to see that too as I was wondering what Bowie has been up to and was hoping it would be a proper interview rather than another cut & paste article.

Surely The Word's stock is good enough to be able to get an audience with people like Kate Bush, Bono and Bowie.

Why not wait until you've read the piece before pronouncing upon it? I don't know if it is "the main event" as you put it. It's certainly one of them but it's also accompanied by lots of 'single reads'. and I'm not sure it's entirely appropriate to compare Word to the magazines you name, quite a few of whom get round the problem of who to put on the cover by whistling up a scantily-clad starlet.

But I felt the Icons articles in last month's issue was a lot like eating a lot of little canapes when what I wanted was a good meal. Having read the Annie Liebowitz New York article I think Word readers would take something similar and I've no doubt that the Word writers could easily produce something similar.

The recent feature on student ents was not a fragture, just a mere dalliance, a trifle of trivia from past events that may have had some relevance to elderley music mentors and young students alike.

One suspects most contributors to the piece are not on Mr. Ellen's digital rolodex and neither received or expected a signed photograph or acknowledgment from the editor-in-chief. There did appear to have been an attempt to involve the loyal readership beyond the blog and letters page and with an absence of PR flim, flam and piffle.

Where I do perhaps take sides with your good self is the example of the John Martyn interview, where a single writer (was it Rob?) seemed to positively click with his subject and captured the essence of a fragile human being that many would have regarded as lower league material but shone through with old first division quality. So there are tales to be told but commercialism has to take a front passenger seat, if not the driver's seat.

(and perhaps I'll have to wait to read something by Neil McCormick to form a solid opinion...wahey!) but I understand Archie's perspective. I like the magpie approach to a topic but I'd hate for Word to lose focus on its own inherent ability to be the Last Word on many aspects of music and culture, such has been its significance to me since I started buying it. By that I mean I enjoy Word because of its wordiness and the pool of talent it employs to write in depth as well as in passing.

It seems unfair though to compare "fragture" coverage of the Dame to the NY story on Leibovitz's financial implosion as that is THE cultural story of the year by far (if you discount deaths and divorces). But it also has the significant benefit of being first and foremost a news story with a built-in deadline, thus requiring a significant amount of journalism to bolster its credibility as a 'must read' item when so many others are on the case (cf last weekend's Telegraph).

In comparison what has the Dame got to say for himself other than how his health is these days? I hope he's well but I see little point in him discussing such issues with Word; that seems more applicable a topic to Hello! or OK! or some other exclamatory-based rag. And in a season dominated by 4 scousers and a blitzkrieg of their buffed-up and re-jigged product I doubt he'd have much reason to start talking about his own back catalogue right now.

On balance does the "fragture" compiled from a number of sources say more about the subject or provide more scope/angles for discussion than the one hit, in depth feature by one writer? Given the mini-drama that unfurled after Bono-gate a couple of Words ago I suspect that the former approach is more of a catalyst for discussion.

If an article is written as the definitive word on a subject what scraps does it leave on the table to chew on in the aftermath?

(BTW if you were looking for an angle on Bowie I'd really be interested in his thoughts on the wibbly wobbly way as he seems like someone who has been there from the start in identifying how the Internet could be harnessed by artists to further their "vision". I suspect it would be enlightening reading from a man of his considerable experience in the biz to be able to compare and contrast the pros and cons of the freedoms (real and imagined) that the Internet can bring to artists old and new. Get Peter Gabriel in on it as well.)

I spent the hols in a cottage in France which has a pile of old music mags - Uncuts, Mojos, Words etc etc and it struck me then how nice it is to have a big long feature talking about people I'm really interested in. Not necessarily an interview with the talent itself but a proper critical analysis on their work. This is even more interesting when it's someone whose work I don't really know - and which makes me want to investigate further.

The light quicky read sardonic stuff is good fun too. but a nice chewy piece like Barney Hoskyns used to write in Mojo makes for a perfect afternoon on the sofa as opposed to a 5 minute scan on the tube.

That is definitely where Word scores over the likes of Mojo, although it does mean I can't spread the Word, so to speak, as no-one seems to want to read it after I'm finished with it...

has never rocked my boat. I've tried many times, but it always seems so editorially up itself that I give up in disgust. Again.

GQ, Vanity Fair and Esquire are the sort of Mitsubishi Shogun and Rolex watch advert-adorned bling mags I read at the dentist. I just can't take them seriously. If I walked down the street carrying a copy I'd feel like that Myers fellow in The Spy Who Shagged Me.

Which leaves Word. And I have to agree that I prefer meaty, beaty, big and bouncy articles to the bitty stuff. But the fact remains that Word bits and pieces are better than almost anything in plenty, or even most, of the other 'lifestyle' magazines. So as long as I'm fed something that requires reading, learning and inwardly digesting from time to time, I'll still be reading it.

anything about a subject I'm interested in, if it's written by good writers with a personal connection to the subject. Word: I Read it for the Writing - how's that for a t-shirt slogan?

But then again, I remember when seeing an icon like Bowie on the cover of a magazine meant there would be some input from that person. And I feel a teeny bit swindled when there isn't.

A couple of months ago I found an old interview given by The Hep when The Word was launched (I can't find it now, any ideas?) which I'm sure said that the distinguishing feature of the Word was going to be the depth of articles. I'm sure that he even mentioned a lengthy wordcount per article as a commitment to making space for quality writing. I agree that there is much more impression and less insight nowadays.

And it's pleasant to see that no one is having a go at Archie for daring to express his disatisfaction. There's none more Word that Archie.

is a piece by Backwards7. I too would prefer some longer in depth interviews but the mag is still a cut above.

of quality the most telling part of the AL article is that she spent £850 a time on books to record her new babies bowl movements illuminating clearly her attitude to money which led to her being skint.
A large part of the rest article is high class sheet sniffing about her private life the sort of thing that has stopped reading celeb profiles for several years now, I'm just not that interested in that sort of thing.
Also I don't necessarily think that with the artists covered in Word there'll be any great revelations into their character etc unless they have been "lying" in their songs all these years and they are unlikely to gush forth in an interview anyway.

There's not that much meat around these days.Care for some GM?

I was dismayed when I saw the latest Word cover for similar reasons to Archie. And on top of that I didn't find any of the other cover lines enticing. Although as David says, I suppose it is better to reserve judgment until I've read the magazine.

But here's the thing. Wasn't it inevitable that the quality control would dip over the dog days of summer? This was written - when - July, August? I was half-expecting one of the issues over this period to be below the usual standard. (And to be honest I thought it would be the last one, but I really enjoyed that.)

gets any closer to the bone, I'd forgive Mssrs. Ellen and Hepworth for keeping their heads down in here.

I think we should be applauding the Word staff in general for allowing us to dissect their endeavours so brutally honestly. Not only that, they even join in. Can't see any Murdoch accolytes allowing the same with their publications.

I will still buy it. It's become a cliche around these parts but a bad Word is still head and shoulders above the competition. And this website, realtime journalysis and all, must be working - because it is precisely why I find myself needing to see what's in the magazine, whatever the cover says.

Edit: this was intended as a reply to Vulpes but ended up in the wrong place.

wait til I actually read the bloody thing rather than trying to work out if its any good or not from a jpg of the cover.

in which Mojo and Word used to specialise.

They still appear from time to time but rarely to the depth that they used to. I'm really not fussed about the picture-infested 'fragtured' article. It was appropriate for Smash Hits but I understood that the Word was intended to have a little more depth than that?

It would be a shame - but totally understandable - if it was economics that was driving David and Mark to make these changes.

I read the first issue of Loops last month and it was a pleasure to read a solid 25 page article - the fact it was written by Nick Kent and contained few photos was a bonus. The whole magazine had the look and feel of a Granta rather than an A4 monthly. If I were asked, that's the direction I'd like to see the Word move in, rather than being a rival to Q, Mojo, Uncut, etc etc.

to complain about the use of 'journalysis'.

Has anyone actually read it yet? My copy arrived this morning but I'm working from home so I've resisted the temptation so far.

To answer an earlier question, I reckon High Class Sheet Sniffing would have to be by either AC/DC or Whitesnake.

of becoming a 'focus group'?

Word is Word because it does things no other mag does, and I may be meringue in thinking this, but I put it down to 'maverick' talent

Just read the Bowie piece. I devoured it, in fact - thought there was some truly insightful writing in there, and all the stronger for refracting its subject matter through the prism of several different writers. That's a substantial wordcount, all told. I work as a features editor and I know that it's hard for a single piece of writing to sustain that length without losing structural integrity somewhere along the way.

I'm intrigued to learn the thinking behind the cover, though. It seems a little perverse to cover up the Dame's most iconic feature.

A few years ago, while rooting through a stack of decaying volumes in a second hand bookshop, I discovered a hard-backed compilation of Harmsworth Magazine, which was in the process of unbinding itself. Harmsworth was an illustrated magazine for boys. Part of its charm was the variety of subjects it touched upon - a combination of short stories and quirky factual pieces. You can get a taste of the magazine courtesy of the Gutenberg project here. Don’t miss the opportunity to read about “Criminals convicted by microscope” and also a rather unsettling article concerning a zoo devoted to the breeding of white animals, described as “Lord Alington’s quaint hobby.”

I find the modern equivalent of Harmsworth in The WORD, in the sense that the latter aims for the same breadth and variety. There’s always a lot to read in WORD and I don’t object to this piecemeal approach because generally the pieces are well-written; if there’s an article that dwells in some way on the person of Roger Waters, I know that I’ll only have suffer him for a couple of pages. It suits the way that I consume magazines, as a means of filling the gaps in the day. Last night I stood in front of the stove with The WORD folded back on itself in one hand, while the other hand occupied itself with more boring task of stirring a Quinoa risotto (a Quisotto?)

I read the Bowie article this afternoon. It contains enough beef to send Morrissey running for the hills. It’s just served-up in the form of a casserole or a good quality pie, rather than a steak. The danger of articles where you’re one step removed from the subject is that, with the focus of the piece in absentia, the writing can sometimes deviate off topic. While I enjoyed Clark Collis’ contribution - The Good Sport, a better title might have been ‘How I got a job on Entertainment Weekly’, since its author and Bowie share equal billing. Overall though, the cover story was an interesting read.

One thing that is becoming more common in The WORD, but which I would like to see less of, is the grouping together of album reviews in a single article. Occasionally it makes sense: David Quantick's joint review of The Cribs and Bad Lieutenant works because of the obvious common ground shared by the bands and the fact that he gets a page to devote to both records.

Elsewhere Rob Fitzpatrick attempts a feat of juggling seldom witnessed outside of Covent Garden, when he reviews seven tenuously-linked albums across four uneven columns. The end result doesn’t do the albums justice, it doesn’t do Rob’s writing any favours and it’s not particularly satisfying to read. Sometimes the best writing in The WORD is parcelled-up in a small review. These big ‘multi-pack’ affairs usually turn out to be less masquerading as more.

Arch vs Neves
scene 1: interior - a smokey pub in Londinium - Sir AV enters, Neves is in a small booth, books and ledgers spread out, various drinking vessels and condiments lie in disrepair...

I back Arch

because I like to start at the front and work my way to the, er, back. It could take me weeks to get there. Given the similar pieces, written by the best brains that the music world has to offer (and that Quanttick feller..) I guess it is the equivalent of those popular CDs re-recorded and re-imagineered that one finds on Spotify and supermarket shelves.

Y'know the ones. The best of The Sweet (without Brian). Or Bert Scroggs's Barclay James Harvest play Mockingbird and Other Tracks. Blow me down they are not on the original label. Who would have thought that.

Dear (The) Word; just don't EVER go so low as to be Hallmark or Contour label of the music mag world. You are so much better than that. If you can't get THE MAN (or woman) to agree to an in-depth in-sightful in-terview in-The Word then kidnap the bugger, lock them in a room and only release said "interviewee" after answering 100 questions truthfully. That should do you for a few future issues.