Last year was my bumper gig year ... I feel my best work is well behind me.

I've got three nights away this week, and I'll be able to witter on about music with The Massive rather than ending up in the pub with my colleagues as we once again spend five minutes that feels like two hours finding pretty much no middle ground in our listening, then three hours of me listening to them grumble about work and football. Typical comment from one after five minutes of chat from me and the younger gang about recent gigs - "I've never even heard of these bands." I think Steely Dan was the topic here - he couldn't believe that a band he had never heard of were big enough to play the NIA in Birmingham. The last time a new artist entered his CD collection ? (Of course I asked). "Simply Red". He's not 50 yet, arithmetically. "Why are you still so interested in pop music?" he asked me, baffled, not quite rhetorically, but with no interest in any form of answer.

"Sorry chaps, there's some work I need to do for tomorrow's meeting. I'll hear all about Newcastle sweeping all before them when we have a pint tomorrow night, eh?", as elhombremalo gets on his high horse and starts the old fingers a-clattering .....

Question for Mr H - the linke for "My night in with" goes to "A night in with" which doesn't seem to exist - should it be something else?

What's the pay like?

Like it. Fab idea; and a great arena for us all - some of whom admit to be frustrated would-be rock writers, some don't - to voice our opinions and take vicariousness to the next level.

But - no way to comment on the reviews. Or is there? I may be missing something obvious...

What I've enjoyed about some of the 'my night with' posts is the discussion afterwards. Other than that, a fine plan.

Can we review some "old"? Or is it limited to new releases?

On the one hand, I think this is an exciting and cool idea -- lots of the Massive will probably be up for it. And TBH the reviews section was more interesting in the very early days, when you had fewer and longer reviews than now, so this might bring some new life.

But OTOH, the 'how much do these writers get paid?' question above, which has only had one jokey response so far, should be taken seriously. This is fast becoming one of the key questions surrounding user-generated content -- how does it work when the users write the content, but don't see the revenue?

I don't think Word's motives are at all sinister here. And I'm sure the proposed section is a pretty small component of the mag. But you're way ahead of lots of magazines in the ways you use the net already. So you're going to hit this question about user-generated content in a serious way sooner than most; if not now, then with the next initiative.

So what do you see as the ethics of soliciting your readers to write for the mag for free?

...of soliciting people to write for the magazine for free? I don't think that's an entirely accurate way of looking at it. What we're asking people to do is contribute stuff to the web site as hundreds of them already do. We're saying some of this might find its way into the magazine if we can find a sensible way of doing it. I suppose if I were being pretentious I might say that we're looking to see if there's a new hybrid here, particularly for live reviews, which is neither professional nor amateur. There are precedents. Danny Baker's Saturday morning programme on Five Live, for instance, is made up of listeners' calls. I'm pretty sure they don't compensate the callers. If those people feel that their call has an independent value that would be better exploited by turning it into, say, a book, they're free not to make it, just as people are free to not contribute to this section of the website or to say if they don't want their material featured in the pages of the magazine.

You say "you're way ahead of lots of magazines in the ways you use the net already." That's certainly true in the sense that we have given hundreds of thousands of pounds worth of material (including days of podcasts) away for free, largely because there is no practical way of getting any revenue back for it. What we ask people to do is to look at the totality of what we do - magazine, CD, podcasts, thriving, constantly changing website, newsletters - and then ask themselves if an annual subscription for the magazine is a reasonable sum to pay in exchange for this. If anybody thinks it isn't that's up to them and we don't go round chasing them off the website if they're not subscribers.

"User-generated content" is an expression that's bandied around a lot, generally in subsidised institutions, not in a small independent companies. So is "revenue". I'll tell you what. If anybody's review is published and they don't think they've got a fair deal, if they call at the office at 90 Pentonville Road, London N1 9HS I will happily give them a pound coin out of my own pocket. Personal callers only. I can't afford the admin otherwise. But you must declare it for tax. Fair?

"User-generated content" is fine and surely it's the first thing a business-type thinks about when he sees a magazine with a wonderfully active and interesting website/forum.

But don't mistake the (more or less) impulsive and temporary nature of an on-line forum with the printed magazine. Empire magazine a few years back was suddenly full of "reader-generated" features, and I for one stopped buying it; it had become like the table next to you in a pub with a bunch of ranting mates.

As has been pointed out in THE WORD several times - most people buy a magazine (well, I do...) for considered opinions, facts, and journalistic quality.

And who isn't?

Many of the postings i,ve read here recently indicate that certain members of "The Massive" are more than capable of submitting reviews which wouldn,t reduce the "journalistic quality" at all...i think this magazine, more than any other that i,ve read ,values the input it,s readers can offer.

I added a review of Grails "Burning Off Impurities". I'm enthusiastic about sharing my opinions on music (and hearing the opinions of others), and this seems a good platform.

It didn't occur to me that there would be money in this - it seems to be an entirely sensible and practical way of getting us to rave on about music we like, to encourage others to have a listen to it.

If any of the reviews from The Massive end up in the printed magazine, so much the better : I expect that there are many readers of the magazine who don't visit the website, and these reviews would be used to tempt them to have a look at what we get up to here, as well as being a badge of honour for the contributor.

I also expect that the good people who run the magazine will be sensible in their selection of any of the reviews : I do not think that this will turn The Word into "Here's a bunch of stuff our invisible friends on the internet like", because who would buy that ?

I'm interested in how you came to the valuation of "Hundreds of thousands of pounds" worth of giveaway material, and also if and how the idea of "contributing to the website" differs from the following, which I've lifted verbatim from the consistently excellent "And Another Thing" blog elsewhere on the web.

"A few weeks ago I was contacted by a representative of a well-known quality newspaper. They'd read my blog and wanted to know if I would be interested in doing one for their website. I was flattered, of course, but not flattered enough to do it for no money, which is what they proposed."

That character count is a tricky old bugger isn't it! Certainly encourages self discipline and brevity of expression. (Which has to be a good thing.)

The immediacy of the likes of you and me blogging our thoughts as we get home from a gig is going to be quite different to a journalist's x-hundred word account. If you try to be a journalist you're going to feel bitter about not getting paid for it. And if you're a paid journalist you might feel bitter about unpaid amateurs taking over.

But it gets a bit sticky for me when that freely contributed content appears in a paid-for magazine.

Perhaps, if particular contributions are prized, the publisher should commission the contributor to write another piece to appear in the magazine for a reasonable sum.

I'm an unpaid columnist for a monthly publication - I do it for the exposure my company gets. When I went to a contributors and journalists reception, there was distinct chill in the air from the journalists who clearly thought I was stealing their trade.

you can publish in the magazine anything I've ever posted here totally for free, no charge. I won't even be turning up at your door for the £1. The way I see it, it's no different from extracting a post and putting it on the letters page surely.

My only - teeny tiny (EDIT) - negative comment is that if you are publishing two or three reviews at a time, the format might be a little dry. Why a template and not just a word count? If there is something to say about the audience or the quality of the beer at that Yes gig then say it in the review; if not, then all the more words available to describe Chris Squire's testicles.

The Massive can be a crotchety old bugger can't it?

that's all I have to say.

Like others, it would never have occured to me to seek or even hint at any remuneration, because my "relationship" with Word is as a reader. If something I write gets published in the magazine or website reviews section, then that's a very welcome ego massage.

If I was approaching this as a writer / professional, then my expectation of payment would mean I was in a different "relationship" with the magazine.

I'd personally prefer the former. Of course, if Mr H ever contacts me to say that what I've written is so good I should consider joining the journalism profession then that's a whole different ball game (and well into the realms of unreality).

As none of you are aware, I edit my own reviews based website, contribute several reviews a week, and regularly give up a couple of hours on a Sunday to format it for my webchap.

We run both Amazon and Google ads which together don’t generate anywhere near enough income to cover costs, and because we generally write about music that arrives as hard copy, I’ve got the added expense of distributing review copy to other writers.

So why do I / we do it?

Mainly because it’s fun, and we love music. We mostly cover releases, which don’t get reviewed in the major publications, and we get to hear (and support) the occasional great album that would otherwise get lost.

My recommendation for all potential Word contributors; write about artists / records you love, that wouldn’t usually get covered in the mag (or anywhere else, for that matter), and as a reward, forget the filthy lucre and instead settle for getting some exposure for a band / artist / record that’s in danger of slipping away.

Given that many of us complain about the number of reviews in the mag, and the absence of our own particular faves. One of the joys of The Word is the sheer quality of the writing from those who are paid to write, but a page or two of reviews from the great unwashed has to be worth a try, doesn't it?

I think it is a great idea not to put any limit on when the record was released as well; I would agree that newer releases may get the nod more often, but even then the reviewer should have time to get to know the album before reaching a verdict. I don't know it for a fact, but I imagine a lot of journos these days end up having to review records that they've only had time to listen to twice.

Though it does seem to be against the spirit of the thing that the two reviews I now want to write have had lengthy reviews in the mag - Prefab Sprout (because it is a thing of wonder and this needs repeating) and Vampire Weekend (because it got damned with faint praise by Andrew Collins, and I think it deserves better).

That New Year's Resolution to spend less time in front of a PC screen after work hours isn't looking too healthy.

just back from a couple of weeks on remote islands in indonesia

want to see my slides?

anyway i think this is a good initiative, clearly prompted by the quality of the contributions generated under the banner of "my night with" .Who did the first of those - was it mark ellen and the dylan show?

I think it churlish to suggest that we should be paid, even if subsequently printed - no one is making you contribute. I suspect most of us would be pleased to see our efforts reproduced in print format - much like a leter to the editor?

re the value of podcasts -well just because the lads cant figure out how to charge for the podcasts doesn't mean they are not of value. There is an opportunity cost after all- they take time to devise , perform and whack em up on the net.

One last comment - in passing David H says no one happens to "come across podcasts". Not so in my case.When subscribing for the word podcast I noted the list of of other podcasts subscribed to by subscribers to the word podcast. I have checked out a number of new podcasts via this route.

The Word has been a fantastic addition to my media diet - at a time when other publications, of which i have always been a voracious consumer, had become irritating, shamelessly biased by the influence of PR's or bogged down in retreading old trends to appeal to an ever dwindling aging and ill-informed audience along comes something that is innovative, witty and well-written. That it appears to be a labour of love and is enthusiastically and intelligently diversified into using other forms of communication have just made it better - in particular this blog, providing a ready mouthpiece to a crucially like minded group.

Providing evolving ways to make that contribution shows that the editorial team are keeping their eye on the ball. Critically this is bespoke for this publication, not an approved corporate policy being applied mechanically and unimaginatively across a stable of titles. The % of those that cry '..where's my freelance rate...' how many are journalists in the first place? Seems to miss the point to me. Nothing here is pretending to be anything thats its not. If you don't want to contribute in that clearly set out context, then guess what, don't.

The podcast debate,and the comments about the difficulties about making this work in a commercial context, rings true with my own experience - t'internet etc is a wonderful thing but it sure aint easy to make £££'s out of it. The video podcasts for, was it Universal?, didn't develop into a series; presumably it didn't deliver a satisfactory impact for them on whatever benchmark they used.

Good luck with this new feature and hope the rewards allow the service to the Massive to keep evolving and improving

I like what you said and the way you said it.

Just by way of agreeing with myself, I do feel we should appreciate the effort put in by Development Hell focussed on this pretty targeted audience. Mentioning this to the FPO just now, she mentioned that the on-line home of Women's periodicals SHE, Good Housekeeping, Prima, Coast, Country Living and House Beautiful is swept up into one big bucket site called 'all about you'

http://www.allaboutyou.com/

Its just so hideously robotic, reeking of focus group and 'pan-divisional efficiency initiatives' (aka cost-cutting). Looks like a pretty cynical way of herding the surely diversified audiences for those magazines, some of them very long running, into one large sheep pen. One thing for sure they are not going to enhance their brands going down that route.