent releases, rather than trying to cover all bases and the Eyewitness bit looks like being a great read.

Quibbles? Letters looks a bit short and feels a bit of an afterthought at the back. And I guess I could care less about Popes, but all in all, I think it's wonderful - exactly what got me to subscribe in the first place.

I worry that you have so few ads - mental note to self to buy more subscriptions for friends (I already buy 3). I look forward to hearing what others think. For me it's a triumph.

its on the doormat when I get home tonight. I'm off on a work trip tomorrow and have read the Ian Dury one to bits so am desperate for a new copy. Quite excited and the cover looks fantastic.

dimensionally, thematically and glossycoverily to Vanity Fair; all in all a sexily packaged piece of serious read.

And I just can't hide it. So much so, I've just renewed my sub.

It looks and feels very slick and substantial. And back to the more text-heavy days of old.

Your (kind of) Extreme Makeover is a success. WerQ it!

... hope that's not a bad omen.

Mine appeared this morning (at what time I dont know as I was snoozing off a weekend beer frenzy in the living room). Anyway.

The new format and makeover is fantastic. Definately feels like a lot more to read now. It isnt as drastic a change as I'd thought it may be so I'd consider it a totally cliched evolution rather than revolution.

Alls still right with The Word.....
(even down to the obligatory Dylan cover)

P

* I love the staples and the feel of the new look magazine - in fact I much prefer it.

* The cartoon cover is great - possibly make that a permanent feature.

* Good to see Word of Mouth back.

* I opened the magazine at David Hepworth's feature and flicked through it - when he said he had a long article to write he wasn't joking! I am *so* pleased you've decided to do longer features - that gets an A++ from me.

* In fact the whole magazine just feels crammed with more to read... this is a good thing. I felt The Word was heading too far in the direction of short features before, which considering the calibre of writers you have at your disposal was a crying shame. To see this rectified is absolutely wonderful - I know you have to make decisions based on sales and advertising and grown up things like that, but if at all possible I hope you stick with the in depth features for good.

* The captions under Kate Mossman and David Hepworth's photos in the new review section made me chortle.

All in all I am hugely in favour of these changes. I think this must be the first time in 25 years of reading magazines in which I've felt a redesign has been an improvement. You've obviously put an awful lot of thought into it, and it certainly seems to have paid off.

Just went down to pick up the post and... hurrah, the new Word had arrived. Have to admit to a sigh of relief, as I was quietly concerned about the potential overhaul. "I know what I like, and I like what I know" being on one hand a nod to values upheld, but on the other a proverbial spanner in the rolling works. Ditto, "change for changes sake" is also be a double-edge sword; USB ports instead of floppy disc drives is one thing, but New Coke is another. But, with the arrival of issue #85 ...I can relax. The magazine is sort of the same, just more so, as if it's been re-tuned for better performance. We've got it back from the garage and it's been given a loving wash, been hot waxed (I assume!); it handles better, moves more graciously, the brakes work, and someone's tidied out the old crisp packets and the blessed ashtray.

The first thing I noticed when I reluctantly flicked through my copy (normally I like to consume it one page at a time, thus assuring me a slow, steady release over a period of days) was that the sheer amount of what's to read really comes across. The FOREWORD editorials are still there, but feel slightly magnified. The news aspect of the front is still there, but contains what appear to be more, slightly shorter pieces all running as one. Not sure about that yet, looks a bit jumbled together. But the proof, as they say...

WORD of MOUTH is back. Glad to see it. (Please WORD, can you do one thing, though? Make sure you encourage your contributors to tell us what they're currently into, rather than letting them brag on about the coolest things on their shelves? I, for one am not interested in their overall tastes, I'm more engaged by what's engaging them, which is what I always thought this section was about.)

There still appears to loads of great articles to get lost in. And the reviews section is pretty much the same. One thing that looks great is the new DIVIDE & RULE section, where two staffers take on a whole heap of releases. Initially I thought perhaps they were going to be debating them, but on closer inspection it is actually a device to allow WORD to get more reviews in without resorting to pithy, postage stamp-sized reviews that don't really serve anyone except the marketing department. Maybe the two could come together sometimes? Opposing views on the same releases? Might be interesting...

One thing I must give a major shout to is the fact that there appears to be more book reviews, which I'm very pleased about. I'm a big reader and WORD's book spread very often matches my own scope of interest, and I find the monthly selection very helpful. (I became a Michael Chabbon fan off the back of WORD, and Cavalier and Klay is now on my desert island list). I was a bit concerned that the market research may have led to a reduction in the amount of books you covered, but instead I find myself in the majority. Equally, I think it's a brave, bold and mature move to give space to books in our digital overload age, when so many magazines seem to treat them as a begrudging after-thought.

The staples format feels fine. If anything WORD now feels sleeker.

There's the much touted MASSIVE ATTACK at the back, which I think I'll reserve judgment on for now. Without reading it I can't say, but on first appearance it looked a bit unappealing and flat; a bit like the back of one of those odd world music magazines you used to find in Borders (and never see anywhere else). But if it works, then I'll go with it.

Overall - and bear in mind I've only skimmed my copy a few times - everything looks good; a spring clean to keep things moving forward. What's interesting is that, with Q and Empire recently overhauling their look (again, in the case of the former), all they did was make the pages more engaging by unleashing a team of sub-editors with OCD on the layout. There are squiggles and lines and boxes and shadings everywhere, which if you ask me is about filling the page up without writing any more words. A bit like the publishing equivalent of that trick restaurants pull when they sprinkle garnish all over the plate to hide the fact that food is only actually taking up 20% of the dish in the middle. But with WORD, well, this is still, as the tag lines says, something to read. And in the world of magazines that can only be a good thing! If you want tiny articles, go read the Web; if you want articles, with editorials that you can admire, if not always agree with, then WORD is still the one!

Phew. Word (and world) safe!

Loving the new look. Obviously can't comment in-depth on content but on a superficial flick, you've done a good job. Like the cover and the paper is lovely (one of my things, excuse me).

In a way, it's a bit back to the future. More like the original magazine but with a more attractive layout.

Have to include one small moan, 99% True. Haven't read it for many issues and I was really keeping my fingers crossed that it would be dropped. Oh well. How about a blank page for shopping lists, notes ...?

Really glad I renewed my sub. Looking forward to getting stuck into the content.

Big up arrow to the team at WORD Towers.

Too much text on the front cover of the subscription edition though!

Definitely a tip of the hat to Andre Carillho for making sense of The Editor's scrawl

My copy arrived this morning and I had a quick riffle through on ths bus to work. It looks great.

I'm delighted to see Word Of Mouth back, and overall there does seem to be a lot to read in it. This is a Good Thing.

I will be spending a large proportion of Wednesday on trains, so I am saving the magazine for that.

Well done all!

And would also like to see 99% true bite the dust.

But "the luxury double wallet cover" (i.e. a bit more cardboard) for the cd is somewhat less luxurious than the previous incarnation. Surely you're have a larf here

Overall a really good tweak which takes Word back to many of its founding principles

Like the redesign a lot. Feels like there's loads to read. Nice combo of shorter "toilet read" pieces and long format features.

The stapled format reminds me of Select and, as mentioned previously, Vox. (Personally I'd prefer a matt cover finish, but that's picking nits.)

Really like the illustrated cover, please make this a regular feature - it will save having to put the mag upside down on the coffee table to prevent Iggy etc from scaring the kids.

Jolly good show chaps, keep up the good work. Sergeant? Recommend a promotion. Toodle pip.

PS Late update in remaining seconds before Uni Challenge starts: Staples may rust, but are v. good improvement on the folding inside out front, allowing much easier reading in bath. Top idea. Yours, damp, VV.

Read some of it, flicked through the rest. But no matter, I'm here to abandon my critical faculties.

Just leafing through all the goodies inside made me genuinely pleased, excited and thrilled. Features I already love alongside new stuff I can't wait to read. Lovely.

I didn't think there was anything to worry about and my bedtime reading should be immeasurably improved.

Mine still hasn't arrived. I feel left out. (and if it doesn't arrive tomorrow, I'm marching down to the local sorting office.)

Bravo! Bravo!
A couple of friends of mine were once interviewed for the position of licensees and one of the questions was to rate, in order of the importance of making happy, (a)the regulars, (b)the occasional visitors and (c)the people who dropped in once and were never seen again. The correct order is, of course, b, a, c - the reasoning being that if you can get the people who pop in every so often to become regulars without upsetting the regulars by (say) taking out the pool table and installing a quiz machine, you could only become more succesful. I believe that the metaphorical pool table has been retained, but there's now a regular Tuesday quiz night been added.
An object lesson in brand tweaking, if I may say so; well done. And for those who haven't had their subscription copies yet, please be assured that the new monthly "I would - wouldn't you?" centrefold feature in no way detracts from the central importance of Ms. Bush's best work, but *does* have a retro-staple frisson for those of a certain age.

Looks good, and would expect it to stand out on the news stand (glossy cover, illustration, slightly different size)

Did the usual - scanned through and read the odd bit. Will have my traditional in depth read through on Saturday Morning with coffee & nicotine for company, before the kids and Mrs rise.

Just one thing - any chance of quick rundown of the notable album re-issues about, and a bit of TV stuff in The Last Word?
(Not a complaint, just a question)

Looking forward to the Saturday Word-Coffee-Fag combination.

... it's all very well for us all to say, "O fantastic, put loads of illustrations of the color", but doesn't it limit the number of cover stars they could use? next time they want to do Guy Garvey, or the nearest equivalent, its possible no-one will understand the drawing.

Liking it.

A lot.

Got Word. It looks very good. Entertainment for lively minds indeed. Well done and thank you.

I feared the new-look Word was going to look and feel as shit as Rolling Stone. Worry not, it looks – and feels – great. Not sure about the CD review section though. After seven expansive reviews we then get a mere two pages of a dressed-up round up from Ms Mossman and Libero Hepworth – not altogether sure that's an improvement on the old reviews section. Or is it just me?

I thought I didn't give a fuck about the format, but I likes it I tells ya. I've not even read any of it yet...

So far only seen the mag cover (OK I suppose) and the CD cover, as I keep the contents of both as a treat for the weekend.

Getting rid of Yuko Shimizu's artwork on the CD cover is a dreadful mistake. Whatever the contents of the CDs, the covers were always arch, stylish and good to look at. Now we have a cover seemingly put together at the last minute by the magazine intern, using stock marketing photos from the featured artistes. Yuck. But I guess Shimizu's art cost a packet and the new "look" can be done for free in ten minutes. No matter what the CD sounds like, it's the cover what always did it for me!

Yours in a sulk...

Still no "...Hannah, Heppo, Fraser and The Massive" received then?

last night and as with many of the posters above my first impressions were extremely positive. Congratulations on a courageous revamp. Not that it was ever in doubt, but my subscription should be renewed sometime today.

What's the story with Andrew Harrison though? Associate Editor to Editor at Large.

I come back from walking t'whippet yesterday and saw t'postman cycling away up t'road. I were all excited about t'new revamped version of t'Word but lo and behold there were nay sign of it. 'appen it's stuck in some sorting office down t'London way. Hurry up eh gents? 'er indoors is getting the heebie-jeebies what wi' that Dury fella staring oop at 'er everytime she's goes out to t'lavvy.

From the IFC to the papal schism. Much easier to read in bed, too (lights out at 12.10 last night as a result)

You've knocked yourselves out - the new style feels more portable and international. It's bigger, better and bolder.

Top work Worders

Really like the general look and feel to the mag, it appears to be much more immediate! Like the idea of illustrated cover, but as someone else mentioned, less text for subscriber edition please. Enjoyed the Diary feature at the start, and loved the longer album reviews, although I would like to see more music reviews.
Overall, there is a good mixture of change and old faves. Oh and its great to see Word of Mouth back

Don't judge it by its cover...

While I don't want to restart the tired old should we or shouldn't we have the CD debate, this month's is a cracker. It's worth it for Clare and the Reasons wonderful Genesis cover alone, but add in The Postmarks and the Mavis track, Ali Farka Toure, The Watson Twins and possibly my new favourite band, The Rich Morton Sound, it's great (and I haven't yet had the chance to listen to it all, so there may be several other gems on there

Oh, and I like the new look of the mag as well

It's like Oliver Cromwell didn't exist (up yours Morrissey!)

The boys of the Chelmsford Rangers Orange Lodge Loyal Branch are not happy.

Now then - where's me bowler hat and flute??? Off to tear Gerry and Martine a new one. Parades Commission my arse.

I agree with Clint in the original post and with Mark Ellen's comments in the latest podcast. It does have the look and feel of the sophisticated looking (to my mind) American periodicals.

I was flicking through it this morning and (this is where my sycophancy careens off the scale into an entirely new dimension) it came to me that Rolling Stone and The New Yorker had been fused in its look and layout.

It's a pretty damn good job of work.

Though I haven't read it yet. It may be 'The People's Friend' inside and that would be a disappointment.

Merit marks all round and a mention in Assembly tomorrow morning.

It has the feeling of a much 'meatier' magazine - nice big chunky blocks of text to sink into

My first post amongst The Massive having been converted to the magazine very recently via 'podcast osmosis'. Being a big fan of Mr Collins and his various other podcast outlets, I decided to give the Word podcast a go as I had heard him mention it a few times and had run out of other spoken word to enjoy.

Cutting a medium sized story short, you have hooked me in!! I had tried Word when it was first published (I have vague notions of having issue one tucked away somewhere...) it was all a bit lost on me (being comparatively young for a Word reader back then) but now I have to say that reading a magazine that has so much great depth of content and such little advertising is wonderful.

Enough waffling - I really like the new look, I think the sketched cover is superb and although the sound of the stapled cover had me worried at first, now I have the magazine in hand it is lovely. I love the way the tome opens out flat on a surface and you can actually read the articles without having to curve your neck or inappropriately finger the spine. It is funny how you never realise these small things until they change. This sort of attention to detail is something I really admire and makes (The) Word stand out.

The sheer amount of 'stuff' is also promising - that Hepworth article looks like it might take two sittings to fully admire!

Good work Word team - looking forward to watching the re-design mature and grow (I would be a fool to pass up a subscription offer that means paying only £3 an issue for this higher class of magazine now wouldn't I?)I am sure by this time next year I will be a much more rounded and learned individual.

Now where is Andrew Collins, he owes me £36!

that the Danny Thompson interview was excellent, in fact it's inspired to say so. What a legend, he should be on the cover, not that other bloke. Also good to see Roy Orbison mentioned numerous times throughout the mag...

However, couple of niggles:

The new binding means it's a lot less robust in the hands of the post office, hence my subscription copy arrived looking like they'd had a kick about with it down the depot (which they may well have).

Also, am I the only subscriber who totally fails to see the point of the, ahem, "special edition" covers? I can't help thinking the money could be better spent on just about anything than a separate print run that offers precisely zero in terms of added value - especially now that the only real difference is a red border that means the retail version actually looks a lot nicer than the subs version.

Grumble over, great mag, keep up the good work, etc etc

I know that the absence of the bound spine from future editions of The WORD was, in the minds of some readers, akin to removing a supporting wall from a much loved listed building. The thing is I like the staples. The end product looks curvier and more magaziney. Admittedly I am someone with an erotic fetish for quality paper and stationery products. By rounding-off the angles and making everything shiny the publishers are just pandering to my kinks. If they ever start binding The WORD with treasury tags then it will, from my point of view, make the full transition to softcore pornography.

André Carrilho’s cover is great and although I miss Yuko Shimizu’s pop art on the CD, having two different styles of painted artwork competing for attention would have undermined the overall effect.

Cosmetics aside, I think the most successful internal change to the magazine is the new multi-faceted reviews section, where in addition to the standard write-ups, there are the readers’ choices and a more detailed double page spread dedicated to the artists on the Now Hear This! CD. I am a fan of music journalism even when it touches on acts or genres that I have no interest in. A smaller number of albums scrutinised in greater depth works for me. I doubt that I will ever listen to Scratch My Back - Peter Gabriel’s new anthology of cover versions (There are too many other records that I would reach for first and not enough hours in the day) but I certainly enjoyed reading David Hepworth’s analysis of it.

I have yet to read the Divide and Rule feature co-written by Kate Mossman and Mr Hepworth (the latter appears to have been photographed while ordering a large gin and tonic in the bar of a provincial yacht club) but I am already amused by the mental image of them standing on opposite sides of some yawning generation gap, attempting to deafen each other with their musical choices.