...I was REALLY pissed off when I read that article. It was patronising about the issues it was trying to address - in exactly the way Sting was 20 years ago - and, the specific participants aside it could have been written by some trashy celebrity magazine.

Substitute a load of Z-list celebs for Martha, Ryuichi etc al and it'd make a great Heat article, as it is it was more suited to a Sunday colour supplement.

Re-read your own strapline guys - "INTELLIGENT life on planet rock". We don't need to be 'educated' about climate change and world events by a bunch of musicians.

That 6 pages aside, it was a cracking issue - but stick to the music.

The polar ice cap article was potentially interesting but was written in a particularly non-engaging way. It couldn't have been more 'holier than thou' if the Pope had written it. I had less interest in the subject after I had read it. A bad sign.

The big prog section was off putting but, like many articles in Word that cover things I'm not particularly interested in, I have really enjoyed it. I even had some thoughts about investigating early Genesis (which is very odd for me). So big thumbs up for that (sometimes Word mag is like the older brother's music knowledge I never had access to).

I like the cover as well - thought Jarvis had joined Oasis....

The magazine is faultless, almost all of the time. The right thing at the right time for the right audience. But this was bloody awful - heartfelt whittering with no purpose. And to put it on the cover! Did the "writer" have pictures of Ellen indulged in some unspeakable act with The Incredible String Band or something?

I thought it was written by Peaches Geldof.

But all this above is true. The mojo (woops) seems to be continuing to slip. Even the lightly praised prog articles were a little less substanced than upon first glance and expectation, with Steve Howes remarks appropriately lambasted. Thankfully Unshod and Q remain way worse, but watch out for Slomos seeming return to form over the past few months. I took out my Word sub as I cancelled one for them. Which way will I next turn? I want to stay loving the Word, and all this web bollox clearly delights me, given the inordinate number of posts I make. Please see this as the remarks of a "critical friend" as parliamentarians say, on giving post resignation heavy arse-kicks to their esteemed colleagues.

list 'middle aged comedians presenting travel programmes' as one of the dumbest things in entertainment?
It's the most minor of shifts to alter this to 'middle aged rock musicians fronting documentary articles on serious issues.' In neither example does the conjnction tell us anything worth knowing about the theme or the protagonist.

'Ten musicians, one vanishing ice cap' - unintentionally (?) hilarious.
Still love The Word, though - and thanks for all the prog.

but I'm confused - how does 10 musicians visiting the ice caps do anything other than more harm?
I like the Word more than the alternatives, but there's been some really bad cover features this year.

Unfortunately has a cover shot when maybe a nice Genesis era shot of Garbriel would have done the job given the huge Prog feature.

An error in the cover shot, not necessarily the article itself, though would be interested to know of the carbon footprint emitted by 10 touring musicians plus entourage, whose presence was totally and completely ephemeral to everything but their own egos. You can always skip those 4 pages and 2000 words.

if maybe some sort of deal was done, because I've not read about this anywhere else or heard about it at all. It's like something you'd find in The Observer magazine.

Like everyone else it seems, I'm not interested in celebs saving the world.

A prog cover would have been far better. As a subscriber you only get the one image on the cover, and to be honest I'd rather have the non-subscriber one with the other stuff on it. It's far more exciting. My heart sank at this one.

that's for sure...hope the new podcast with the holy trinity of Hepworth, Ellen and Hall makes up for it!

..size of a Malteser than have to suffer any more preaching from pop singers (or anyone else in showbiz, come to that)
I'll gladly listen to any number of climate scientists when they all stop pushing their own particular political wheelbarrows.

... but I can only assume the guys got cold feet (geddit?) at the last second and put an unrecognisable Jarvis Cocker on at the last minute...

As intrigued as I am at the idea that JC would be such a reader magnet on the newsstand, I can't believe Prog was thought to be such a deterrent, yet to simultaneously warrant XX pages of coverage...?

And yes, very poor celebs in the arctic feature, though to be fair it was only the attending cover that made me take offence at it...

of the Jarvis cover is in for a shock! I was hoping for a lengthy interview with the great man - turned straight to the 'bit before reviews' section where the cover story usually is....and smelt the ghastly stench of prog!

As it turned out, I quite enjoyed reading some of the prog stuff although I dislike the genre with a passion, but it meant I got through the magazine quicker than I would have liked - there's only so much reading about music I don't like that I can take...

..when Mojo does its tri-monthly re-appraisal of punk, or again tries to ram the ghastly New York Dolls down our throats.

Good people: WHATEVER we put on the cover, my Inbox soon fills with complaints. In this instance the Arctic piece was not originally intended to be the cover story and was switched at the last moment as I felt we simply couldn’t give the prog rock story the right amount of impact on the newsstands (which is where the majority of our sales still take place). Here is the rejected cover. I’m sure you’ll prefer it!

I sympathise, Mr E, really I do, it is a no win. I do see that the newstand is still going to be the biggest draw; jeepers, that's why I picked up "Classic Rock" (sic) yesterday, based on there being a John Mellencamp article within. (See elsewhere for detail) Don't worry, it presented no threat, but us ugly and awkward old gits, aka loyal subscribers, are always going to bemoan the tastes of the hoped for casual reader over our idiosyncrasies that beguile and bother even ourselves. Nic eto see you venture to the keyboard tho'.

speaking as a subscriber who absolutely loved seeing a big Prog feature in my favourite mag, I care not a hoot that you put Jarvis (looking uncannily like Gordon Freeman from the 'Half Life' game - see post elsewhere) on the front instead of a Prog splash.

As the cover matters little to me, I hadn't even stopped to consider the fact that Jarvis was only briefly mentioned inside, but had been honoured with a full face front cover fizzog shot.

I'm sure that the naysayers bemoaning the well heeled eco-tourists' arctic jolly would be much happier if these overpaid entertainers took their hols in Las Vegas or Sun City; then they wouldn't have to waste their valuable time, better spent learning about and publicising man's destruction of the environment, writing rather self righteous blog posts to the editor.

Last month's mag was a belter; this one's notwhere near as good. Half of last month's copy seemed to have been written by Andrew Colins. Is more of Mr Collins the key to a good edition, or was he on a hot streak last month?

I haven't read the "Jarv Arcticle" yet. Don't think I'll bother based on what's been said above. And as for the covers, I think the late switch was sensible. The "Erog" one does nowt for me.

Poor Mark. You can't please all of the people all of the time...

I have said elsewhere, the gist of the Arctic piece made me want to be there, especially when the musicians played together. The photo of Jarvis is not the best but, I suspect, the best you had to hand. A photo of Steve Howe (the Crypt Keeper to his friends) would have seen you banned from the stands forever. Thankfully you did not run with the original cover.

Next month, dress up a celeb in a Santa suit, stick Kate on his lap and everyone will be happy. Job done.

I've been a subscriber since the start too, though the last time I renewed it was as much through habit as desire and the issues since haven't really changed my feelings, with this one being the worst by far.

The prog section was always going to polarise opinion - I'm on the hate side of the fence - but did it really need to be 21 pages? Add the Arctic puff piece, the picked with a pin tribute songs, the continuingly unnecessary Word Of Mouth, a sycophantic Frank Skinner interview, David Hepworth's increasingly odd rants, Andrew Collins (ugh!) and there's precious little to actually read, particularly when there are only 50 new album reviews. Time for a rethink perhaps.

I haven't picked my copy off the news stand. Can it be possible that 27 pages are given to Prog (which I loathe) and pontificating pop stars? EEK

However I must say I'm looking forward to seeing where Word goes with this prog article. Seeing that I hate the genre so much.

Well next month is the annual lists issue so normal service resumes in January.

Surely "A Plague Of Lighthouse Keepers" (from "Pawn Hearts") is one of the sine qua non touchstones of Prog?

Did you see the recent edition of Tony Palmer's 'All You Need Is Love' on More4 at the weekend? Through my rose-tinted glasses I thought this was wonderful series when it was first released in the 70s, whereas now it looks badly edited and very dated. In particular, I found it interesting that a programme investigating the rise of progressive music included lengthy clips of Black Oak Arkansas, Baker Gurvitz Army and Stomu Yamashta. I'd advise against buying this boxed set as a Christmas Present

as progressive as they get! Not sure the kids of today would call it 'Prog' (dreadful term though it is) but the 'Go' album was an essential purchase in 1973

...having watched it on More4, Am glad I didn't pay £40 for it.

bit of false advertising, having Jarvis on the cover. As soon as I saw his face I was giddy with excitement - as a lifelong Pulp disciple, the thought that he was back! Back! BACK! with a new album, and a hearty, in-depth interview with The Word weakened my knees considerably. Discovering that it heralded merely a fluffy bit of pap about F-list "celebs" tossing around on icebergs, without even a sentence spoken by the man himself, was an enormous anti-climax. Oh and what's this? Half the mag devoted to prog rock? Ah well, there's always next month... [insert sad smiley face here]

that if you feel your 20-page feature isn't strong enough to carry the cover, you'd want to have a Plan B of some sort.

Could have had Rick Wakeman and his organ on the arctic ice (since he has previous experience of performing on this surface)- 2 birds with one stone.

I'll read about any music so prog is fine - it's not as though it's been in the mag much before so that's fair enough. Featured bands not my cup of tea but I find music of that era entertaining to read about generally due to the ludicrousness factor. So much of rock is absurd (and in a few cases simultaneously great). That's why it's good a subject to read about and so many of the other stories of rock are too familiar but not so much this.

No strong feelings about Jarvisgate. There's much else of worth to make up for what was a valid piece that was admittedly just not up to usual standard of writing.

why a cover featuring a pop star who peaked 13 years ago and has been in commercial and artistic decline ever since, should be deemed more saleable than one featuring Yes or Genesis, two bands who have appealed to a lot more people in their time than Pulp ever did.

But this edition was pretty thin on content. Was everyone on holiday?

To moan I haven't got my copy yet? Or should I wait a bit?

Sod the environment and the cover, I'm still cross about this Genesis track being called Dancing With The Moon At Night in the Steve Hackett article. Bunch of amateurs! Did Magna Carta die in vain?

I'd be surprised if the Jarvis photo gained many extra sales if any, but a decent Prog cover (maybe Genesis related as there is a fine new box out) might have pulled punters who find their favourite genre unrepresented in the other monthlies.

I can hardly wait to see the actual magazine which I expect should be arriving in Belfast any week now! (I know, I make this comment every month. Sorry!)

Tales from Topographic Arctic

Sir/Madam!
but where's the beard?

and reading the above comments I have to agree with the apparent consensus that it wasn't the best issue. Prog is of little interest these days - it was of its time and has not aged that well. I was completely in to it from around 1971 until around 1977 and my formative record collecting years coincided with its popularity but I have little interest in the revisionist views of it now. Very little Prog music stands the test of time in my humble opinion - possibly only VDGG and Gabriel era Genesis are of much interest to me now.
MOJO has regained some of its attraction in recent issues and I think you need to buckle down and get back the winning formula.
By the way I love Word of Mouth and its one of the first things I turn to so i guess we don't all have the same view - therein lies your problem.

for what it's worth...
I liked the issue. I have little interest in prog but I like reading interviews with musicians who're lived a bit and who's stories i'm less familiar with. As for the cover story - bit of a missed opportunity as Jarvis is a top interviewee and always has something good to say. You could have done something on Tony Christie's album and bulked up the Sheffield thing instead. Or even put Genesis on the cover. Value for money anyways, though if the nepotism charge of the iceage writer is true, it sticks in the craw a tad. Do we want Word to be written by us lot on the blog though? Maybe you should ignore us moaning minnies.

That Prog cover would have killed the issue stone dead.
I thought the issue was terrific, and re-subscribed immediately. And I don't like Prog. And am not particularly interested in Jarvis.

I agree with dannyboy300 - ignore us moaning minnies. We have the blog to keep us busy. You need to sell the magazine to the passing customers.

The Jarvis goes to a glacier piece didn't offend me, I wasn't interested so I skipped it, same as I skipped about the first third of the mag this month. I've nothing against Amadou and Miriam, I just didn't feel like reading about them. I had no idea who Jonathan Meades was and still don't as I couldn't work up the interest to find out.
The prog piece however - that's 20 pages of pointless coverage of annoying nonsense that I'll never get back. Gave it a try, got bored half way through Genesis, was it an (extremely successful) attempt to replicate the rambling piecemeal nature of the music itself?
Great piece on the god like Jeff Stelling though.
(ps. Scallies and prog - easy answer, big bags of weed and their older brothers' record collections, Marillion were gods to a certain section of Liverpool, most of us were happy to let them get on with it, they deserved each other.

prog feature, even though I don't listen to the music! After reading it I really wanted to listen to some prog, so I put on 'The Compact King Crimson' on my ipod and skipped straight to their early stuff. Only lasted about two minutes before I had to turn it off! Still a good read though!

Look, I know that The Word is a commercial concern and that "stars" are needed to sell copies but this month's edition was a real disappointment wherein a thin Jarvis cocker news story took pride of place over the -admittedly, very lovely- prog special. I expect more of The Word frankly than this very obvious bow down to the marketing department. I buy The Word because its different, single minded and argumentative not because it has a famous face on the cover.

Detention for you Messrs Ellen and Hepworth; see me after class...