nah.... don't bother. it doesn't seem to make any sense. lay out is all wrong, looks like it's been patched together in a hurry and is a bit of a jumbled mess.
and that's just the front cover.

....c'mon.

... and am working my way through it. AC/DC on the cover makes a change from the standard round of U2/Oasis/REM etc. No stupid lists (apart from a "10 Worst Superheroes" list, which looks suspiciously like something in a magazine we all know well... )

I think it's an improvement, but they won't be getting a subscription out of me, that's for sure.

... only had chance to skim through it but it seems a LOT better than when i'd last tried it. Funny thought did strike me though and that was that it felt a little like when I bought the first issue of Q; that here was something I haven't seen before. Not necessarily true but there you go.

I'm sure of it.

...I saw the new Q today and had to do a double-take when I saw Angus Young on the front and check that it wasn't the new Classic Rock. Hard to believe it was Q as a Gallagher brother/member of Coldplay wasn't on the front. Never read it, though!

Looked alright on the shelf (no cd though) given that it had a grown man in a school uniform on the front. Its the hat that disturbs - there's nothing wrong with shorts.

First impressions - it looks different but pretty much reads the same. Tries to cover a wide variety of stuff but with no conviction. Who the hell is back. Not written by TH and I started to read it but it was like one of those TOTP album cover versions.

The layout actually makes it tricky to read - lots of font changes and caps for a paragraph. Busy background. And the paper feels cheap.

Didn't feel it introduced me to anything I didn't know. Will probably only buy it if I'm off on holiday or ill. My Word sub is perfectly safe.

So different but the same would sum it up - they have changed the things that I didn't mind and have kept the stuff that stopped me buying it. I feel suspicously like I'm not their target reader.

There's freedom of speech for you.

In light of Handsome's recent thread - how many stars does the new Q deserve ?

Word turned up on Friday. Q has been untouched since. Nuff said.

Thought the new Q was in the main an improvement, but is it just me or has the typeface become a bit on the titchy side? I found in particular the bigger album reviews really hard to read unless I was sat under my spotlight with the magazine pressed against my nose, and my eyesight's not that bad.

and I have to say that it is appallingly designed (apart from the front cover, which is fantastic).

The design is just so fussy and over-complicated... this often happens when magazines have a relaunch. Instead of making the look of the pages more simple and clear, one ends up with a mish-mash of graphic elements that are all competing for attention.

I never got as far as seeing what the content was, as it just seemed too much of an effort.

like a magazine that's been designed to be flicked through rather than actually read in any great depth (rather like lads' mags at the barbers', which I flick through rather than actually read in any great depth).

I echo the comments about the small type size (with relief - I was worried it might just have been me), and I also dislike the very wide columns of text (almost full page width on the New Order back catalogue review), which I always thought were a design no-no.

I agree the text is quite small but the content is definitely improved.

My only real issue with it is the review of Power, Corruption & Lies which only gives 3 stars! An absolute disgrace...