Who do the British seemingly hate Q Magazine?

no mercy for the pop music thingy ;)

if Q mag was so terrible it would have gone bust already.

Well, the case I was resting was my assertion that people seem to hate it, and point that has been handily proved herein. I'm still waiting for a reasonable answer, though.

It never was about 'breaking' new bands. I was told this categorically by the Q editor once while raving about Belle & Sebastian. He said that I was too much of a 'championer' to ever write for Q, which prefers to wait a while before writing about bands. Of course, this was before they missed the boat woefully on The Strokes - they're now only two months or so behind NME when it comnes to new music.

In recent months, however, Q has nosedived pitifully. Last month there were three advertorials for stuff like cars and razors. One even appeared smack in the middle of a feature about Muse (I know, it was probably a beter read). Together with its irrelevant awards show (how contrived was that?), and the blurbs for the TV channel, Q has lost the few shards of credibility it ever had.

It was for this reason that many editorial staff left to set up 'Word magazine which is an infinitely better read, albeit something of a 40-somethings fanzine. 'Mojo' also cnotinues to be a good read for those of us who like to metaphorically kick off their tight shoes and luxuriate in a 10-page Mitch Ryder retrospective (ie, me).

As far as breaking new bands is concerned: for coroporate, XFM-playlisted skinny indie types it's still NME all the way. For corpse-painted metal loons and hapless British emo chancers, there's always Kerrang! As ever, the truly interesting stuff exists on the margins and one can do worse than listening to John Peel to find it.

When you're listening to it, how do you know it's timeless? The only sensible definition of 'timeless' I can think of is that people have always enjoyed it and you think they always will. How do you know?

Jesus! ALRIGHT, PEDANTS! Of course I don't know that it's definitively timeless, but the mere fact that people are still listening to stuff by Bach, Beethoven and the rest of those fat, long-haired Western Europeans centuries after they first scribbled down their tunes certainly lends creedence to the notion of the high quality of the music in question. It has legs. Its appeal has real longevity. Will people still be listening to, say, Wilco in two hundred years? I sort've doubt it, but ya never know.

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!