Who do the British seemingly hate Q Magazine?

My thoughts exactly. I wonder how Bullit'll differentiate itself? I'm hoping it'll be adventurous with its cover features at least; I mean, even Hot Hot Heat or The Rapture on the cover would be preferable to yet another Stripes/Strokes/Eminem/a n other already overexposed band.

I hope they won't be listening to them in two hundred minutes.

Cross-post: unlike Alex, it seems. Calm down.

Also remember that Geir's post which Alex said was 'spot-on' (and with which I initially disagreed) wasn't referencing music from centuries ago, it was very specifically talking about 10-20 years ago.

The only reason anything is percieved as "timeless" is because it got more attention than something else. To say otherwise is to invest too much faith in the scribes of past generations and basically throw caution to the wind.

That said, just because you don't like something, that doesn't mean its not timeless. For example, I happen to think that "The Mona Lisa" is no great shakes, but that doesn't mean the Louvre is going to chuck it in the trash.

You seem to be arguing that 'timeless' means 'enduringly popular' which I suppose is fair enough, but in the context of a magazine covering pop-rock that's not really a very useful concept. As Tom has pointed out before, the history of pop is littered with people second-guessing what would be considered to have lasting value and getting it very wrong.

because it's for old farts. semi-bald, somewhat overweight high school teachers in their late thirties who worship jimi hendrix' ghost and wish for the second coming of grunge. or U2. or both.

..implies as much.

Yes, but this syndrome is hardly limited to Q. At the end of the day, a near-naked Britney is sadly going to move more issues than, say, a profile of, say, Hamell on Trial or Elbow or ______ (your favorite artist here).

Are old, balding, pudgy educators in their late 30's not allowed to enjoy music?

Is defending Q Magazine in some way parallel to a Brit championing Coldplay (or, for that matter, a Yank championing Matchbox Twenty)?

Pretty close, Alex, pretty close.

Side question - does anyone dislike the magazine/publication, to which they contribute? Better to be on the inside, pissing out, sez I!

It's the equivalent of wearing an 'I am a complete c-nt' t-shirt, Alex.

tim lemme tell ya abt a chap called damian hurst (sp?)...

Matchbox 20 are for Clear Channel Rock Radio listeners.

Hahahaha.

-- Alan, November 3rd, 2003.

Most OTM thing I've ever seen on this message board. Ever.

Music is not supposed to be anything you think it is. including that.

ha ha ha! this would be so very true if it weren't so untrue. music can be whatever you friggin' want it to be! it's your life(don't you forget). music can even be a hat. and timeless just means that a piece of music doesn't know what time it is. unless it's a cuckoo clock. or a church bell. or a nokia cellphone. music isn't supposed to be anything you think it is. hah! what a weird empty unimaginative world some people must live in!

Here's how the advertising rationale works: you say to advertisers that your 50-70k circulation on average each let 4 other people see it, so a readership of 250,000 is what the ad sales guy tries to sell the ad buyers. S/he compares ad price to others in his market (Q is 25/34) based on what competitors' media pack rate is (easily available info) and believe me, it costs more to buy a full page next to Britney than it does to buy it next to the reviews. The outside back cover ALWAYS costs the most. So if you've got 1k a page and then 10k for the OBC and say 7k for the inside covers and you're running 90 pages of content to 70 of adverts you've got 88k in ad revenues (but that'll go to 80 or 70 once the ad people take commission). Say your cover price is £3 - you'd get £1 after distributors have had their gouge. So add say 50k to your 88k and you have £125k in each month to pay for EVERYTHING.

I have to fly but basically it boils down to cost per reader compared with others' cost per reader, who you've got on the cover (LIARZONE) and how much brandsex can be had. A lot of ads in fashion mags (especially fledgeling ones) are 'free' ads, meaning they are not paid for but donated by brand managers. If the staff of a fashion mag really want to hate on their competitor they'll gossip at parties that their Prada and Miu Miu ads were free.

(reminds self to grab media pack from Edgy Style Mag)