Style Mags Know more about music

The Face is aimed at the 17 - 22 crowd it's too YOOF and naff, I-D is more about posing fashion and ADs than music, Dazed & Confused - don't understand the appeal of the mag.

Which one is music and which one is image? Because (no joke), I'd say that the Sugababes are more about the music than "Ooooh, let's pretend to be fuck ups" central.

I'm also on Stereophonics List Of Most Hated Journalists for an early review I did of their show - and dig Fisherspooner.

Likewise, Radiohead. Likewise, virtually every fucking American rock band you can name.

So please get yr fucking facts right. My entire life has been a seacrh for glamour - I happen to like GLAMOUR not wallpaper fucking patterns and the new cooking recipe as supplied by the style mags. I like to be challenged, enthralled, perplexed not served up with the same dull set of opinions that you find across the mainstream press.

Although I do like new cooking recipes.

Just like the fucking rhythm of using fucking as a fucking punctuation point in the flow of fucking speech and for fucking emphasis.

All right?

Earnest, no. Pompous - fuck yeah.

Oh fuck, there it goes again.

gareth, is that a bad thing? Some people seem to use rockist in neutral sense, but when you use it, it seems to always be a negative.

I think given your criterion here, I am 90% rockist.

I promise not to turn this into another rockism thread.

I used to like the Details music issue (back in the early 1990's I gues), but I have a feeling that is not acceptable (even if not rockist).

This is where I often disagree with you, or anyway, take a different approach.

It seems as though you don't like to make distinctions, or at least don't like to make certain types of distinctions (and I'm not sure exactly how that breaks down), and that you emphasize the interconnectedness of things. This reminds me of something in a book on psychotherapy. He remarks that while you can accept the insights of family therapy, and of seeing the family as a system, that doesn't necessarily mean that you can't do therapy without having the whole family there. To take it to the extreme, the authors point out that the United States could also be treated as a system, but that doesn't mean that it's impossible to work with an individual in therapy, without bringing everyone else into the picture.

Let's say you are listening to a recording of an artist that you know very little about. Better yet, all you have is a cassette copy someone made you, or an MP3. No image to go by (except the image of no image). Is it impossible for you to enjoy what you hear in that stripped down context? Admitedly, as soon as the music starts, it will conjure up associations. You will know what genre it is, or you will know that you don't know what genre it is, etc.

I don't know if I am getting at what I really want to get at here, but I'm trying. I'm not really that obsessed with having the purest possible music experience (otherwise, I guess I would have to discard lyrics), but I'm not that interested in what kind of shirt Ruben Blades wears. I would buy a magazine that featured nude photos of Sleater-Kinney though.

I wish I would rely on other examples, but I think Sun Ra and PTV are good examples for this discussion, since I remember think they were similar in certain respects, but musically Sun Ra is so far about PTV, in my view, that there's hardly any comparison there.

PTV: underrated by themselves as a pop act

It feels like a little indie-space in a big glossy mag but without all the indie preconceptions about what's "supposed" to be good.

Also, I think a magazine which gave straight-faced "These Guys Are The Future Of Serious Music" coverage to the Sugababes would be great.

'You just defined rockism there, pal! Why on earth should we restrict ourselves to 'the actual quality of the music'? Why exclude charisma, spectacle, choreography, fashion, sex, design, editing, who the band knows, how they incarnate 'the flavour of New York downtown', etc? Exclude these things and you turn any group into a rather uninteresting chord chart.

Besides whether you agree with that last sentence or not (I don't), it would seem to me a perfectly reasonable position that one might want to exclude all these things because you find awareness of them nearly always spoils the experience/interpretation of the music for you...

Music as an accessory is much more appealing

Just gather in what you like/want - just like Style mags - without any real musical remit beyond you think it fits the mag and is interesting

Music is too old and too big to be completely covered and always interesting. No hardline editorial policy beyond subjective good and - the bonus ball - looks good too is as well rounded as it needs to get.

Actually, I haven't the foggiest who that is, though the name is familiar (mostly from here). I'm pretty out of touch.

We wants more cocks in CTCL!

Rename the magazine Careless Talk Cocks Live! Hooray!

TWELVE INCHES OF HOT STEAMING BEEF INJECTION, ALL LIVE ALL NUDE ALL MALE COCKS ALL THE TIME!!! FREE CHEST HAIR WITH EVERY ISSUE!!!

At least this is how it will be when me and Miss AMP take over. Heh.