quote:
Originally posted by Una
The Observer Music Monthly is the best magazine, mainly because it is what some might call 'unashamedly elitist' and what I would call good writing that doesn't treat its readers like a bag of brainless tits.
Popular music magazines are dead, because they are just that, popular. There is no way they can be interesting because they have to appeal to as many people as possible, and therefore be as luke warm as possible.
I think those two statements mildly contradict each other Una. I mean maybe it's just looking at the past through rose tinted spectacles but it's generally accepted that there have been times in the past when popular magazines writing about popular music has been
good?
You praise the observer for not patronising it's readers, yet say that the problem with popular magazines is that they must be dumbed down? Maybe they don't have to be, maybe the NMEs real problem is that they don't give its readers enough credit? Look at the disparity between the bands that readers
actually like and the more faddish "now" stuff promoted by the NME.
The average NME reader is probably well under 25, which contrary to what rock and roll myth tells us, is actually a time when peoples thinking is at it most conservative in many respects, yet at the same time more open to new ideas. I know that sounds like a contradiction but it isn't. "The kids" (getting old enough to use that phrase!) can suprise you if just given half a chance. Contrary to accepted wisdom, scientific evidence suggets people have actually gotten smarter in the last 50 years, not dumber, it's just society thats more messed up.
I don't think a good music magazine has to be dumbed down, just down to earth.