Who do the British seemingly hate Q Magazine?

I think that is a quite fair kind of predictability. What is pathetic is when a magazine gives a rave review to a band, and then, two years later said band follows that debut album with another album that is just as great, but in the meantime said mag has decided that band is no longer "hip", and as such, they give a really lousy review to their new album, while pretending to have disliked their previous one too.

hahahaa

(All the shit they receive are probably from writers whose musical taste is so different from what Travis are doing they aren't given the job to review Travis at all - obviously, you don't ask a hip-hop/dance fan to review Travis)

what a cop-out. you agreed with geir!

But Tim is correct here: that is what happens with 'Timeless' music: you can't argue with hiw good it is, how music and the way its received changes over time: it becomes preserved as this great thing and then ppl stop caring abt it. What is the point of even checking out classical music from bach or beethoven's time. I'd rather spend my time with 20th century classical right now.

Well, some of it is nice to listen to julio!

little geeta: bah bach suXoR i hate playing these stupid inventions
little geeta's sadistic russian piano teacher: (hits geeta's hand w. stick) bach was beautiful, shut up and keep playing!!

(ducks)

yeah dave- kind of like listening to old blues/jazz records, the noisy/crackly recorded bits add another dimension.

good grief no julio!! (unless "i learned to play by playing along with the first 2 omd albums" counts as musick theory)

If the name of the magazine was Dave Q and content was reflected accordingly, this would be a beautiful world.

what a cop-out. you agreed with geir!

Yeah, it is a bit of a cop-out, but it was never mind intention to start a thread about "timelessness," but rather about Q Magazine (and I don't see them as interwoven topics.)

That's not actually true though is it?

Its a fair point.

Doesn't this tell you that while cutting edge creativeness does get remembered, it is still the really great tunes that are really remembered?

* Q will be:

Definitive

The inside story

Informative

Useful

Funny… but never whacky

Credible

All encompassing

Accessible

… And it will know what it’s talking about

* The 9 Do’s of Q writing/editorial:

1/ Do be smart, but never cleverer than the reader

2/ Do avoid stock phrases. Q will use language that is its own, not the latest in phrases/words/sayings. We stand apart.

3/ Do be the readers’ guide without patronising them.

4/ Do be irreverent, but do so with authority and affection.

5/ Do fear the pun.

6/ Do take our own view entirely separate from both hype and accepted wisdom.

7/ Do be passionate.

8/ Do be prepared to stick our necks out.

9/ Do deliver the complete picture.

* The 9 Don’ts of Q writing/editorial:

1/ Don’t dumb down for the reader.

2/ Don’t be lazy: ie. Using clichés, praising one artist at the expense of damning another.

3/ Don’t use flowery language.

4/ Don’t assume knowledge.

5/ Don’t be a smart arse.

6/ Don’t force the humour (ie. if a caption is best served with a simple piece of information, use it).

7/ Don’t assume knowledge.

8/ Don’t just ask the obvious question.

9/ Don’t ever write: ‘The best album since…’

the complete picture.

10. Do assume that all readers have the average mental capacity of a three-year-old Down's sufferer.

11. Do give at least four stars to new releases by major artists for fear they won't give the magazine an exclusive interview.

12. Scratch certain PR agencies' backs and they'll scratch yours. Particularly applicable to those contributors who are contracted to write exclusively about artists handled by one specific PR agency.

13. Do not use language. Emoticons and star ratings are all our thrusting Thatcherkid readership has time to require.

14. Emap shareholders pay your wages.

15. Do be compliant.

16. David Cameron will be the next Prime Minister.

17. Do remember that music has been shit since "Friday I'm In Love" by the Cure.

18. Do not under any circumstances cite track seventeen of the second Bubonique album.

19. We are in charge.

20. Any Trouble are the great hope for 2007.

1/ Don’t dumb down for the reader.

AAAAAAHHHHH what's a smart-ass to do????

also - who the flippin 'eck is Johnny Borrell?

The git out of Razorlight, prone to pronouncing his own genius at every given opportunity.

Yo, I don't fit into any of those categories and I read Q.

Although I am vaguely thinking of giving it up in light of the fact that they're going to dump their free CDs and their movie, DVD and game reviews. Of course, if the dumping of the above reviews means longer write-ups per CD, then I might stay.

Another thing is - why the heck do they kiss ass to Johnny Borrell all the ****ing time? His band's 'music' isn't even that good. I bought the first CD, and it was mostly crap, with only one half-decent song. I don't want to even touch CD#2 with a 10-foot pole, thank you very much. And yet they're claiming JB to be the greatest genius of the C21, or something like that. WHYYY?!

http://www.q4music.com/nav?page=q4music.about.currentissue

wonder which one my outer sticks newsagent will have stocked.

odds on for the britney spears cover ? doubtful.

while the choice of folks is obvious on the whole (no hip hop??), the dido one is rather baffling.

should mojo be getting concerned over this new direction i wonder, a direct assualt on the £50 man, or whatever tag they give the poor bugger these days.

though i do like the revised focus back onto music - i may just give it one last go (the dreadful naked courtney love issue was the previous last straw for me)