Magazines
- Thread starter ...
- Start date
mistersloane
heavy heavy monster sound
I buy Sound on Sound when I have spare cash. And Vanity Fair if I go on holiday. And Future Music sometimes for the sample CDs.
And I found a copy of Heat on the tube the other week and was fucking overjoyed. They should give that out for free instead of the Standard.
And I found a copy of Heat on the tube the other week and was fucking overjoyed. They should give that out for free instead of the Standard.
new little white lies looks really good. thankfully not yet another issue devoted entirely to one big new film thats out (and thankfully not one thats crap like tetro). lots of stuff about cinema past and present. and some fantastic shots of dilapidated cinemas which brought a minor tear to my eye. though im still wary of it as its from the same company as some ad agency.
Who Are They?
Who Are They? is a great piece by Jenny Turner on LM and the Institute of Ideas from the London Review of Books -
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v32/n13/jenny-turner/who-are-they
Thanks!
Who Are They? is a great piece by Jenny Turner on LM and the Institute of Ideas from the London Review of Books -
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v32/n13/jenny-turner/who-are-they
Thanks!
scottdisco
rip this joint please
a fair-minded and admirably in-depth overview.
cheers stevied!
the IoI type crowd are so willing to peddle their wares in any circumstances (cut-price Zizeks, i suppose, which i have to marvel at and laud) they are a diverse bunch (w a few sort of vaguely libertarian and/or speak-truth-to-power kernels seamed through as a central core, perhaps), running a gamut. and Kenan Malik is really rather good, for instance.
re Bosnia (something i am allowed to waffle about if i do say so myself
), from O'Neill's usual load of occasional minimising nonsense (this Guardian column for eg) to Hume banging his drum every so often (i mention a fairly recent spiked piece ^), there's a slight whiff w some of this loose network still (if i can use that term to describe a few or so vocal members who are often on bylines and seem fairly close professionally), and it seems some key figures can't quite let go, though i appreciate a general overview of them all will focus on all their thoughts and activities, not just the Bosnia controversy that Deichmann started. my main beef is it's obviously fine to sketch out general anti-intervention thoughts (and sensibly so in light of Iraq and complexities in Darfur that increase the closer you look at Sudan, etc), but every case also always has unique specificities and whatever your views on the Nato bombardment of Serbia wrt Kosovo/a, you do not and should not talk garbage about the actual facts of the Bosnian war years earlier, even if you say this is all of a piece w softening up global opinion for a run at the Serbs in the late 90s (which as a short proposition that i'll run w here, for the sake of simplicity, obv ignores many things re Milosevic).
and yet they continue to do so.
why?
no need.
Ed Vulliamy writing about LM-associated people applauding the camps is indeed a gross overstep (about the only stumble he makes in his famously excellent Poison in the well of history article, tbf), except for sure in the case of Laza Kekic, who is notoriously on record as looking forward to the destruction of Muslims, Albanians and Croatians.
the sad thing about Furedi's WHITE NIGGERS cover re the Serbs back in '92 is that, really, it turned out the actual niggers were the Bosnian Muslims. (notwithstanding the charge may have had some credence wrt some global media outlets, though not re any serious ones, i imagine *, and certainly not that the "international community" was whipped up into some Cruise missile-addled fervour w the 'something must be done' crowd leading the way for a Bosnia-H intervention that, er, never happened.)
* would be happy to be corrected on this, natch; i was 12 in '92 and mainly paying attention to the Danish football team at the time.
cheers stevied!
the IoI type crowd are so willing to peddle their wares in any circumstances (cut-price Zizeks, i suppose, which i have to marvel at and laud) they are a diverse bunch (w a few sort of vaguely libertarian and/or speak-truth-to-power kernels seamed through as a central core, perhaps), running a gamut. and Kenan Malik is really rather good, for instance.
re Bosnia (something i am allowed to waffle about if i do say so myself
), from O'Neill's usual load of occasional minimising nonsense (this Guardian column for eg) to Hume banging his drum every so often (i mention a fairly recent spiked piece ^), there's a slight whiff w some of this loose network still (if i can use that term to describe a few or so vocal members who are often on bylines and seem fairly close professionally), and it seems some key figures can't quite let go, though i appreciate a general overview of them all will focus on all their thoughts and activities, not just the Bosnia controversy that Deichmann started. my main beef is it's obviously fine to sketch out general anti-intervention thoughts (and sensibly so in light of Iraq and complexities in Darfur that increase the closer you look at Sudan, etc), but every case also always has unique specificities and whatever your views on the Nato bombardment of Serbia wrt Kosovo/a, you do not and should not talk garbage about the actual facts of the Bosnian war years earlier, even if you say this is all of a piece w softening up global opinion for a run at the Serbs in the late 90s (which as a short proposition that i'll run w here, for the sake of simplicity, obv ignores many things re Milosevic).and yet they continue to do so.
why?
no need.
Ed Vulliamy writing about LM-associated people applauding the camps is indeed a gross overstep (about the only stumble he makes in his famously excellent Poison in the well of history article, tbf), except for sure in the case of Laza Kekic, who is notoriously on record as looking forward to the destruction of Muslims, Albanians and Croatians.
the sad thing about Furedi's WHITE NIGGERS cover re the Serbs back in '92 is that, really, it turned out the actual niggers were the Bosnian Muslims. (notwithstanding the charge may have had some credence wrt some global media outlets, though not re any serious ones, i imagine *, and certainly not that the "international community" was whipped up into some Cruise missile-addled fervour w the 'something must be done' crowd leading the way for a Bosnia-H intervention that, er, never happened.)
* would be happy to be corrected on this, natch; i was 12 in '92 and mainly paying attention to the Danish football team at the time.
crackerjack
Well-known member
Who were only there because the People's Republic of Slobodan were thrown out by the "international community" as part of the softening-up black op
Kof kof *Wire* Kof kof...
Although I don't buy it anymore, I still find it to be one of the few mags where music has ever been subjected to proper journalism.
I read french mags, but also FTimes (the WE edition), Alan Moore's Dodgem Logic
bruno
est malade
my vote is for japanese animé magazines, or whatever they are called, my sister had stacks of these things. i can only remember newtype but all were so dense graphically, so intricate, the array of pop stars, video games, figurines, media in general was absolutely staggering, very intoxicating. i could see why she was so into this culture.
you
Well-known member
righto, other than The Wire can anyone point me in the direction of some good music magazines mainly concerning themselves with dark stuff, im into MGLA, locrian, Om, Wolves in the Throne Room, that sort of crap right now as well as witch house... just anything dark - i'd also like vaguely occultist and literary/horror stuff too.. aesthetic is important.. needs to match my darted rick owenz jawns
dd528
Well-known member
Can vouch for Wax Poetics on the back of the one issue I've ever read (the reggae issue, from some time last year). Really interesting, in-depth interviews, although I think some of them were reprints from now-defunct magazines, foreign magazines, or out-of-print books. The use of archive photography and the quality of the layouts and design (not particularly complex or original, but giving the different visual elements exactly the right amount of space to breathe) is another big plus. I'd say over half the reggae I've listened to in the past year or so is the result of that issue serving as a springboard.
I'll pick up Dazed and Confused two or three times a year usually. The quality of the writing is variable, but the reviews are often good, and their fashion spreads are quality, if you're into that kind of thing.
On the subject of fashion, various international editions of Vogue can be brilliant. Especially the French and Italian ones. If fashion isn't your thing (and there is certainly much that's reprehensible about it) then I guess they'll be of no interest, but I personally love fashion photography. There's a Dave LaChapelle shoot based around an air crash from a Vogue Italia from four or five years ago that took my breath away when I saw it. Obviously when you buy Vogue most of your money is going on adverts, but I never really get tired of looking at (heavily-doctored) pictures of pretty girls shot inventively in original clothes.
Other decent magazines off the top of my head are Hotshoe, The New Yorker, Frieze and Wonderland. I find that a lot of monthly magazines tend to produce maybe one or two really great issues a year and are a waste of money the rest of the time.
I'll pick up Dazed and Confused two or three times a year usually. The quality of the writing is variable, but the reviews are often good, and their fashion spreads are quality, if you're into that kind of thing.
On the subject of fashion, various international editions of Vogue can be brilliant. Especially the French and Italian ones. If fashion isn't your thing (and there is certainly much that's reprehensible about it) then I guess they'll be of no interest, but I personally love fashion photography. There's a Dave LaChapelle shoot based around an air crash from a Vogue Italia from four or five years ago that took my breath away when I saw it. Obviously when you buy Vogue most of your money is going on adverts, but I never really get tired of looking at (heavily-doctored) pictures of pretty girls shot inventively in original clothes.
Other decent magazines off the top of my head are Hotshoe, The New Yorker, Frieze and Wonderland. I find that a lot of monthly magazines tend to produce maybe one or two really great issues a year and are a waste of money the rest of the time.
Last edited:
you
Well-known member
I used to buy Wonderland, V, A Magazine, Dazed and Confused, ID, Inventory, Wound, Muse, Fantastic Man etc.... but now I only buy Purple Fashion - for me it's head and shoulders the best fashion focused publication out there. Some/things also looks good and i'm looking forward to getting there stuff soon. 032c is also pretty cool, if you dig red covers...uhhh. I 'copped' it for a slick owenz article a while back. I actually quite like monocle too, I don't know why, it just feels rounded... Like Inventory Magazine and The Economist rolled into one with nice photos of cheese boards and trinkets too.
dd528 - uggghhhh LaChappelle!?!?! Horrendous! I can increase the colour saturation all by myself dave....
On the metal music tip - I bought Zero Tolerance a while ago solely for the free CD it came with containing a new Wolves in the Throne room track. It's ok but really very 'metal' - when what im looking for is the more droney artsy side of metal and none of the speed or thrash type stuff. Maybe i'll just stick with the Wire in the faith that they will highlight any decent releases?
dd528 - uggghhhh LaChappelle!?!?! Horrendous! I can increase the colour saturation all by myself dave....
On the metal music tip - I bought Zero Tolerance a while ago solely for the free CD it came with containing a new Wolves in the Throne room track. It's ok but really very 'metal' - when what im looking for is the more droney artsy side of metal and none of the speed or thrash type stuff. Maybe i'll just stick with the Wire in the faith that they will highlight any decent releases?
slowtrain
Well-known member
If you want to get really into good metal via physical means, you'd probably be better off checking out the 'zines and the like.
I'm too poor, so can't help out much. Expect lots of terrible 'philosophising' and dodgy politics though.
Gallery of the Grotesque is good, but very irregular.
Aside from that just check blogs like hammer smashed sound and hte like:
http://www.hammersmashedsound.com/
he's reall good at keeping p to date with the scene even if he misses some of the better 'kvlt' things and overestimates some of the hipster posey stuff
Sectionfive
bandwagon house
Has anyone picked up the Eye book?
Is it any good
Is it any good
Ness Rowlah
Norwegian Wood
I concur. Buy Port mag when it comes around every few months
and I just bought Wallpaper's last issue (Kraftwerk edited) and sometimes
pick up something like Blueprint just for the pics.
All full of nice stuff I cannot possible afford/get, but I like looking at it all.
It's a bit like Playboy, not for articles, but for the pics.
Someone suggested to me recently that Tina Brown is getting all of her (good) ideas from her husband, Harold Evans. This reminded me of the days when some people used to claim that Damon Albarn wrote all of Elastica's songs, or Kurt Cobain gave Hole their riffs. (Probably wrong, but who gives a shit?)
Prospect has got better under Bronwen Maddox -- it really has -- but in terms of editorial ingenuity and creativity and scope, Standpoint retains the edge.
Don't get me wrong, I quite like Wire, but with no competition it could be less dour and ghetto-ised; it could be bolder, more colourful. It could run many more Reynolds and Penman pieces, for a start.
I will disclose here that my aunt is a friend of Geoffrey Robinson, and on this basis I was sent for a meeting with Christina Odone in 2004 to jam me onto the New Statesman -- the whole thing was comical, as I discussed with her the misjudgement of Paul Wolfowitz and the importance of Yemen (having just been to a garden party with some exiled Yemini royals).
During this conversation she quite rightly looked at me like I was insane. Geoffrey, in despair, sent me to meet Mark Leonard, who just wanted to talk about the EU, which I knew little about. I just wanted to talk about Paul Wolfowitz and Yemen, two things he knew little about. It was like an episode of Made In Chelsea directed by Larry David, and ended about as well as an average episode of Curb Your Enthusiasm.
My brief moment of contact with the NS included a "hello" with Peter Wilby, then its editor, who Christina was desperatly trying to prevent from running a front page expose of the Jews running Whitehall (I am not making this up!) -- an idea he was full of enthusiasm for after returning from an exceptionally long, booze-fuelled lunch. I thought that was very Old School. Odone is a bit of a Catholic airhead, but I retain some affection for her after this brief episode.
I have a lot of these kind of stories, by the way. I'm still waiting to hear news of my, um, "associate" Moussa Ibrahim.
Prospect has got better under Bronwen Maddox -- it really has -- but in terms of editorial ingenuity and creativity and scope, Standpoint retains the edge.
Don't get me wrong, I quite like Wire, but with no competition it could be less dour and ghetto-ised; it could be bolder, more colourful. It could run many more Reynolds and Penman pieces, for a start.
I will disclose here that my aunt is a friend of Geoffrey Robinson, and on this basis I was sent for a meeting with Christina Odone in 2004 to jam me onto the New Statesman -- the whole thing was comical, as I discussed with her the misjudgement of Paul Wolfowitz and the importance of Yemen (having just been to a garden party with some exiled Yemini royals).
During this conversation she quite rightly looked at me like I was insane. Geoffrey, in despair, sent me to meet Mark Leonard, who just wanted to talk about the EU, which I knew little about. I just wanted to talk about Paul Wolfowitz and Yemen, two things he knew little about. It was like an episode of Made In Chelsea directed by Larry David, and ended about as well as an average episode of Curb Your Enthusiasm.
My brief moment of contact with the NS included a "hello" with Peter Wilby, then its editor, who Christina was desperatly trying to prevent from running a front page expose of the Jews running Whitehall (I am not making this up!) -- an idea he was full of enthusiasm for after returning from an exceptionally long, booze-fuelled lunch. I thought that was very Old School. Odone is a bit of a Catholic airhead, but I retain some affection for her after this brief episode.
I have a lot of these kind of stories, by the way. I'm still waiting to hear news of my, um, "associate" Moussa Ibrahim.
baboon2004
Darned cockwombles.
I was at NS for work experience in 2002 - they love their jewish conspiracy stories, had a major one then... Odone was definitely bonkers.
luka
Well-known member
this is very true. they also made a mistake by filling it with bloggers some of whom had readable blogs but none of whom were remotely interested in music. or were interested in music but dull writers. also and ive said this before th standard of photography at the wire is utterly unacceptable. its clearly nepotism because they are so bad gawky and apologetic. that magazine is wasting its potential.
blacktulip
Pregnant with mandrakes
I think this is my favourite Dissensus post ever. If I click on the links to your blogs, will I find more of this ilk?
Two of my favorite stories are:
Danny Baker being give the choice, at the NME sometime in the '70s, between interviewing The Damned in some shit London pub, or going on tour with Earth, Wind and Fire in America. "Of course, I went on tour with Earth, Wind and Fire in America. What could be better!" he replied. "The music was certainly better."
Julie Burchill, writing about and liking Patti Smith at the NME sometime in the '70s, but really desperate to go home to listen to Tony Blackburn playing the Isley Brothers and Odyssey and dancing around her room to the music she really loved, then feeding this back surreptitiously into her articles.
The music press wasn't all freedom in those days, because you had the tyranny of taste and the Rock Editors, but you also had the freedom and the money to do other things, and the word count and the words to do things slightly differently.
On the one hand you can do anything you want these days, online, and it means nothing culturally and there's no risk involved; on the other hand, you can get published and paid, and do virtually nothing aesthetcially or contensiously, because you either have no space to do it or editorial considerations are like massive heavy chains of mediocrity.
The most controversial thing that happens these days is that you ask a star the wrong question, they get in a mood, you apologise and cringe, and then write it up as if you had some amazing confrontation, which you didn't. You just pissed off some famous wanker who was probably in a bad mood anyway, and then shat yourself in case your editor got annoyed because you ruined any prospect of future exclusives or access. Then wrote it up to make yourself look as reasonable and safe as possible, to save any skin left (or worth) saving.
I always go back to my favorite example of Paul Morley and Jackie Collins. Asked to interview this famous purveyor of glamorous steamy novels, he insisted on interviewing her in the hotel shower, and she told him to "fuck off" and stormed out. And he managed to pump out the whole word count on this fantastic exchange.
My second favorite is when he insulted Jim Kerr, and wrote up the whole interview from the perspective and in the voice of Jim Kerr. These kind of antics are why I still love Morley and illustrate the gulf between what you could do in 1982 (and get paid and published for) and what you can do now (fuck all).
All in this amazing book, by the way.
Danny Baker being give the choice, at the NME sometime in the '70s, between interviewing The Damned in some shit London pub, or going on tour with Earth, Wind and Fire in America. "Of course, I went on tour with Earth, Wind and Fire in America. What could be better!" he replied. "The music was certainly better."
Julie Burchill, writing about and liking Patti Smith at the NME sometime in the '70s, but really desperate to go home to listen to Tony Blackburn playing the Isley Brothers and Odyssey and dancing around her room to the music she really loved, then feeding this back surreptitiously into her articles.
The music press wasn't all freedom in those days, because you had the tyranny of taste and the Rock Editors, but you also had the freedom and the money to do other things, and the word count and the words to do things slightly differently.
On the one hand you can do anything you want these days, online, and it means nothing culturally and there's no risk involved; on the other hand, you can get published and paid, and do virtually nothing aesthetcially or contensiously, because you either have no space to do it or editorial considerations are like massive heavy chains of mediocrity.
The most controversial thing that happens these days is that you ask a star the wrong question, they get in a mood, you apologise and cringe, and then write it up as if you had some amazing confrontation, which you didn't. You just pissed off some famous wanker who was probably in a bad mood anyway, and then shat yourself in case your editor got annoyed because you ruined any prospect of future exclusives or access. Then wrote it up to make yourself look as reasonable and safe as possible, to save any skin left (or worth) saving.
I always go back to my favorite example of Paul Morley and Jackie Collins. Asked to interview this famous purveyor of glamorous steamy novels, he insisted on interviewing her in the hotel shower, and she told him to "fuck off" and stormed out. And he managed to pump out the whole word count on this fantastic exchange.
My second favorite is when he insulted Jim Kerr, and wrote up the whole interview from the perspective and in the voice of Jim Kerr. These kind of antics are why I still love Morley and illustrate the gulf between what you could do in 1982 (and get paid and published for) and what you can do now (fuck all).
All in this amazing book, by the way.
So you may ask: "uh, what, how's that different?"
Because:
Baker was offered the orthodox "cool" thing and chose the unorthodox "uncool" thing, and revelled in his choice, which was natural to him anyway.
Burchill was hired to do the orthodox "cool" thing and did it, but turned it around by choosing the unorthodox "uncool" thing and feeding it back into her zinging, unorthodox prose and was absolutely fantastic and marvelous and sexy at doing it (in those days, not now).
Morely was given free reign to do whatever he liked and fucking well did it, as did Penman, but Morely took it further, culminating in the ZTT shenanigans and those sleeve notes for Frankie, Art of Noise, Propaganda etc. which is some of the best music journalism of all time, mostly because of where it was placed and its massive high-brow, ridiculous, abstract pretension, which suited the time and music. Morely was the great cultural assassin and avant-garde Ad Man, the two extreme and authentic poles of pop criticism.
Edit:
Lester Bangs writing about Kraftwerk for NME. Amazing. Or his John Coltrane reviews, Lou Reed interviews, or Sweet review that opened with a quote from Huysmans' Against Nature, or ripping apart Bob Dylans' 'Hurricane' and 'Joey' for the pathetic gangster pretensions. Is it just context that gives this stuff such impact even now, or just the quality of writing?
Because:
Baker was offered the orthodox "cool" thing and chose the unorthodox "uncool" thing, and revelled in his choice, which was natural to him anyway.
Burchill was hired to do the orthodox "cool" thing and did it, but turned it around by choosing the unorthodox "uncool" thing and feeding it back into her zinging, unorthodox prose and was absolutely fantastic and marvelous and sexy at doing it (in those days, not now).
Morely was given free reign to do whatever he liked and fucking well did it, as did Penman, but Morely took it further, culminating in the ZTT shenanigans and those sleeve notes for Frankie, Art of Noise, Propaganda etc. which is some of the best music journalism of all time, mostly because of where it was placed and its massive high-brow, ridiculous, abstract pretension, which suited the time and music. Morely was the great cultural assassin and avant-garde Ad Man, the two extreme and authentic poles of pop criticism.
Edit:
Lester Bangs writing about Kraftwerk for NME. Amazing. Or his John Coltrane reviews, Lou Reed interviews, or Sweet review that opened with a quote from Huysmans' Against Nature, or ripping apart Bob Dylans' 'Hurricane' and 'Joey' for the pathetic gangster pretensions. Is it just context that gives this stuff such impact even now, or just the quality of writing?
Last edited: