what the hell is wrong with magazines

[alphajerk]

i subscribe to Mix and EQ. why is it that every month without fail, its practically the same issue reviewing the same things on both magazines? both have an interview with micheal froom this month [its just one example but as if there arent more producers to interview], thats just one example. if i wasnt so lazy, id pull my back issues and go month by month and they overlap SO much. product reviews border on pathetic reading like it was written directly off the tear sheet offering no depth to the product [aside from yours craig] and just not broken down properly in the roundups. letters to the editors are filled with conservative crackheads who cant take the site of the most beautiful thing on the face of the planet or handle a much needed redesign [i got into music BECAUSE it had open minded liberals, i would go to church if i wanted to hear what diamond mines had to say] to not read a marilyn manson article because you think hes part of a cult? how stupid much you be??? i HATE his music to no end, i find his show foolish but i LOVED the article. filled with great ideas and a great story behind one of the takes. grow up whoever you are.

 

gawd i could go on but i'll let somebody else pick it up. then i'll come back with a bunch of suggestions to make my reading experience better.

 

 

p.s. last EQ issue i read entirely in an hour [i had already read half of it from 'behind the glass' which is a great book that everybody should own] but i feel ripped off now with my subscription to EQ, i should get a refund for a portion of my subscription since i bought the book. this month it was TWO interviews from the book. come on guys! there are more people to interview than what was included inthe book, a whole LOT more!

 

p.s.s. lets NEVER EVER EVER talk about pop music. aside from some new dartboard pictures, the article about the crap of the industry sucked ass.

 

 

sorry to be so pissy.

[trick fall]

I have to say I agree with most of what Alpha has to say and I'll add to it. Sound On Sound blows any American recording magazine away. It's not even close.

[the stranger]

EQ and Recording have both had some overlap recently. (mainly produst reviews, which is expected, and is also good)

I actually prefer Recording because it doesn't have the certain air of condescendence that EQ does. EQ wants to be a trade publication and a home studio mag.

Recording doesn't try to be anything more than what it is.

 

As for sickening mainstream drivel: What can you expect? This has been the case with the mainstream media for years. There is a world of killer producers/engineers in the underground that have been ignored for years.

Same for guitar mags. Where is the true talent? Underground.

This is one of the many bi-products of a capitalist society. You play the game or they shut you out.

[Anderton]

>>This is one of the many bi-products of a capitalist society. <<

 

Not in the way you think. It's not that underground people are shut out, it's that people don't buy magazines for people they don't know about. If people don't buy the magazines, then there's no more magazines.

 

As to overlap, the same PR people are pitching the same folks to the same relatively small universe. Back when I edited EM, I used to talk with Dominic at Keyboard and we'd coordinate to avoid this sort of thing. Mitch at EQ does the same thing with Greg Rule over at Keyboard, but it would be politically awkward for Mix and EQ to collaborate, I think.

 

As to SOS ... I love SOS, I write for SOS, and it's a great mag. But they couldn't make a Recording only-magazine fly, and I think that's worked to their advantage: SOS has enough material to appeal to a variety of people. For example, if you're a keyboard-playing recording engineer, you'd probably subscribe to Keyboard and EQ. But in the UK, you can get it all with SOS.

 

My only real complaint with SOS is sometimes they're TOO early with product reviews. I've often reviewed gear where SOS had already done the review, and have more than once been left scratching my head about features that are mentioned in the SOS review but don't exist in the unit, or cool features in the unit that aren't mentioned in the review. I asked Paul White, their editor, about this and he said that sometimes last minute product changes occur that don't make it into the magazine.

 

I think a bigger question is why England, with a far smaller population base, can support such a large magazine. Again, there are some significant differences. Most of SOS sales are on the newsstand, which is far more profitable than subscriptions. On the other hand I believe they have a lower page rate for ads, making it more accessible to a variety of advertisers, which justifies printing more pages. But printing that many pages in the US is incredibly expensive in terms of printing and postage. I remember back at EM 2/3 of everything that came in went right out the door for printing and postage -- before anyone had been paid a cent.

 

Postage rates used to be very favorable for magazines. That is no longer the case. Also, ever notice all the European mags with enclosed CDs? If you try to do that with sub copies in the US, then the magazine becomes classified as a "product," or some other such foolishness, and the rates go way up. I may not be right about the details, it's been a long time since I ran a magazine and I've never been a publisher, but you get the basic idea.

 

Regarding EQ, I think it's important to remember that this is a magazine in transition, with a new editor and new stable of writers. The "new EQ" has existed for only a few issues, and the first one of those had "legacy" articles anyway. Give it some slack, and keep making your comments. I'd be willing to bet that within a year, EQ will emerge as the strongest recording-only magazine around, period.

 

I could go on but...obviously this is a subject that's close to my heart. Having been involved with mags in a variety of capacities, I know the many roadblocks to success, and the time/money constraints that get in the way.

[the stranger]

Not in the way you think. It's not that underground people are shut out, it's that

people don't buy magazines for people they don't know about. If people don't buy the

magazines, then there's no more magazines.

 

It's actually a vicious cycle. The reason people don't know about them is no one gives them coverage.

And how do unknowns get coverage? It gets bought for them.

 

I'm not asking for magazines with nothing but unkowns (I understand supply and demand), it would just be nice to see more even coverage for the big names and the no names.

 

Here's what you do: Put Jimi Hendrix on the cover. The publication will sell more than normal. Then be sure and get some unkown artists with true talent in there. http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/smile.gif

[alphajerk]

well the pop music article made puke. it is EVERYTHING wrong with the industry. the manifesto of all that is evil. hell they even admit to providing just entertainment, put it in people magazine, entertainment weekly, NOT EQ!

 

and WHY ARE musicians on the cover? scott weiland? give me a break. producers and engineers should be on the cover, the guy he worked with should have at LEAST been in a pic or two. or some of his equiment/space. like i give a crap about a recovering junkie who was stupid enough to let his NEVE board get stolen by miscreants or pawn them off for smack.

 

and the rising star, while a good idea is 0-2 for any sort of interesting thing said.

 

alright enough complaining from me for this thread, some suggestions:

 

i want PICTURES of equipment through out the studios of these guys set up. so i can see a little bit and not have to peek around their body to figure out what they got in their stash.

 

when you do a roundup, make sure they are seperated into their classes [like boxing, you dont put a flyweight against a heavyweight]. but if you are just going to have the tear sheets, dont bother with the article. at least do a tech spec shootout with them. a feature crossreference. SOMETHING!

 

we are not the typical public so you can have underground stuff reviewed and interviewed. hell, thats where the most creative stuff is happening anyways. i definately dont buy a magazine because i know the person in it. i enjoy finding out about the people i HAVENT heard of.

 

have a masters page with the top guys [but make it a fresh article, not a reprint from a released book]. have pics of their setup, we like to see the control rooms of the rulers. some shots to see how they set up a session.

 

there should be more pics of the studio in 'studio with a VU'. on a positive note, i like the way this month the article ran over one page, lets make it three.

 

NEVER compare a amek pure path to a mackie, its insulting.

 

have "class" articles about using some of these products instead of just reviewing them. go into interesting tricks and tip on reverb, compression, expanders, SFX. i like the part about SOS where they have a pc, mac, and atari? page with articles dedicated to them. how about the different boards and their functions, getting the most out of the boards.

 

there should be a dedicated mixing page and a dedicated tracking page. techniques on having better sessions. there are limitless things to discuss about these two topics. have a programming page since that is so big now.

 

have REVIEWS! im talking in depth reviews, not necessarily about the music even [call it 'audiofile' or something] but about the production techniques and so forth, break the album apart and put it back together. revive old albums that had great things about them so new generations can find out about techniques of the past that they might not have been aware of [there IS a TON of released material even the most dedicated music listener couldnt of all heard]

 

 

did i stop complaining? i dont know. will i cancel my subscription? HELL NO!

 

p.s. i love the way EMTEC took out a FULL PAGE ad this month! that ought to piss some tightasses off.

[alphajerk]

btw: "you" used here with in and thus foward is not in reference to any particular magazine but simply a broad complaint towards all industry magazines.

 

[This message has been edited by alphajerk (edited 12-16-2000).]

[trick fall]

Craig while I appreciate what your saying about cost, they do get me to pay three times as much for SOS. I also think all the subject matter that SOS covers would be relevant to EQ.

 

The one thing I think EQ could certainly take from SOS is depth. The articles/reviews just seem to go much further, deeper EQ just feels like Cliff Notes in comparison. I would also love to see record reviews in EQ, maybe you could have all the regular writers do one review a month?

 

BTW I do really like EQ, I'm a magazine junky though, (I spend about 100 bucks a month on em) so I prolly feel a little too entitled to my opinion.

[wildabstaol.com]

I concur with the opinion that SOS trumps EQ and MIX magazines. Also, the British music magazine "Q" makes Rolling Stone look like a pamphlet. How come the English can do it and we can't?

[alphajerk]

the mere fact that i pay $11 for an SOS says something about their magazine [i wish i could pay less and tried to subscribe to get it cheaper, something about sending it across seas]

[Alon]

I have to say that I could care less about price.

 

I also stock up on English magazines, even though they're more than double the price.(Here in the US)

 

I like SOS , Future Music, Q, etc. I just like the "vibe" found in these magazines. I even like to look through some of the ads in these magazines, which I never do in american ones. Sometimes you find ads for cool gear, that you just don't see mentioned in american mags.

 

I also agree with most of the things being said, including those by Mr. AlphaJerk !

 

Without mentioning any names, certain American magazines have just become such garbage now, that I don't even bother to look through them, even if there are free copies laying around.

 

My 2 cents...

[Mr. G]

Interesting topic -- and needless to say, one that's near and dear to my heart. Lots of good comments and suggestions here; I won't address them one by one, since it would be hard to do so without coming off as defensive.

 

I can only speak for myself (and by association, EQ), but I will say this: Putting out a magazine is basically a balancing act. Budget (strangely enough, editorial staff, art directors, writers, reviewers, columnists, forum moderators, and photographers like to get paid for their efforts) and time (at EQ, we have about 3 real weeks to put each issue together -- and that's if there's no tradeshows, conferences, meetings, travel, holidays, etc. during a particular cycle) are the main factors, but other things, such as product availability, access to interviewees and manufacturer/tech info all vary radically. On and on....

 

But beyond all that -- all of which is just part of the game, and should be of no concern to the readers -- there's balancing what people want to see. For example, for everything that Alpha called out as "problems," I can cite readers who've told me the opposite. All you can do is try to make sure that what you're covering is as relevant as possible to as many people as possible, and remains fun and interesting to read.

 

Having said all that, as Craig mentioned (thanks Craig!), there have been lots of changes at EQ since I took over with the March issue, and especially since the October redesign/relaunch. You can expect that this will continue as the magazine evolves.

 

Please keep your comments coming. In addition to this forum, my direct email address is in every issue. I want to know what you think.

 

------------------

Mitch Gallagher

Editor

EQ magazine

[tonewoodsrockisland.com]

I sure like the way that Tape Op dovetails with, say, Mix and SOS in terms of attitude and approach...

 

And, because it's free, there's really no reason not to subscribe...

 

You can sign up here:

http://www.teleport.com/~fboa/subscription.php

[Marvster]

Craig said:

Also, ever notice all the European mags with enclosed CDs? If you try to do that with sub copies in the US, then the magazine becomes classified as a "product," or some other such foolishness, and the rates go way up. I may not be right about the details, it's been a long time since I ran a magazine and I've never been a publisher, but you get the basic idea.

 

Unless something has changed, it's because the postal service attaches a different rate to things with over a certain percentage of advertising, BUT, what's considered "advertising" or "promotional" can change from postmaster to postmaster.

 

So what one postmaster says is "content" and gets the nifty mag postage rate, another might say is "advertising" and all of a sudden the magazine is looking at an extra 30-33 cents per sub copy. (This is why it's easier in the U.S. to polybag a CD with newsstand copies -- you're only paying for some extra, negligible shipping weight rather than looking at a per-copy rate hike.)

 

This is trivia, of course, but may help some folks understand why mags do and don't do certain things.

 

As for the selection of content, this is a debate that never ends. I understand alphajerk's frustration all too well, but I look at it a little differently.

 

To me, magazines are the best deal on the entire planet: For $24.95 a year or so (or free for many EQ and Mix subscribers), I find it hard *not* to extract at least two bucks worth of value from every mag I subscribe to. This isn't to say that publishers shouldn't strive to make every page of their books must-reads for the audience -- and I'm not saying that readers should cut editors any slack when they don't like an issue or a story -- but sometimes you gotta be content making most of the people happy some of the time.

 

Happy holidays everyone!

 

Marv

(former editor of Keyboard)

 

*BTW, I think the reason SOS can make a buck while being such a thick and juicy read is because Paul White's a genius and writes half the mag himself. (What Craig said about the newsstand ethic in the U.K. is also true.)

[Anderton]

>>But beyond all that -- all of which is just part of the game, and should be of no concern to the readers -- there's balancing what people want to see. <<

 

I can vouch for the fact that for every letter received saying there's too much basic material, there will be a letter saying there's too much advanced material...

 

Take review length, for example. I like shorter reviews that concentrate more on the vibe and application of a piece. When EQ started doing the Bits and Pieces reviews, that was at my behest. I thought there were a lot of products that didn't justify a couple pages, but were worth knowing about. I originally set out to write pieces that were 300 words or less. Believe me, that's a challenge! But the inspiration for this was asking people at trade shows what they thought of a piece of gear. The typical description is short, hits the highlights, and doesn't go on forever...but you have a real good feel for what the product is about.

 

The days are gone when you could buy something based solely on reading a review. There are just too many variables nowadays in terms of making a decision. For me, reviews are "pre-qualifiers" that let me know whether something is work checking out in detail. Then the research goes beyond what I read in a magazine to bulletin boards, manufacturer web sites, etc.

 

This is why I am so favor of the concept of print/internet integration. A lot of long reviews could be made much less subjective by posting audio examples of what you're talking about. The web can contain updates much more easily. For example, we had a review of the DA7 here at MP.com. When version 2.0 software came out, I revised the article and relaunched it, which kept it current in a way magazines can't do.

 

I think we are going through a period where magazines are trying to find their way. I know SOS is equally interested in finding out how to make the web work in conjunction with the traditional press as magazines like EQ are. I'm sure that the "magazine experience" will be very different just 5 years from now. I hope that in the future there will be a closer integration of MusicPlayer.com and the various United Entertainment Media magazines to provide a more total learning experience that has no current counterpart.

[alphajerk]

so let me get this straight, there are people who actually like to reread essentially the same review in various magazines in the same month? the like the tearsheet facts that are available just about everywhere else long before the magazine is even printed? they like reprints of interviews that are readily available in a book [which is a great book, go out and buy it]

 

and that they dont like to see pictures of equipment set up. they dont like cross referencing of roundups, they only like commercialism, they couldnt care less about a mixing or tracking page, the like amek being compared to a mackie, they dont want to find out how to use fx more effectively, they must have heard every cd already because they dont want to have reviews.

 

 

hmmmm. a lot of people here tend to agree with me on this, i havent seen somebody yet disagree.

 

anyways, i just thought id bring some things to attention. i have been responsible for the layout of magazines/newspapers before on hefty deadlines so i know how hard of a job you all have and in the general sense do a great job and i definately get an itch every month checking the mailbox for the new issue to arrive. i thought id just add some ideas for future consideration. and there's nothing like the lettor to the editor section in EQ this month to put me in a foul mood, im getting tired of all these tightassed cocksuckers bitching about some nekkid chick and the new layout [which i love]. and MIX's recording school special taking up far too much room last month. to quote Fletcher "its about time to apply for a job at the post office"

[Guest]

Who's side am I on:

 

Regarding alphajerk's post (12-17-2000 12:06 AM), I am on his side.

 

 

What category am I in:

 

I don't have any equipment and am depending up EQ, Recording and MIX, and various bulletin boards to help me in the decision making process.

 

I need to have the advanced material. Its like wanting to be a runner. If you train with someone who can't run as far as you, then you won't (necessarily) be able to run farther. On the other hand, running with someone who has more stamina gives you something to strive for. You get to decide if that is where you want to be.

 

I don't know enough, yet, to make a list of 'all' the basic and advanced topics. Maybe 'Home Recording' should be 80% basic and 20% advanced and EQ should be the opposite.

 

Example of an interesting topic:

 

In the "First Look" section on the Tascam DM-24 the sentence "They also include a digital delay to compensate for microphone placement and digital converter delays when monitoring external analog signals" needs some explanation, but not in "First Look'. It is a good candidate for an advanced topic, for me at least. I look forward to a dissertation on this in a future issue. Feel free to send me the draft to review it.

 

 

Bill

 

[This message has been edited by wfosbury@juno.com (edited 12-17-2000).]

[ST.Morigeaugte.net]

Props to Alpha..........

 

I'm not a total damn green horn to recording (but close) and I don't want some milk toast review that's gonna try to sway my purchase decision. I want an unbiased review based in fact. Not cuz some level of ad page purchase.

 

Hell yeah.. I wanna see setup's and such, stuff that's gonna educate me to a degree.

 

Ya want my money?? Come and get.......

 

Mo

[Chip McDonald]

Originally posted by alphajerk:

and WHY ARE musicians on the cover? scott weiland? give me a break. producers and

 

I like the musician-studio articles. It's interesting from the perspective of both being telling of where the their head is at from a production standpoint, and it also can be revealing of production techniques particular to that artist. I like STP and what Weiland does (at least relative to STP/the Deleos)(hey, I know Dean and Robert HAVE to have home studios - that'd be interesting to read about IMO); so it's interesting to read he's into the Neve broadcast console stuff. Although the most interesting thing (please note, Mr. Gallagher) is the pictures of the studio itself. I'm sure I'm not alone in that I'm not the only person here that has stared intently at the mic placement in pictures of sessions with the Beatles, and so forth... It's really interesting to see the surroundings an artist works in. So in that respect, I wish EQ would be more lavish (ahem) in the shots of the studio itself.

 

For that matter (again this is for Mr. Gallagher I suppose) I would guess that *most* of the readers of EQ are of the ADAT/DA88/Mackie/PC home studio ilk. In which case, most of the allure of your magazine *isn't* on high ticket items that Mix covers; it's the things in your magazine that makes the small studio owner contemplate in a *pragmatic* manner.

 

In other words - things like the shots in Room With a Vu, for instance. The small studio owner looks at that and goes "yeah, that's a nice little setup" - either it's like what they have, OR it's within their reach.

 

At the same time, the attraction is the notion of looking at these places and thinking "I wouldn't have done that" or "that's a neat idea, I'll have to remember that". This is a rarely applicable thing when reading _Mix_ ("oh... imported cedar walls from Dusseldorf for the drum room and crushed Italian granite (because it's denser than North American granite) for the second layer of the floating flor underlayment...").

 

At the same time, though, it's nice that EQ doesn't tread the same remedial ground that _Electronic Musician_ sometimes gets mired in (although recently they've stretched those articles into "Basics to Esoteric" it would seem...).

 

In summation, if I had my druthers.....

 

1) More pictures of the studio environment itself. There's a, dare I say it, beauty in the variety of the uniqueness in the designs?

 

2) Less articles on rarefied price range gear; I know this is a grey area, but it seems like at one time _EQ_ was a little more conservative about this and now anyday I'm expecting a Sony Oxford review... (although please continue allow Roger Nichols to have discourse on any hyper-exspensive bauble he pleases...)

 

3) How about more gear-topical questions to interviewees on things that (again) could possibly be in the price range of your readers? In other words - as much as I would like to have a Lawson mic, I'm kind of more interested in why Mr. Big Shot Engineer/Producer has a pair of AT4033's, you know?

 

4) Hire Eddie Cilleti away from Mix, and make Anderton here write a separate DIY electronics article like he used to in.. hmm.. was it _Guitar Player_?

 

I'd better shut up now... In the words of Miles Copeland, "I'm just a peasant"...

 

like i give a crap about a recovering junkie who was stupid enough to let his NEVE board get stolen by miscreants or pawn them off for smack.

 

I agree, I don't care about the history of the artist - if I don't already know it I probably don't have any interest in the article in the first place.

 

Why can't I be around when a rock star decides to start pawning his Neve modules off for heroin? (sorry, I didn't say that....)

 

article. at least do a tech spec shootout with them. a feature crossreference.

 

Specs, smecks. I'm more interested in a Voice of Authority saying "this preamp is the deal for overheads", "this API clone is a practical alternative to this API" or some such. Preferably with more detail than that, though...

 

You know, specs were important I think back in the mid 70's, when consumer stereo gear struggled to get an output bandwidth of maybe 80-8k, but nowadays things are too subtle to make it worthwhile to bother with such things. Or maybe not, I'm just a peasant...

 

>definately dont buy a magazine because i >know the person in it. i enjoy finding out

 

I agree, to a point. That's kind of the attitude _Guitar Player_ started taking in the early 90's: "here, read about this artist we're into you *should* like".... While I think there are people who are unknown that are doing some brilliant things, I don't want the worthwhile-to-dreck ratio to go down because of it...

 

This is just a guess.. but I would bet most _EQ_ readers reflexively buy your magazine regardless of who is on the cover. It's not _Teen Beat_.

 

>a released book]. have pics of their setup, >we like to see the control rooms of the >rulers. some shots to see how they set up a

 

I'm not so into that, I buy _EQ_ for that porn aspect (what about _MIX_'s October cover of Jack Joseph Pugh's setup at Ocean way? With that enticing big Focusrite console all spread out like Jenny McCarthy there, and all of the.... KNOBS....? ).

 

in 'studio with a VU'. on a positive

 

I agree - for those of us peasants there's a number of logistical things that can help us out that can be gleaned from closely examining other's setups, perhaps in a way that is not readily discernable at first glance. (I give all the glitterati reading this permission to snicker at the pathetic-ness of our plight... )

 

>it 'audiofile' or something] but about the >production techniques and so forth, break

>the album apart and put it back together.

 

Yeah, be more specific in interviews with engineers about particular "moments" on recordings that are either idiosyncratic or exemplary.... *That* might involve gear most can't afford, but at least it eliminates a question mark...

 

>p.s. i love the way EMTEC took out a FULL >PAGE ad this month! that ought to piss some

 

... I guess I'm going to have to buy a 16 bit ADAT so I can use all of these pre-formatted Emtec tapes I recently bought for some unknown reason...

 

Does the Christian Coalition have people that write complaints of the type I read in _EQ_ this month? What kind of vacuum do they live in?

[Anderton]

>>In the "First Look" section on the Tascam DM-24 the sentence "They also include a digital delay to compensate for microphone placement and digital converter delays when monitoring external analog signals" needs some explanation, but not in "First Look'. It is a good candidate for an advanced topic, for me at least. I look forward to a dissertation on this in a future issue. Feel free to send me the draft to review it.<<

 

Dude!! There's an article on using digital delay to compensate for mic/amp problems here on the site, it was featured in the Lessons column for quite some time. Go to:

THIS LINK

 

One of the cool things about MP.com is we can have reference material that would be a pain for a magazine to print every month.

[alphajerk]

but ya just cant take MP.com to the "office" with ya yet. im just kidding, you could always print it out [which i always have to do, theres just something about reading on a computer screen without interaction] hell, i cant even read some of the longer posts here with out going crosseyed.

 

i hope you all understand im not trying to give yall shit or anything, i REALLY so enjoy the magazines [aside from the stupid conservative people writing letters to the editor] and you all do some great work busting your asses every month to bring me joy and these [music industry] are the ONLY magazines i subscribe to and pick up off the newstand. i applaude your tireless work.

[the stranger]

So, is it like illegal to mention "Recording" magazine here? http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/smile.gif

I really feel that they do an excellent job.

 

A few of of the ideas mentioned in one of alpha's posts are actually in practice in that magazine.

 

As long as I can remember, there hasn't been any people on the cover.

And they do have excellent "class" articles every month. I've have learned an enormous amount of information.

Every time I read an issue, I come away with new knowledge.

 

EQ is an excellent magazine, but I have to admit that Recording is probably got the edge when it comes to addressing the person with a home/project studio.

 

Like I said in an above reply, my impression is that EQ is trying to be two things at once, rather than focusing entirely on one audience.

 

Maybe since EQ seems to be in transition, it could take a few glances at Recording and decide if EQ wants to be a trade publication or a home/project/small studio magazine.

 

Of course, maybe I'm too little league. Am I actually hitting the nail on the head?

Is EQ purposely trying to exist between Mix and Recording? Is this an effort to target both the small guy and the big guy?

 

[This message has been edited by dr destructo (edited 12-18-2000).]

[trick fall]

One thing I think would be cool is if you picked a different song every month, something fairly well known, and broke down all the sounds. What microphones, preamps, effects etc were used. Oh and if someone is gonna cuss please do not use the dreaded asterisks!

[the stranger]

Yeah, don't be using any stupid asterisks!!!

 

What is the point of those, anyway? You still hear the word in your head when you read it.

Same with all those bleeps/or silences in popular music...the editing has gotten so precise that if you still hear the "F" and the "CK". What does F(silence)CK sound like?

Fuck!

Same with SH(silence)T.

When they put those silences in, I'm sure it is just an encouragement for a kid to fill in the blank.

[alphajerk]

not to offend anyone but recording magazine is better for the hobbiest project studio. i was personally aiming for information one typically picks up working with the big guys but isnt able to work with them [for various reasons beyond their control, like a mortgage, kids, life who cant work for such low rates]. there are a ton of us with studios that are above the hobbiest and needing info thats basically passed down from the CE's of facilities.

 

SOS really is a model magazine [which remind me, i gotta pick up the new copy tomorrow].

 

all of us who know HOW to use a compressor, etc but need to refine our knowledge of them. stuff like massenburgs overdubbing vocal techniques. fletcher is a wealth of information [thats the kind of writing i like to read]

 

i think another reason SOS reads so well is because they arent so dependant on the manufacturers ads. they have retailers ads throughout the mag so they arent so caught up in the politics [which seem so prevelant in this industry they rival capitol hill].

 

we just cant let the british beat us out. call it our patriotic duty [although after last week, im suddenly feeling a lot less american. how a world power can elect a dumbass as president is beyond me, i guess schools really have been pretty bad]

[the stranger]

Alpha,

I see what you are saying. I have bought many issues of MIX, though.

Do you feel that there is some area between MIX and EQ that is not being addressed?

[alphajerk]

Mix isnt that good of a magazine. its mainly industry related. i think EQ hits the market pretty well with a good balance but i agree with the above post of leaning 80/20 more towards the pro side with a more casual approach [if that makes sense] MIX is a stuffy magazine. EQ has personality, i like that about it.

[Chip McDonald]

So what happened to someone's particularly brilliant idea to have a forum where we can post questions for upcoming interviewees?

[Anderton]

>>So, is it like illegal to mention "Recording" magazine here? <<

 

Well, given that you mentioned it in post #3, I guess not!

[Anderton]

Mix, EQ, Recording...here's my take.

 

Recording is more for the hobbyist/home studio type. I think their editor, Nick Batzdorf, is passionate about what he does, and also maintains the mag's direction on a very even keel. He's also good at developing a sense of community.

 

EQ is for people who, to put it simply, make money from their studio. It might be a home studio or an upper-echelon project studio, but the defining charactertistic is that the typical EQ reader is more involved than simply as a hobby. Of course, hobbyists read EQ, and people who run commercial studios read Recording...it's not a totally defined split. (Mitch, if I'm wrong about all this and you're reading these posts, jump in and correct me.)

 

Mix covers the "big" studios, the high-end gear, etc. George Petersen has introduced some more of the project studio flair, but Mix remains true to its original charter. I think it has some overlap with Pro Sound News as well, in wanting to be an industry type of publication.

 

Deciding which is better, of course, depends on whether you're in the target audience or not. I like EQ the most because it addresses my needs exactly. I've sort of gone past Recording, and stopped doing the Mix type of scene in the 70s when I got my own studio. But again, it depends upon YOUR needs. The reason why these different magazines exist is because there are different needs that must be served; no one magazine can do it all.

 

There are advertiser reasons for this as well. If you want to advertise an SSL, you'd advertise to a focused audience in Mix, not to Recording, because their readers aren't part of that world. This is a better deal for manufacturers than advertising in a magazine that has the combined circulation of Mix and Recording, and therefore has more expensive rates, but the manufacturer will only reach a fraction of the readers.