what the hell is wrong with magazines

[alphajerk]

exactly what i have been trying to say about the article. part of the fact i was pissed that it was in there was because of who it was about but after reading such drivel, then i became utterly pissed because they basically stated everything evil about the music industry.

[Lee Flier]

Right on, Dan! That is exactly the kind of thing I was bitching about in the "Artistic Integrity" thread. It's all about money and ego stroking and it's a big crock of crap.

 

I agree with your assessment, though, that it won't really last and kids are getting hipper. Read Chip McDonald's great essay about Napster that he just posted in this forum. That says it all. The kids are beginning to refuse to have their tastes dictated to them, and thank God for that.

 

--Lee

[Kris]

But man, can they DANCE!

[ST.Morigeaugte.net]

Originally posted by Kris:

But man, can they DANCE!

 

er.. ah.... Kris?? I'd say more like shakin their booty.

[Lee Flier]

I'd like to add, too, that I don't fault EQ at all for doing the Pop Music issue. Rather than simply seeing the glossy pictures of the teen stars, we got to learn something about how these records are actually made and the motivations of the people that made them. Of course, many of us didn't like it. But that's good journalism: just tell the truth. Know thine enemy, and all that. http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/smile.gif

 

I liked the articles. I didn't like the implications behind them, but EQ can't do anything about that!

 

--Lee

[earfatigue]

<>

 

oh, crap. they've got it too good. they've got bands like slipknot. nine maniacs in worksuits and rubber masks churning out the bloodiest sounding shit since death metal proliferated in the early 90's. but now they're in rolling stone.

 

hate to admit it, but i actually really like that record.

 

<

persona of the artists than the music itself. <<

 

i suggest that jive records be burned to ashes. at one point there was very good music coming from the label, but now? they've got the triumverate of retro-bay-city-rollers crap rolling under their roof: britney, n sync, backstreet boys.... scary.

 

and if i wasn't afraid of the reprecussions, i'd write you a novel or two about another prolific artist on that label. but what, who am i? huh? who are you?

 

pfft.

 

earfatigue.

[Curve Dominant]

>>what the hell is wrong with magazines<<

 

I got a magazine in the mail today and it worked fine.

[alphajerk]

yea, till you get the pages stuck together it does. [just messin with ya http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/biggrin.gif]

[Curve Dominant]

The pages weren't stuck together, but some of them didn't have page numbers on them. That's annoying.

[John Sayers]

Why aren't all these magazines DOWNLOADS. Lets save a few trees for gods sake!

cheers

john

[Anderton]

>>Why aren't all these magazines DOWNLOADS. Lets save a few trees for gods sake!<<

 

Hey, why do you think we're here?

 

But there are some things magazines do much better than the web. Easier random access, better for reading long stories, great for applications articles where you need to keep the magazine open while you're using a piece of gear...

 

Both online and print have their rightful places. Expect to see more integration of both, especially here, in the years ahead.

[alphajerk]

i think SOS was treading this post last month. just about everything i mentioned, they did. did jamiroqui's [sp?] studio and flat out took pics of the racks and rooms with one pic of him. they had the master class on compression, etc...

 

i think i figured a little out. it goes after the musicians studio to an extent while keeping gear to the higher end [sometimes].

 

THATS what i would like to see. a high end gear magazine aimed at musician studios [basically because its the direction the world is moving in with the accessibility of technology] but instead of pandering to mackie level equipment, educate the musician/engineer about the higher end equipment to move them into better studios either for themselves [buy it themselves] or by going to better studios that have the equipment they are after [like they should do]

 

and do ROOM features, rooms that sound great with pictures. i mean thats part of the overall equation just as important as the pre or mic or board. some of these studios spend millions on the rooms, and some or unbelievable. it would be nice to see some details about it as well. including lighting, acoustic treatments, etc.

[John Sayers]

I appreciate where you are coming from Craig http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/smile.gif but can magazines have embedded sounds to demonstrate, full animation to explain, calculators to show pricing options and references back to previous articles at the click of a link?? etc etc etc.

I would have though the web offered a whole new range of publishing ideas, and it don't cost no trees! You said yourself previously that the printing was the greatest expense.

cheers

john

[Lee Flier]

Craig wrote:

Point is, there are lots of different ways to make music, and lots of different audiences. My 5-year-old is simply not into John Coltrane, but she loves music and liked listening to the Spice Girls.

 

Meant to comment about this earlier... Craig, what did your daughter hear when she was under 2? Nursery rhymes? There's quite a lot of evidence to suggest that what a child hears in the womb and during infancy has quite a bit of effect on what their tastes are like later, although they can change eventually. Most parents play "kiddie" records to their young toddlers and it's therefore not any surprise that they like really simple stuff like the Spice Girls. But I've seen plenty of kids your daughter's age who appreciate more "sophisticated" music, even if maybe not Coltrane, because they've been hearing it since birth and associate it with their parents' joy when they hear it.

 

I know a couple that were in a band together when their son was born and they had him in the studio when I did some sessions with them. The band was very sophisticated R&B stuff - it had a danceable beat but it was hardly the Spice Girls. Their son was about 7 months old and he was not only way into the music but even sang on key in several places! Suffice it to say this kid did not grow up hearing "Barney" records.

 

Well just a thought anyway.

 

--Lee

[Anderton]

>>Craig, what did your daughter hear when she was under 2? Nursery rhymes? <<

 

Only if you consider reggae, Miles, and techno nursery rhymes .

 

<>

 

Her favorite type of music is classical music, especially if it has violin or piano in it. She likes the Spice Girls for the image more than the music, but she genuinely enjoys it...although she likes Sheryl Crow better.

 

Thankfully, she really likes my music. I guess what you hear as an infant does influence your taste!! But actually, I think she's more of a visual artist type...she seems to get more passionate about that than music.

 

She also thinks Aaron Carter is really cute .

 

So what does this have to do with magazines, anyway? Oh well, the thread is petering out anyway, and I wanted to answer your questions about what she listened to. I do consider Coltrane more "difficult" than Mozart, though.

[alphajerk]

he said petering out...

 

well at least we got the pop music article out of the way for another 5 years.

 

http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/biggrin.gif

[3D Audio]

Originally posted by dr destructo:

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.

 

Remember the guy who recorded his album in his car? He got TONS of press coverage, not because his album was any good but because he did something no one had ever done before. Uniqueness can result in lots of press coverage sometimes. You still have to work hard to get it, though.

 

Lynn Fuston

3D Audio Inc

Music Mixing and Mastering

On a scenic hilltop outside of historic

Franklin, Tennessee http://www.3daudioinc.com

email:go3daudio@aol.com

[Jim Aikin]

Originally posted by John Sayers:

...can magazines have embedded sounds to demonstrate, full animation to explain, calculators to show pricing options and references back to previous articles at the click of a link?? etc etc etc.

I would have though the web offered a whole new range of publishing ideas, and it don't cost no trees!

 

A lot of people are experimenting with business models for web publishing. There are pros and cons from an editorial standpoint -- like, can you put a website in your backpack and take it to the beach? Probably not. On the other hand, is the text in a magazine searchable? No.

 

But the real sticking point is money. The reason we're seeing a shakeout currently in the dot-com sector is because it's so friggin' hard to make money on a website. At least unless you're selling actual merchandise, as on Amazon.

 

The two main revenue streams for a magazine are advertising and sales of copies (either newsstand or subscriber). Banner ads are nice, but they're too small and low-res to have as much graphic impact as a full-page ad in a print mag. And most web readers expect to get their stuff for free.

 

Would you pay $24.95 for a year's worth of access to a website?

 

--Jim Aikin

[alphajerk]

i actually think people like it free right now is because web sites pretty much are utilitarian right now. either your getting the latest drivers you need, finding out product info/company info, or chatting. i think in the future subscription site will be prevelant. i would certainly pay to use a site that contained lots of useful information but i have yet to find a site that would warrant me pulling out my wallet as they information is either too slow in updates or not dense enough. the porn industry has been the biggest money makers on the web even though free porn is abundant.

 

also it wont be too much longer before you can throw a website in your backpack. ive seen many notebook models with touch screens in the works and with wireless now in development id say in another 5-10 years, yes you can.

[Anderton]

>>Would you pay $24.95 for a year's worth of access to a website?<<

 

People are already paying, in many cases, from $10 - $20 a month to access web sites. Only problem is, it goes to the service providers, not the sites.

 

FYI, when SSS was in its last days on AOL, I briefly considered setting up my own site and asked what people would be willing to pay a month to access it. The most common figure was $10/month, some went as high as $20, none went under $5. This assumed that the site would be open only to subscribers, to keep out the B.S. that even then, was prevalent on the usegroups. So people were telling me they were willing to pay $60 to $240 for access to a quality site. I think the mentality has changed somewhat, but at some point, the web will not be able to be free if people want quality.

[alphajerk]

more like $24.95 a year. unless it was REALLY thick with all kinds of information and interviews etc. @ $10 a month, it would require broadband content of the semi near future that would rival TV content. hell i think i only pay $12.95 a month for HBO.

[Philip OKeefe]

Lee Flier said:

 

>>Meant to comment about this earlier... Craig, what did your daughter hear when she was under 2? Nursery rhymes? There's quite a lot of evidence to suggest that what a child hears in the womb and during infancy has quite a bit of effect on what their tastes are like later, although they can change eventually. Most parents play "kiddie" records to their young toddlers and it's therefore not any surprise that they like really simple stuff like the Spice Girls. But I've seen plenty of kids your daughter's age who appreciate more "sophisticated" music, even if maybe not Coltrane, because they've been hearing it since birth and associate it with their parents' joy when they hear it.<<

 

I really think there's something to all of that. I come from a very UNMUSICAL family, insofar as no one in my family was a musician (okay, my great-grandmother played a little piano, and wrote big band lyrics) so my family often comments about not knowing "where I got it from", but I have a hunch:

 

I was exposed to a lot of diverse music as a infant and small child. I grew up next door to my grandparents and uncles and aunt. My uncles are 10 and 4 years older than I am, my aunt is 6 years older. So when I was five, I was listening to Sgt. Pepper's when it came out, and DIGGING it! I remember when "Are you experienced?" came out, Cream, CCR the Byrds, all the great 60's bands. My grandparents liked Patsy Cline and Johnny Cash country stuff, as well as Big Band stuff. My mom was into jazz and early rock. I even got exposed to some classical. I love all those genres even today. So, I'm pretty open minded, and my main criteria for "liking" something is quality songs, performed with soul, and that's not a genre specific thing.

 

 

>>I know a couple that were in a band together when their son was born and they had him in the studio when I did some sessions with them. The band was very sophisticated R&B stuff - it had a danceable beat but it was hardly the Spice Girls. Their son was about 7 months old and he was not only way into the music but even sang on key in several places! Suffice it to say this kid did not grow up hearing "Barney" records.<<

 

All purple dinosaurs should join their extinct brethren!

 

 

Phil O'Keefe

Sound Sanctuary Recording

Riverside CA http://members.aol.com/ssanctuary/index.html

email: pokeefe777@msn.com

[John Sayers]

I am sure people would pay for a well informed site, with full page advertising, with demo software and audio downloads/streaming etc etc.

 

Whilst I appreciate the excellent work, time and effort the moderators of this site put in I suspect that in a couple of years time they will be bored with it and looking for something else. (I would be) yet I for one would like it to continue. A pay for access system would at least support them in their efforts and may encourage them to continue.

 

Cheers

john

[trick fall]

I've actually been wondering how Sound on Sound has been making out on the e-subscription thing. I'll tell you one thing, it would be awesome if you say subscribed to EQ as opposed to buying it on the newsstand and were able to access a site that was an archive of all the previous articles.

[SOS]

As Publisher/owner and founding Editor of Sound On Sound magazine, I am finding this thread particularly interesting. I've known Craig for a good while now, since EM days (which I read when it was called Polyphony!) -- Hi Craig! I hope you guys don't mind me taking part in this discussion? You mention SOS in your posts so I hope I can be given the opportunity to address some of the issues raised?

 

Regarding the inclusion of artists/engineers on front covers....

 

At SOS, we started out in 1985 putting people on our covers and it was only when, one month, we couldn't find anyone suitable/interesting (and available) to interview that we put some gear on the cover. We've kept gear on the cover pretty much since then, apart from a few issues, and we always found that artists made the cover sales dip. Why? Well, my take on this is that most gear is neutral, and does not evoke an emotional reaction in a would-be purchaser in the same way that having, say, a rap artist or new age hippy (no disrespect to either genre) on the cover does. If you dislike that person's music, then you have already created a barrier for your would-be reader to overcome before they part with their cash on the newsstand. Given that the majority of US music magazine's sales come not through the newsstand but on direct subscription, I would have thought that the importance of the cover image is greatly reduced?

 

The comments Craig and others made about magazine running/mailing costs are in the main true, as I have recently been researching this very topic for our forthcoming International edition. We will be taking the unprecedented step of launching our new SOS magazine with no adverts in it whatsoever, as we are able to make it pay from cover sales and subscriptions income alone as the circualtion grows naturally. Why do this? As others here have pointed out, the existing (UK version) SOS is a massive 304 pages every month, approximately half of which is advertising. By removing all the adverts (but keeping all the same editorial) we are able to substantially reduce our mailing/printing costs from the UK to USA/Canada and other countries, and thus our subscription price (to approx 60 dollars, instead of the previous 120). Contrary to what someone said earlier about SOS making more profit from its newsstand sales in the UK, the opposite is in fact true. With subscription income, we get the money upfront (good for cashflow), we know how many copies to print (thus it reduces wastage on printing copies to go on newsstands that may eventually come back as unsolds/returns), and we do not have to give any of the subs income to third-parties. With newsstand sales, everyone in the lengthy distribution chain takes a slice and you also have to wait months to get your cover sales income (nine months for overseas sales!).

 

Your local US music mags adopt a different production model to SOS, as far as I can see, heavily discounting subs prices and making up the mailing costs from advertising revenue. Nothing wrong with that strategy either, apart from making it hard for small companies with limited budgets to promote/advertise their wares, and thus help the overall market grow.

 

I agree with Craig that there are many things that a web/paper combination can achieve that a magazine alone cannot, and most publishers are still coming to terms with how best to manage web site content. At SOS I always thought it a real shame that, by and large, articles that had been finely crafted had a limited shelf-life of one month on-sale, before being replaced by the next issue and that newcomers to the mag could only get their hands on useful past material by buying a back issue. With the advent of the web, we took the decision to put as much of SOS's past content onto the site as we could -- free of charge. We live in exciting times, and I suspect that with increased bandwidth and better streaming technology, many web sites will eventually become close brothers to interactive TV channels. The signs of convergence are already there, and this very site -- musicplayer.com -- looks to me like it is gradually heading that way.

 

Anyway, thanks for letting me contribute. I'll try to visit here again to see what responses (if any) this elicits. And thanks for the kind comments about the mag :-)

 

cheers,

Ian Gilby

Publisher

www.sound-on-sound.com

[Uh Clem]

Wow - what a thread.

 

I subscribe to both EQ and MIX - I like the fact that they cover different areas and if they overlap a product review, that's fine with me - it helps me triangulate in on what might be the real deal with a piece of gear.

 

I have noticed that MIX is lately reminding me a little more of EQ with a bit of project studio focus - I'd rather it not be this way, but I think it is an indicator of the shape of things to come with studios.

 

As far as articles go - I'd hate to think that every article appealed to me - yet. That would mean either I have learned and been exposed to everything and have developed my tolerance for diversity much more than I think I have. At my age, that would mean the rest of my life would be relatively unexciting.

 

Often I have looked at an article and decided that no, I don't need to read this only to find that later, if I go back and look at it, I pick up a lot of unexpected information. Finding out more about things you don't like is not always bad either - even if it is that review on some equipment you never plan to buy - next thing you know, someone has it and you have to deal with it.

 

At any rate, to EQ and staff, I like your mag and am thankful for all I've picked up from it over the yrs...and these forums rock! There's room for improvement with anything - but once in a while, I'm sure you like to hear some appreciative feedback.

[Tedster]

>>I was exposed to a lot of diverse music as a infant and small child. I grew up next door to my grandparents and uncles and aunt. My uncles are 10 and 4 years older than I am, my aunt is 6 years older. So when I was five, I was listening to Sgt. Pepper's when it came out, and DIGGING it! I remember when "Are you experienced?" came out, Cream, CCR the Byrds, all the great 60's bands. My grandparents liked Patsy Cline and Johnny Cash country stuff, as well as Big Band stuff. My mom was into jazz and early rock. I even got exposed to some classical. I love all those genres even today. So, I'm pretty open minded, and my main criteria for "liking" something is quality songs, performed with soul, and that's not a genre specific thing.

 

 

To comment on this part of the topic (nothing to do really with the magazine thread)...there's really nothing wrong with letting kids be kids and letting them listen to "cute little gobbledeygook". Music is more than entertainment at all ages, and just as we derive intellectual and emotional pleasure from listening to more sophisticated things, young children derive entertainment, social skills, humor, and education from listening to things targeted to their age. Ever take a youngster into a fancy restaurant? They want a burger and fries, a la McDonalds. Their tastes aren't usually sophisticated enough to deal with more interesting food. They want fun. That's not to say that exposing them to a few tastes of Lobster Newburg isn't a good idea. But I remember my folks talking about "acquired tastes". Some little kids will listen to Grover Washington Jr., while some kids just want to listen to Grover on Sesame Street.

 

Kids are individuals. Sure, expose them to whatever, let them grow at their own rate. Give 'em a little Art Tatum. Give 'em some Raffi and Sesame Street, too. I remember when I was a little kid, I thought jazz was the most boring thing imaginable. Took years for me to mature (well, that's questionable).

 

 

This message has been edited by Tedster on 02-17-2001 at 07:48 PM

[xhavokmail.com]

Ok, I have to jump in here, although Im a bit late.

If people want to read about crap like the backstreet boys and how many units a "band" is selling, well then they should pick up a copy of Billboard, Rolling Stone, A.P., or an "ENTERTAINMENT" MAGAZINE. NOT a magazine for people who actually make music. All I personally read magazines for is info on the new an up-coming gear, and reviews.

All this mainstream crap is so thick that the players swimming in it cant see where the hell theyre going.

Alpha, they wont change, they only want money, its all about money.

And of course money is very useful, but thats all it is for them...

By "them" I mean the Mainstream magazines, record labels, radio, all of it!

You shouldnt plan on reading about any real artists or any real innovators in the mainstream, although you can bet youll hear all about the souped up mainstream rendition once they grab it, f**k it up, exploit it, rape the would be artist of nearly all creativity, take over, and turn it into money. And the average consumer is so blinded and intentionally brainwashed (for lack of a better way of putting it) by the mainstream world, that it makes me absolutely sick. GAP, OLD NAVY, FRIENDS, REAL TV, BACKSTREET BOYS, MTV, ROLLINGSTONE, A.P., EQ, E.M., Talkshows...all of it.

The only thing that can change this viscous cycle is a revolution....

And I personally think that that would be a great way to kick off a new era.

[ricongacharter.net]

fuck, this thread got so intense i forgot what i was going to say

[Anderton]

<

 

Ian, it is an honor to have you participating in this forum. I hope it is not your last appearance! People who know me are aware of the great respect I have for SOS, and not just because Paul White is the funniest man in the industry (funny as in humor, not as in...oh, never mind).

 

When you first mentioned doing SOS without ads, I thought that reality would intrude in some nasty way, but as you seem committed to it, I'll be very interested to see what type of response you get. I think a lot of people would be willing to pay $60 - it's sort of like public broadcasting, you're aware you need to pay something to make up for the loss of ads.

 

I'd love to comment more but I just got back from being away for a week, so I'll sign on later tomorrow. But thanks again for your comments, and for taking me up on my invitation to visit the forum!!