Quite the best issue in some months- bravo!

It was good, apart from the interview with Jane Moore. Why? I knew nothing about her when I opened the magazine, and I wish that was still the case.

She doesn't say anything about music, film, books or soul-enhancing popular culture. She just puffs up tabloid journalism and says some dodgy things about human rights. Given that she has her own access to the media, why is The Word giving her more oxygen of attention-seeking?

But I got 2 copies delivered, do you want me to send 1 back?

particularly the Roger Waters and Mike Leigh pieces. As for Jane Moore, I thought it was there on a "know your enemy" basis - couldn't see any other reason.

A thought though; the folk relationships diagram was interesting, but how about next time doing it with folk artists in the traditional sense, rather than indie Americans and the various practitioners of nu-, psych- and the like? Bellowhead, The Watersons, Faustus, Spiers & Boden and the like have equally convoluted and interesting relationships.

I'm going to cut out and laminate the sleeveface style picture on page 77 and use it at Halloween.
[Ah - just seen the video - you beat me to it.]

Could we have massive close-ups of other lived-in faces, please? Keith Richards, John Hurt, even ol' Scrotum Face W H Auden? Then we could have fun drawing Tolkien-style map features on their crags and gullies.

it seems, the website is becoming more interesting than the magazine. Passing again this month I fear....

...oh, we aren't.

the magazine. How can the site (content of which is essentially based around forum posts) compete with the following: a hilarious and regular Andrew Collins column, 99 per cent True, decent interviews, outstanding photography and art direction and 'proper writing'? I'll take my Special Edition anytime, thanks.

...has good hair for 62.

And did you photoshop a pair of wolf's eyes onto the Roger Waters front cover photo? Scary stare that follows me round the room.

Excellent interview with said curmudgeon. However, as a fully paid-up prole I dislike gazillionares urging me to overthrow the yoke of capitalism and fulfill my historical destiny yada yada.

I spent 5 years flogging Trot papers in a vain bid to do so, and barreled up to enough decidedly didactic plays to know all about the 5:84 principle.

I'm fully in favour of the redistribution of wealth, and I'll start with Rog's glorious American apartment, thank you very much. It'll save him a job, come the glorious day. Er, avante!

. . .goes from strength to strength. Having been an avid reader since ish 1 and a subscriber soon after I've tracked it's ups and downs and it is a genuine highlight of my month when The Word plops on the doormat (I assume it plops, I'm usually at work when it arrives). You've pointed me towards stuff I would not always have considered (Rilo Kiley) and indulged me by talking to people I want to know more about (Graeme Garden, Marco Pirroni). The podcast and website keep me going between issues and are now a central part of your cultural assault. Surely Word.tv cannot be far away . . ?

Things you could of more of? I miss Doctor Digital. Get Tom Hibbert writing for you. More subscirber-only stuff on the site (whatever happened to the link to all the back issues? I'm running out of room and need to find a new home for them) Write a cover story about the Beatles/Stones/Hendrix every few months (only kidding).

Less of? Oooh, toughy. Nope. Just more please.

You produce the best magazine of it's type by a country mile. Well done. Keep it up.

Can I have a free subscription?

Yes I am. Might be an idea to ditch them eh?
Roger Waters on the cover doesn't help either. Surely we've heard all there is to know about the Floyd and his piss-poor solo career by now??

As ever the 20 worst section ticks the 'agree' and 'strongly disagree boxes'! Come on, Red Dwarf was good! I am not a sci-fi obsessed nerd or anything, honest, and I always really liked the show. More importantly I found it original and funny. On the wider subject of the magazine, I still love it, however, like the podcast, it can sometimes be a bit too pleased with itself!

...that The Melody Maker cover went downhill apace after 1932?

when they started putting Roger Waters on the cover.

...as well as Tom Hibbert, how about Ray Lowry. Is he, um, well?

I would just say I am personally happy with Roger on the cover but I am not fussed about Elvis Costello's music but was not put off by seeing him on the front, in fact I actually enjoyed reading the interview. Who's on the cover is not a big deal to me. I accept commercial considerations dictate. If I couldn't care less about Roger Waters there's plenty more to enjoy elsewhere inside. What's so good is it's all worth reading since it's all well written. No complaints. The website is fine and better than other similar efforts but you can't beat proper professional good writing. The podcast comes second and the website third - the blogs have their moments but can be over negative and conservative at times.

I often strongly disagree with the choices in 20 Best/Worse (eg.Red Dwarf WAS good, Dads Army hasn't aged all that well, Human League best no.1 ever??? No.) but it still makes good reading. A lot of people seem to get wound up by reviews they don't agree with, but they can still be interesting.

Speaking of covers, I'd have second thoughts about buying it if Van Morrison was staring back at me again. I'd also avoid anything retelling a story about Lennon, Dylan, The Stones etc though I'm pleased to say Word hasn't fallen into this trap.

...is how free from padding WORD is. The odd bits and pieces that run for a page or two seem to have as much thought put into them as the main articles. Even the preview of the next issue is a work of art.

The only reservation I have about the cover is that, at some point this month, I will fall asleep next to my copy of WORD and awaken a few hours hence to the piercing stare of Roger Waters; thereby gaining an unwanted insight into what it is like to sleep with a former member of Pink Floyd.

I think I'm in love...

actually need rock stars on the cover at all I wonder? And the accompanying interviews themselves are usually so very, very dull ( because- let's face it, rock stars are so very, very dull..'yeah, we mixed the last album in Monterey and we got Johnny Marr in to play on a few of the tracks because we loved the Smiths and then we wanted to get a really live sound so we-' ). Costello was boring to the nth degree and, no doubt, Rog is too. I love the Floyd's stuff but I will scream my last scream if I have to hear any more about their internal difficulties...about how Syd was a tortured genius...about bloody Live 8...and about the fact that Rick Wright has morphed effortlessly and mysteriously into John Major.
I once again therefore retain my four ninety five as a small ( and no doubt pathetic ) personal protest....

I feel faintly embarrassed buying a magazine which says 'dad rock' so loudly from its cover. I have zero interest in Roger bloody Waters (and quite of the other veterans who grace the cover), although it doesn't stop my buying Word since I know all the other stuff will be interesting. So, in that sense, the cover doesn't represent anything I actually like about the magazine. I know you have to have a selling point on the cover, but I like it when it is not music people who are, in general, not that interesting. I liked it when The Simpsons were on the cover. I would like to see people like Stephen Fry, Paddy Considine, John Hurt, Thom Yorke, Russell Brand, Stephen Merchant etc etc. you know, actors, film makers, writers, comedians. Because Word writers tend to do good interviews and articles, getting slightly more interesting material out of people than the bog standard interviews. And you cover TV and writers well too. But you wouldn't really know it from the cover. Lots of people who don't read Word just think of it as another vintage rock mag, but it's the 'not-vintage-rock' bit which makes it good.

I know all that. But surely Mojo and Uncut do all that 'tell us about the new album' shite every month with varying degrees of predictability and tedium? I've always liked the Word because it was different and somewhat irreverent. I'm just slightly concerned that recent issues have lacked this lateral approach and that the magazine is losing it's edge as a result. Distressingly I recall that the same thing happened with Q and with Mojo after a while. Is there such a phenomenon as the 'difficult 46th issue' ( or however many it's been now ) I wonder? Perhaps you could get some new blood in there editorially- if only for the occasional issue- like OZ did with their schoolkids thing. I'm sure some of us bloggers would be up to the challenge.
Oh. And you should never have apologized to Morrissey. If he doesn't like what you write, fuck him. ( And I'm a Morrissey fan )

"I'm just slightly concerned that recent issues have lacked this lateral approach."

How do you know? I thought you weren't buying them on the strength of the cover and a 90 second video clip?

a gradual thing.

right.

for not questioning Mark E Smith about the types of animals he would like to kill. One of your "rivals" clearly has its finger on the pulse of what music fans like to read. Apart from this journalistic lapse, and the completely pointless Jane Moore piece, another great issue - but why was Richard Gere on the cover?

Who appears on the cover of The Word doesn`t matter much to me. If its someone I like then great, if its someone I don`t like or don`t care about one way or the other, then so be it (In most cases I`ll read the article anyway). Its the rest of the magazine that counts and that justifies both my interest and my loyalty. If you don`t like whats in it don`t buy it.
If you want suggestions for future articles, how about...Roddy Frame, Teenage Fanclub, Billy Connolly, Doves, Radiohead (yes I know they are featured to death elsewhere, but they are brilliant), David Byrne, Stephen Lindsay, Sam Cooke, Ron Sexsmith, OK I`ll stop there. Apologies if any of the aforementioned have been featured already as I only seen the light from Spring 2004 onwards. You could also champion more of the acts which feature on the Now Hear This CD each month by having article(s) about them in the magazine.
THE RUNNING ORDER IS: MAGAZINE 1, WEBSITE 2, PODCAST 3. EACH BRILLIANT BUT SOMEHOW TAINTED IF NOT ENJOYED AS A `THREESOME`.

Don't see what all the fuss is about over the the Jane Moore piece. There have been quite a few articles in The Word's illustrious history that haven't taken my fancy, so I just haven't bothered to give them too much of an in-depth read - just a quick glance to see there's anything that jumps out at me as being immediately attention-grabbing, then a quick turn of the page and see what are the 20 best/worst cream cakes ever.

It was certainly a far more interesting use of a few minutes than flicking through yet another collection of unseen pics of The Beatles' trip to see the Maharishi, like you seem to get every other month in some other mags that I'm too embarassed to mention (cos I haven't got round to cancelling my subscription yet)

Is it just me, or has Roger Waters gradually become a very handsome gent?! I don't think it would be unfair to say that in his youth, the 'creative genius behind Pink Floyd' was not going to trouble the catwalks of the world. But now? He looks fabulous!

How does this work? Can someone explain?

There's hope for us all!

..and have even bought all his books.

But the New Statesman/Spectator piece was hard work, wasn't it?

At least use proper sentences, man!

why not do an double-headed interview with Stuart Maconie and the man who has stolen his voice on those dreadful sofa adverts? For some reason I find this utterly bizarre and need to know more!

I took a look at the list and thought that I didn't agree with several of the choices, particularly Dad's Army and Dr Who, but thought, 'well it is a British top 20', so perhaps it's a cultural thing, a reflection of British culture that those outside don't necessarily embrace. But then I saw that Father Ted was in the Top 20. Now, being Irish I think a lot of the humour has to do with the kind of cultural stereotypes it portrays and aspects of Irish culture that are just odd enough to be funny. The programme contains predominantly Irish actors, is set and filmed in Ireland, its creators are Irish, etc, and, though I know that Channel 4 were the ones who financed it, is, I think, mainly an Irish programme. So, I have two choices, either I criticise your list for having said British programmes on it, and pass it off as having specifically British cultural references, or I criticise it for including Father Ted. Either way, I can't win, though, of course, the very fact that I'm discussing it says something.