OK, This Is Why Pazz & Jop Really Sucks This Year

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

it isn't a pull-out section!

first they fuck up "voice choices" by converting it from an actual weekly pull-out to a faux pull-out (it looks like you can pull it out, but when you do you realize you're missing half the music listings and most of the club ads). and now this. somebody please stop them before they screw things up any more.

― fact checking cuz (fcc), Wednesday, 11 February 2004 15:16 (twenty-two years ago)

plus mcnuggets size reviews plus bye bye jockbeat plus plus plus wtf

― cinniblount (James Blount), Wednesday, 11 February 2004 15:20 (twenty-two years ago)

and The Black Lips didn't make the top 700!

― Fritz Wollner (Fritz), Wednesday, 11 February 2004 15:21 (twenty-two years ago)

whine whine whine*

― strongo hulkington (dubplatestyle), Wednesday, 11 February 2004 16:00 (twenty-two years ago)

*sung to tune of n*sync song

― strongo hulkington (dubplatestyle), Wednesday, 11 February 2004 16:00 (twenty-two years ago)

(with that dance with the hand-motion, too, of course)

― Al (sitcom), Wednesday, 11 February 2004 16:06 (twenty-two years ago)

not to mention that fucking moron who wrote the music lead this week, I mean what's up with THAT?!

― Matos W.K. (M Matos), Wednesday, 11 February 2004 16:08 (twenty-two years ago)

oh they'll let anyone in these days

― strongo hulkington (dubplatestyle), Wednesday, 11 February 2004 16:09 (twenty-two years ago)

you mean like those internet jerks? I know, it's getting retarded over there.

― Matos W.K. (M Matos), Wednesday, 11 February 2004 16:09 (twenty-two years ago)

dammit i'm not whining! i'm commanding them to put their house in order and learn how to publish a proper pull-out section, one that you can actually, like, pull out. i don't care what white male whiney internet ILM jerks they publish in there, and i don't care what retarded album is #82 on their list, and i don't care how many or how few retarded critics named that album on their individual lists but neglected to mention david banner. i just want to be able to pull the damn thing out. dammit.

― fact checking cuz (fcc), Wednesday, 11 February 2004 16:23 (twenty-two years ago)

fair enough.

― strongo hulkington (dubplatestyle), Wednesday, 11 February 2004 16:23 (twenty-two years ago)

I was whining.

― Fritz Wollner (Fritz), Wednesday, 11 February 2004 16:27 (twenty-two years ago)

fair enough.

― fact checking cuz (fcc), Wednesday, 11 February 2004 16:28 (twenty-two years ago)

not to mention that fucking moron who wrote the music lead this week, I mean what's up with THAT?!

Wooord. And when's this idiot's Prince book coming out? Sheesh.

― Jay Vee (Manon_70), Wednesday, 11 February 2004 16:31 (twenty-two years ago)

buy some scissors and paste.

― badgerminor (badgerminor), Wednesday, 11 February 2004 16:34 (twenty-two years ago)

eleven months pass...

and they've done it again. i posted this on the p&j appreciation thread, but for the historical record i must repeat it here:

dear village voice, please hire a designer who has at least rudimentary skills in practical newspaper design. thank you.

― fact checking cuz (fcc), Thursday, 10 February 2005 05:49 (twenty-one years ago)

fair enough.

― Broken Hipster (Broken Hipster), Thursday, 10 February 2005 05:58 (twenty-one years ago)

haha never gonna happen again (in this lifetime)

― Matos-Webster Dictionary (M Matos), Thursday, 10 February 2005 06:06 (twenty-one years ago)

then we'll be meeting back here on this thread next year! i will not give up the fight!

― fact checking cuz (fcc), Thursday, 10 February 2005 06:12 (twenty-one years ago)

There's obviously a reason (money) that it isn't done as a pullout, which inevitably is related to the press run, not the graphic designers.

― Mr Deeds (Mr Deeds), Thursday, 10 February 2005 06:35 (twenty-one years ago)

i take it for granted, mr. deeds, that money is behind all decisions made by all companies, but i can't imagine what the press run has to do with this. it's a simple decision of deciding which page to start the thing on. all they have to do to make to make it a pullout is start it on p.69 and end it on p.84, instead of starting it on pg. 81 and ending it on p.94. that would require you to have two extra pages within the p&j section, which you would accomplish by letting tower records keep its two page center-of-the-paper spread. you end up with the same page count, the same amount of editorial, the same amount of ads, the same everything. and now you're readers can pull the damn thing out and keep it if they want to. dammit.

― fact checking cuz (fcc), Thursday, 10 February 2005 13:43 (twenty-one years ago)

Settle down, Beavis ...

― Chris O., Thursday, 10 February 2005 15:05 (twenty-one years ago)

Maybe Tower Records doesn't want to be in a pullout section. Maybe certain advertisers were promised certain positions and don't want to be in the pullout. Maybe so many advertisers don't want to be in the pullout that it became impossible to do a pullout.

I dunno. I haven't even seen it yet. I'm just sayin', a lot goes into this stuff.

― Rick Massimo (Rick Massimo), Thursday, 10 February 2005 15:13 (twenty-one years ago)

I'm just sayin', a lot goes into this stuff.

i'm sure you're right. i just wish their readers were part of the equation.

― fact checking cuz (fcc), Friday, 11 February 2005 00:02 (twenty-one years ago)

Your point is certainly well taken.

― Mr Deeds (Mr Deeds), Friday, 11 February 2005 00:53 (twenty-one years ago)

FCC: "print run" = affects costs both for printing the pieces and for getting the one piece inserted into the other. (That has to, like, happen, you know.) I have no idea how many copies of this the Voice prints or how they approach the economics of it, but there are a hell of a lot more mechanics to shit like that than just getting the pages to line up right.

― nabiscothingy (nory), Friday, 11 February 2005 01:00 (twenty-one years ago)

I think as much as anything it's a matter of the Voice not being the only game in town in its weight class anymore--there's NY Press and Time Out New York and The Onion all competing for weekly-urban-rag ad dollars to greater or lesser degree, there's Craigslist elbowing print rags out for real estate/personals ad bucks (and Craigslist doesn't even charge), that kind of thing. The Voice used to be able to do more pullouts and quarterlies and the like; that era's been over for a couple years now, and P&J suffers as a result.

― Matos-Webster Dictionary (M Matos), Friday, 11 February 2005 01:29 (twenty-one years ago)

we at the voice don't you to pull it out. that's a very reactionary thing to do.

― don, Friday, 11 February 2005 02:05 (twenty-one years ago)

"print run" = affects costs both for printing the pieces and for getting the one piece inserted into the other. (That has to, like, happen, you know.)

actually, no. it's a tabloid, with nothing holding any of the pages together. any number of pages in the middle, as long as there's the same number on either side of the middle, will automatically become a pullout with no extra work on the printing end. no insert action required.

― fact checking cuz (fcc), Friday, 11 February 2005 03:34 (twenty-one years ago)

Hey, so did anybody ever wind up pointing out that, surprisingly enough, this thread is totally fucked because pazz and jop this year WAS in fact a pullout section? it's pretty simple - you open up the issue to page 81, pull out pages 81 through 94, then fold the section backwards so brian wilson is on top, and *voila!*, you have a nice, neat little pazz & jop section to carry around, and you can toss the rest of the issue into a recycling bin of your choice. So stop complaining!!!

― chuck, Thursday, 17 February 2005 22:14 (twenty-one years ago)

ok, i opened upt he issue to page 81, pulled out the pages, folded 'em backwards and, voila, it did indeed work. sort of. you wind up with a pullout section that has a proper p&j cover, and then all your p&j articles and charts, and then the second half of your homemade pullout is various pieces of the film, theater and dance sections. in a pinch, that'll work, but that is not in fact a proper pullout section. i reject this solution! and i continue to complain!

(and even if this was a good solution, it wouldn't work for the weekly voice choices. so i remain an unsatisfied, whining, complaining customer.)

― fact checking cuz (fcc), Monday, 21 February 2005 22:51 (twenty-one years ago)

well that's a relief isn't it. now if they could only fix the archive.

― don, Monday, 21 February 2005 23:26 (twenty-one years ago)

Chuck, I enjoyed the humor in your answer, but being a newspaper guy myself, I was kind of interested in the real reason that it wasn't a proper pullout. Is there a specific one?

― Mr Deeds (Mr Deeds), Tuesday, 22 February 2005 03:22 (twenty-one years ago)

If it has anything to do with me not sending in a ballot, I'll try harder next year.

― Ian Christe (Ian Christe), Tuesday, 22 February 2005 05:35 (twenty-one years ago)

whenever i ask the design department these kind of questions (about the choices non-pullout which was once supposed to be a pullout too), the answers i get have something to do with "ad placement." at which point, i slink back to my office in the helpless editorial dept.

― chuck, Sunday, 27 February 2005 20:03 (twenty-one years ago)

Maybe it has to do with color positioning. I fight that battle every week just publishing a typical Friday entertainment tab at a modest Northwest daily.

― Mr Deeds (Mr Deeds), Sunday, 27 February 2005 20:11 (twenty-one years ago)

Did somebody say "archive"?

― don, Sunday, 27 February 2005 20:22 (twenty-one years ago)

hey don, i'm not at work now, but when i am, drop me an email and remind me to send you the voice internal link for your own article archive; there is a way for me to search stuff there that i figured out, but i can't access the search mechanism for your link outside of the office - i think, though, that once i send you the link to all your pieces, you can access individual ones from there. i just did it for christgau on friday; i'm pretty sure it works. the archive problem has been a ridiculous headache for me; you have no idea, but i bet you can imagine. at this point, i'm still at the mercy of the website people for that one.

― chuck, Sunday, 27 February 2005 20:30 (twenty-one years ago)

Awrighhhht! You (still) The Man! Warlord George to thread

― don, Sunday, 27 February 2005 20:34 (twenty-one years ago)

Archivesreappeared in the search engine. However, two caveats: (1) the last time I looked they weren't properly date sorted anymore. That's a minor ache. (2) The search engine interface doesn't work quite as well as the older, simpler layout. Make sure you get the right search engine, too. Only one addresses Voice editorial content. Use quotes (" ") around your name or remembered titles, too, or you'll get rough -- translated: ridiculous or too inclusive -- returns. You can also still find your stuff in Google and it will now link properly to the Voice archive even with the old URL which now appears to serve as a seamless redirect to the new scheme.

― George Smith, Sunday, 27 February 2005 22:43 (twenty-one years ago)

Thanks, George, but I've already done that, many times. Google adds a few, but I still hit a wall in mid-2000, either way. I'll have to get back with Chuck when he's in the office.

― don, Tuesday, 1 March 2005 07:07 (twenty-one years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.