Mine has just dropped onto the mat.

Can't wait to get home.

"Spin" and the "National Trust Magazine" are poor substitutes (although neither have stapled spines).

(Rubs hands together a la Mr. Burns) Exccccellent. That's this evening sorted out then.

That would be some change wouldn't it.

The postman delievrs mid-afternoon in my neck of the woods, so I won't get to see the new issue until teatime. But, judging from clint oyster's post... have we now gone to 'stapled spine' territory - or is this a proposition from the top brass at The Word?

Without even needing to think about it, my thought on the matter is "no way". Stapled spine magazines are crap. Perfect-bound is publishing beauty incarnate.

Ian Dury/Andy Serkis on the cover.

How wrong am I?

Eurgh. Vox magazine was stapled and look what happened to that. All the best monthly titles are perfect-bound. It's just a fact.

Go on, who's on the cover then? All I can be sure of is it ain't Jeremy Clarkson.

I shall reserve judgement on the stapled spine until I see it but v happy to hear of a return to 'more reading'.

More music and less comedian/TV "personalities" would get my vote!

There've been plenty of quality saddle-stitched magazines down the years, most notably in Word's field: Select and Details (when it was good - going perfect bound coincided with jumping the shark if I remember correctly). Perfect-bound always seems a bit tragic when there are less than about 160 pages. Unless, of course, the cover stock's too weedy to do its job (e.g. Rolling Stone, and the Xmas Radio Times, which never lasts the fortnight intact.)
Personally, I think The Word should go weekly.

Editing a magazine has always been a balancing act. On one hand you've got people who want to see you be adventurous; on the other you've got people who want everything to stay the same. This is made even more difficult in the era of instant response where you're having to answer even theoretical criticisms. These changes don't come in until the March issue.

A little background. We're doing this because: we think it helps emphasise what's different about the magazine rather than what's the same. It saves us some costs, which is increasingly important in a post-Borders world. We think people value this magazine for what's on its pages. It's not one for the coffee-table. And the new format lends the magazine a certain immediacy. Monthly magazines went over to perfect-binding in the 1980s in response to demand from advertisers, not from readers. Before that time there were very few perfect-bound titles. Against the background of the seismic things that have gone on in the media, this move from glue to staples is a pretty minor change.

We don't mind being classed with other saddle-stitched titles (which is what they're called) such as The New Yorker, New Statesman, The Week or The Spectator. We hope you'll welcome the new look - which isn't going to be that radical actually - as well as many other changes to the magazine when you get a chance to absorb them. If you feel that this magazine with its website, podcast, CD and other activities is letting you down then you should say so.

as long as it's still worth reading cover to cover - after which it goes in the recycling anyway (eventually)

I'm not a fetishist, it's the content that interests me.

these days? Lucky bastards.....

One thing that should go down well is that Word of Mouth is returning, in a slightly different format, according to David's subs letter. Look forward to seeing the changes.

Also, I agree with Mark that you buy it for what you want to read in it; that said, Word is beautifully designed, particularly the subscribers limited cover editions, and I am happy to find a place for it on my coffee table!

EDIT: Darn, Lucas beat me to a similar joke :-(

I am thinking about the positive changes, such as a return to considered reviews rather than the "scramble to be the first to publish an ill-considered opinion..."

Am I the only one who remembers the promises of the first issues that reviews would be written some time after receipt of the review copy so that the reviewer could give it a decent listen, and that this would mean that reviews might come out a month or more after release?

Am I the only one who remembers the promises that the magazine would include more on books, films and other popular culture?

I've got to say, much as I love Messrs Hepworth and Ellen, I haven't been reading cover to cover lately because of my perceived lack of coverage of these other areas - I might be wrong.

So I say HURRAH AND HUZZAH for new things and for that I can forgive a few staples...

whether the mag has staples or not. What is in it is what matters.
Pleased there will be more to read, bit disappointed to hear that "Word of Mouth"is returning. Didn't really care to hear what books, films and music someone like Kevin Pietersen liked (and yes he was used ...in 2006).

Because Messrs Ellen and Hepworth appear to be. I trust 'em. I'm exactly half way through a two year subscription and have complete confidence. Bring it on. I can't wait.

Fine by me. I'll go with the flow, change isn't a bad thing.

Great mag this month again. I really enjoyed the feature on It Might Get Loud (good to hear a voice of slight dissent) and it's good to read an interview with Rebecca Front, someone whom I've seen in many excellent TV shows and heard on the radio, but know almost nothing about.

Use the two sides for an in-depth Journey retrospective as they seem to be popular again for some reason.

I haven't received my issue this month yet *shakes fist at our snow-creating overlords* but I hear word (arf!) that I'm quoted in this month's issue. If this is one of the proposed changes, I am happy to be included every month...

when I got home last night. I must say after reading Mr Hepworth's letter I'm quite looking forward to the "new" Word - and a promise of "better Podcasts" - how are you going to improve on those I wonder?!

For hardy perennials like myself who are between subscriptions (honest gov, I'm movin' 'ouse) could we make an exception and release the editor's letter to the masses to read the full list of changes.

For what it's worth, The Word has been really good the past few months, it's got its groove at the minute, I'd rather a Flaming Lips article than "The day Paul du Noyer met Morrissey" or what have you. So I'm happy for the Twosome we shall now call Ellworth to do what they feel will make it better.

Staples are cool.

Isn't this what Word is doing? Whatever they throw at me I'll take it. I like the mix. Too much music isn't a good thing in my book. We get that elsewhere. It's an intelligent mix covering pop culture generally and I'm all for it. You won't really find that anywhere else.

If you don't like it, don't buy it. Shut up and enjoy what you're given or move on yourself.

nobody has mentioned that with the new format the CD covers are now suitable for framing. A bonus I think.

But with 2000 unplayed i-tunes tracks and 200 podcasts, the CD is not essential for me.

...who - literally, honestly, no kidding - has never heard A SINGLE ONE of the 'Festive 50' as listed in the new issue? And I've never heard OF at least seven of the artistes involved.

Don't get wrong, I'm not complaining about this in any way, I'm just genuinely fascinated to see if other hard-core Word readers see what we might call the 'new music' element of the magazine to be an irrelevance to them. It's certainly not what I buy it for.

I do understand that some degree of 'new music' box ticking has to be in there, otherwise Word would wither and die in the purgatory of Classic Rock-dom or be perceived as an old-hat-centric operation like other monthly music magazines.

But I'm personally not interested in 'new music' - not in a declamatory it-were-better-in-my-day sort of way. More in a 'memory-pretty-much-full' way. Haven't even bothered watching Later with Jools the past two or three series.

So my point is, like Em's above - is there a sizeable number of Word people who want to stand up and say (for the Ellworth team to make a mental note of), 'Keep the non-new-music element high - it's what we're here for'?

Curiously, when I say non new music I mean really music/musicians of such recent vintage that they have no 'story', no footprint in the culture. When I read stuff in the new issue about Dr feelgood, David Essex or Ian Dury, I'm not reading - to my mind - MUSIC features, I'm reading about interesting people and times in history. The fact they made music long ago and far away seems almost irrelevant. They're just interesting, readable cultural icons.

Does that make sense to anyone else here....?

as it means Word can now put a poster in the centre pages, something I'm sure we would all welcome.

To start with, how about this?

They are the perfect soundtrack to an evening flicking through the magazine. It's nigh on impossible that you're going to like every single track, but I think that's the point - it gives you the chance to hear 15 or so tracks you might never otherwise have heard. You'll inevitably dislike or shrug your shoulders at some, but you might find the odd track that means something to you.

Without the CD, I wouldn't have discovered, bought albums by (and even seen live) all manner of artists, including The National, She and Him, Decemberists or Nick Lowe. And there's nothing like reading a review then going back to listen to a track from that very album - that's what I call service.

To me The Word isn't a magazine with free CD or a CD with free magazine, it is impeccable writing about a range of subjects with a well-chosen soundtrack. And, apparently, soon it will come with free staples...

no fashion pages ever!

I do not own a horse. How am I going to read it sidesaddle?

I'm not surprised you're taking a good look at costs and content. I would question whether the magazine is capable of making money long term with what I assume is a largely static readership base, head office costs shared with one other non-overlapping magazine and a website - all set against the likely printed media structural backdrop.

I hope you find a way to make things work. Particularly if it involves never publishing a review of the year/decade again!

I've always thought of saddle-stitched as something for the weeklies like the ones Mark mentions in his post above. But I'm all for a bit of cost-cutting that doesn't involve a loss of editorial quality.

http://8tracks.com/wayfarer/i-heard-the-word-and-it-was-good-mostly

It's an 8track mix of someone's favourite Word tracks - I believe it is the same Wayfarer who props the bar up elsewhere on these pages. Well done, sir...

It was Mr Hepworth's subscriber letter that made me realise a couple of months ago that I needed reading glasses. Given the apparent Word "demographic" I can't believe I'm the only one - so larger print please!

(alternatively, much as I love the CD, why not give away a free pair of Word logo'd reading glasses with a future issue?)

On a more frivolous point, even when a particular issue isn't that great, there's still on the whole more to read than most magazines, so I'm happy to go with whatever changes Messrs Hepworth and Ellen are proposing

I'm really happy to go with big(ish) changes suggested by the staff. They've got it right so mnay times before. Good luck to them, and I'll certainly still be buying!

An aspect that has got to me, though, is the way the Reviews section formatting has gone over the last 12 months of so. (Not: definitely the formatting/arrangement, not the writing of the reviews.) The system used back when it was Jude-Rogers-edited, with Long Music reviews, then shorter music reviews, then the same for the re-issues, then onto the Books, films and DVDs at the back. You knew where you were. Now, however, without any real clear sense of a creative decision, these divisions have started to bleed into each other. Madonna's box-set in the New Music bit is one example among many.

Unlike, for example, the bringing in of staples or the new focus on wider subjects, its not an bold editorial decision, which I'm happy to trust you with. It just seems a tad sloppy.

as Proposed Changes To The World... frankly that would be less worrying.

(Only jesting... as you were.)

I would love to join in the debate, but I am still waiting with eager anticipation for the Feb issue to go kerplunk on my doormat. There again the bins haven't been collected for 4 weeks either, must be the wrong kind of snow.

Unless of course the change is that I don't get a copy anymore!

did anyone else notice the glaring and frankly insulting omission of The Muppets from the best of childrens TV this month??? WTF

as it'll make it so much easier to stuff a copy into the man-bag.

...I will adjust to any changes - as long a horoscope doesn't appear in the pages of Word.

There is such a thing as the last straw.

Just got my copy and read this thread. It sounds as though the subscribers letter listed the changes more definitively than Mark's editorial at the front of the mag. Can someone reproduce what the subscribers letter said please? Curious to know what was said...

P

Dear Subscriber,

Here at Word magazine we, like, want to move with the times, yeah? So from next month there will be, like, some changes. For a start, the magazine will no longer be perfect bound. Instead, we're going to have some wicked staples in the middle. We will also be implementing a new problem page edited by that girl out of NDubz, as well as having a few pages without Lily Allen or the Pet Shop Boys on them. Yeah, but don't worry right, these will be marked with a red warning triangle so you can avoid them if you need to. There will probably be other changes, too, right, like some more pictures of Linda Thompson or something, but at the moment we're too wasted to think of any.

Up yours Delors!

David Hepworth

made me laugh quite a lot. I hope those in question take it in the same spirit!

I'm all in favour of Word Of Mouth re-appearing, I bought a couple of DVDs and books if the recommendations sounded interesting enough. It's also where I first heard about The Da Vinci Code; I seem to recall that being regularly raved about by WOMers until Dan Brown was considered declasse.
I couldn't care less if it's stapled or perfect-bound, so long as it continues to carry interviews with unexpected yet perfect-in-hindsight musicians/actors/authors (I agree Rebecca Front is a great example.)

Quite looking forward to the next issue now. Only a week to go!

I always seem to chip in on the CD debate but I have to wonder where some of the massive are coming from in wanting it removed. For some there seems to be a cooler than thou approach, as if NHT is an affront to your ability to seek out the new and fun for yourself. Others seem to be just to be too busy to listen to 15 songs in a month. if you listen to one song a day for 15 days you still have 15 days left to not listen to it! Some claim both as an issue.

Either way, its by the by; CD dislikers, can't you just accept that many of us do like it? This month I have found a lot I like and will buy on there; I totally accept you chuck it in the bin out of free will, please acccept that I enjoy it and would be poorer for its departure

Incidentally, when you go on Amazon and look at an album by an artist featured on NHT all the other artists on the CD come up in the also viewed section of your home page, so it must be doing something for the featured artists as well.

Please take no offence, there just seems to be something closed-minded from such an enlightened massive in wanting the CD removed. Anyway, back to Mulatu Astake, The Postmarks, Fanfarlo, oh, you get the idea

Perfectly happy with the CD, the format of most the magazine and have loved it from day one but feel like the reviews section has gone backwards this month. A two page review on a Peter Gabriel covers album which turns out to be not that good? C'mon - there's loads of music out there and you should be giving over space and time to that which is good not padding out two pages for that which is not.

The section where the shorter reviews are just don't work for me - sorry - that's one part of the magazine I thought was better last month.

But as for the rest - great stuff as always, and still head and shoulders above any other music/entertainment offering.

I thought the reviews section was better in many ways. As has been mentioned, the old-style magazine reviews section is becoming a bit pointless these days, so a couple of long pieces that use a current album as a jumping-off point to pontificate about a trend/theory seems a good way to go, in fact I think it should go more in that direction.

The Gabriel review was as much about 'covers' generally as that particular album. Which is ok, cos if I want to know what that album's like I'll preview it on some website or other.

I picked up a copy of a rival mag (after a considerable break) and was impressed and entertained by the quantity and quality of the album reviews. I discovered that Jose Rouse has a Latin-tinged album out, Angelique Kidjo's new one is a bit off and Groove Armada seem to have made a cracker. The Word could be telling me this stuff.

I really liked the longer album reviews in The Word. Even if I'm not hugely interested in the act, the longer reviews give context that keep me interested.

That said, I felt a tad short-changed with the remainder of the album reviews. Shorter reviews serve to inform us of what's available as well as giving a flavour of what to expect. Another reservation I have is with just two writers sharing the shorter reviews. You both have great taste and insight of course, but let's hope that you don't unwittingly become self-serving in your choice of albums to review!

The Msssive Attack section is a nice stab at crowdsourcing and you've chosen some very good pieces - but I'd already read them online. Cut it back to a page and give us another page (at least)of album reviews?

As an occasional reader of the magazine in the past, I find it a rather sad, if not predictable, reflection of modern culture in this country at the moment, that, following a major overhaul of the magazine in general, most people seem to want to talk about whether it has staples or not.
i bought this months edition to see how it compared with previous copies, and have to say i am very impressed with the new look, balance of subjects, and quality of writing. Moreover, I think that the magazine has managed to separate itself from the Q/Mojo/Uncut style, and for me, now offers something different - I like the fact that every piece doesn't have to have lots of pictures - I'm not five after all.
Well done on the re-boot, I will certainly be buying more often than in the past.

Lots of nice long features over lots of pages, giving the story time to develop. Thumbs are, indeed, aloft.

I really like the new style. I like the longer articles, the looks back as well as forward, the presence of Charles Shaar Murray, the fact that there is generally more to read....I couldn't care less about the staples. I might resubscribe. I allowed my subscription to lapse as I got tired of all the TV coverage, but now it is more music related (it seems) resubscribing saves me from having to wait for it!

Oh and I like having the CD, even if most of it doesn't grab me, its nice to know that Devon Sprout isn't for me (fill in other names).

I don't understand people's fury at TV coverage. I like it. It just proves to me that there can never be any magazine that covers TV seriously as people refuse to take it seriously here. Radio Times, though a shadow of its former self and rather dull and worthy now, is as serious as it gets to TV snobs, though as I work across three top TV listings titles I of course disagree. We cover Mad Men too, you know!

It seems people want everything to be strictly delineated. So while there are magazines about TV, films, books and music, they can never be combined (Sunday supplements aside) into one general paid-for read. We could never have an Entertainment Weekly here, for example, which is a great shame cos I'd buy it. Look at early Heat... it bombed as a serious magazine.

Anyway Development Hell, if you're thinking of launching one, call me!

I'm sorry to lose the spine as I keep my Words chronologically in magazine files so I can find any issue with a glance at the spine. The least you could have done in sackcloth, ashes and mitigation would have been to print the month, year and issue number conspicuously on the front cover, preferably at the top. Alas, no, now these identifiers have to be hunted out on page five... please ammend.

I also agree with Twangothan above. Please keep uninteresting TV "celebs" out of The Word. There are plenty of tabloids and dumbed down TV mags about already who cater for all that. I love music, cinema and books but utterly despise reality television. Keep the "intelligent life" phrase in mind when booking interviews.

I do like the Bob Dylan as moose head meets Da Vinci front cover though. Photographs are over-rated and dull. Why not do a cartoon every month?

Not everything on TV is dumb? Shock horror. Of course not: a lot of TV is informative, well written and entertaining. God bless David Attenborough, The Wire and loads, loads more.

There's too much TV now - the pool of talent will inevitably dry up. You've surely got to admit that there are many talent free chancers out there hanging on to a career by the slenderest of threads. I just don't want to read interviews with hair dressers, style gurus or make-over maestros thanks very much. The ability to read an autocue does not make you interesting enough to interview in my opinion.

attract new readers which presumably is what is needed ? In my opinion, probably not - I don't really see anything that will entice someone who's not bought the mag before.

he always agrees with me!