Topic: Favorite Music Magazines (Read 11275 times)

butmyrobotloves · « **on:** 09 Apr 2006, 23:12 »

Has anybody found any truly outstanding music magazines that might not be showing up on my radar? I feel like buying some subscriptions right now, and any suggestions would rock.

Garcin · « **Reply #1 on:** 09 Apr 2006, 23:23 »

As far as I can see, the good music magazine-like content is on the web these days, most of it in blogs. Like this one, and this one -- if you happen to live in NYC. And of course, there is always P******** if you're not a hater. All of them more timely than anything in print, and free.

If anyone's got some good regularly updated music blogs or sites, please link.

McTaggart · « **Reply #2 on:** 10 Apr 2006, 03:40 »

Some people swear by
http://cokemachineglow.com/
http://tinymixtapes.com/
and mentioning pitchfork is a great way to start an argument.

Jenno · « **Reply #3 on:** 10 Apr 2006, 03:47 »

To be fair to Pitchfork, the reviews on CMG and TMT all have pretty much the same level of eliteness.

KharBevNor · « **Reply #4 on:** 10 Apr 2006, 07:52 »

Mags:

Terrorizer
Zero Tolerance

Web:

Heathen Harvest
Vampire Magazine

And that's about all I read regularly/semi-regularly.

valley_parade · « **Reply #5 on:** 10 Apr 2006, 10:18 »

The only music magazines I read are Magnet, AP, and Guitar Player. Don't know if any of those help you or not.

Praeserpium Machinarum · « **Reply #6 on:** 10 Apr 2006, 11:28 »

Quote

To be fair to Pitchfork, the reviews on CMG and TMT all have pretty much the same level of eliteness.

I disagree about TMT, whereas Pitchfork's reviews are rarely about the music, TMT's are. In most TMT's reviews you get the sense that is about the music and they are not as much critics as they are fans/listeners. They may know their stuff but that doesn't make them elitists, in a bad way anyway.

On topic:
I read Tiny Mix Tapes, Undertoner(danish indie site) and the biggest music mag in Denmark, Gaffa. Gaffa's printed issue is a bit meh really, but their news are good and their reviews are suffice, if not actually detailed.
I read Geiger(the site, not the mag) sometimes but it is just too musician's nerdy for me, but very extensive and knowledgable.

Thrillho · « **Reply #7 on:** 10 Apr 2006, 12:10 »

Q, Mojo.

As for websites, the one I write for is my fave

Rubby · « **Reply #8 on:** 10 Apr 2006, 12:31 »

I just dont understand what everyone has against Pitchfork.

Garcin · « **Reply #9 on:** 10 Apr 2006, 14:00 »

Part of it's jealousy of their reviewers' power to give a huge boost to a little-known band with a stellar review. Part of it is contempt for their reviewers' tendency to, with purple prose and nearly un-matched pretension, take a decent album and either claim it's transcendental or mock it in a very personal way -- depending upon the reviewer's bias.

And part of it is all the times that they've been so incredibly wrong.

But hey, I'm no hater. I think that they're extremely useful, I almost always check out what they have to say, and their reviews are better, more skillfully written, and more insightful now than at any time in the past. Even if I rarely agree with them. Frankly, I used asterisks in the first post because everyone already knows about them, and there really isn't much point in having a conversation where everything has been said before.

Fortnight · « **Reply #10 on:** 10 Apr 2006, 14:05 »

You don't like Pitchfork? SMACK

I don't happen to keep up with any magazines, but I do check out WFMU's Beware the Blog regularly.

supatyouKERI · « **Reply #11 on:** 10 Apr 2006, 15:02 »

i like AP.
most of the time.

Kai · « **Reply #12 on:** 10 Apr 2006, 15:10 »

Quote from: Fortnight

You don't like Pitchfork? SMACK

I'M GONNA TELL SUDGE FAN ABOUT THIS, AND HE'LL, HE'LL INSULT YOU

Also, more props for the Residents avatar. Again.

nescience · « **Reply #13 on:** 10 Apr 2006, 15:18 »

If you're going to get a snail-mag, I'd go with Mojo. But why do that when you can use the INTNERTNE?!?!?111`11`` My personal fave online is Brainwashed.

Regarding the Pitchfork thing... a lot of people take issue with the magazine based upon its reviews circa 2001 or so. If you take a look into their archives for a review of an album that you love that came out in the late 90s or so, you're more than likely going to find a rather sophomoric glowing or growling review. Such is the case with Internet writing in its infancy.

The reviews these days are pretty milquetoast and less biased, which is good at a time that their visibility and influence are at an all-time high. Don't feel bad about reading the damn thing if you're interested in a light reader on what's new in independent (but mostly pseudo-independent) music. Sure, they bring a lot of hype to stuff that appeals to a limited crowd, but doesn't just about every music journal do that? It's called editorial bias. Just remember: you don't agree with Pitchfork, Pitchfork agrees with YOU.

Kai · « **Reply #14 on:** 10 Apr 2006, 15:39 »

Like Soviet Russia?

KharBevNor · « **Reply #15 on:** 10 Apr 2006, 16:53 »

Quote from: Moiche

claim it's transcendental

I declare vendetta on the man who wrote this review. My life shall not be complete until he lies dead at my feet in a pool of blood. This man is worse than Hitler, Stalin, Nero, Maggie Thatcher and a traffic warden combined.

Omnicide · « **Reply #16 on:** 10 Apr 2006, 16:57 »

Music critics? Never trust anyone who's paid to write down their opinions. The hip priest is not appreciated!

(wait- who the hell is going to get THAT reference? gah.)

Kai · « **Reply #17 on:** 10 Apr 2006, 17:58 »

Quote from: KharBevNor

Quote from: Moiche
claim it's transcendental

I declare vendetta on the man who wrote this review. My life shall not be complete until he lies dead at my feet in a pool of blood. This man is worse than Hitler, Stalin, Nero, Maggie Thatcher and a traffic warden combined.

Yeah, that review is kidna chock full of pretentious wankery and Yorke fellatio. Fun.

Gryff · « **Reply #18 on:** 10 Apr 2006, 18:09 »

I like Uncut mag - free CD each month; Stuff on classic albums and movies; Lots of good reviews of music and movies, which aren't afraid to give out five stars (hello Rolling Stone, you pussies). Only problem with it would be that it's very much stuck in the past, but hey, I like reading about that stuff. New bands and such I usually read about online before I see them in any magazine anyway.

Bastardous Bassist · « **Reply #19 on:** 10 Apr 2006, 21:46 »

The thing with music critics is that they don't need to have any knowledge to sit down and write about what something sounds like. As a result, most of them have a less-than-refined ear, and end up liking mostly really simplistic stuff. Anything that is the least bit harmonically adventurous is anathema to them, because it sounds different, unfamiliar and uncomfortable. Either that, or everything that sounds different, unfamaliar and uncomfortable is automatically the greatest thing ever, because their ear is not refined enough to be able to tell the difference between sucking and genuine creativity.

I read Bass Player upon occasion (I have three issues, one about Charles Mingus, another about Ron Carter and the third about Dave Holland). I should start looking at Upright Bassist, but when I first checked it out, everything was so above my level as a musician that I got nothing out of it.

Rubby · « **Reply #20 on:** 10 Apr 2006, 22:07 »

Any editorial work is going to be served up with a side of pretension. How could a person’s ego not be even mildly inflated while being told: “Your opinion is just so sound and valid to everyone that I’m going to give you money just to write it out for me”?

Bastardous Bassist · « **Reply #21 on:** 10 Apr 2006, 22:11 »

It's actually not the opinion that people like, it's the writing style. My uncle is heavily involved in movies (writing and directing, with a small bit of acting) as well as plays (just writing there) and when we mentioned that the Washington Post gave his movie a good review, he went on for about five minutes about how critics have no idea what they're talking about, their writing style is just good for that type of review.

missscenester · « **Reply #22 on:** 10 Apr 2006, 22:21 »

Rubby wrote:

Quote

Any editorial work is going to be served up with a side of pretension. How could a person’s ego not be even mildly inflated while being told: “Your opinion is just so sound and valid to everyone that I’m going to give you money just to write it out for me”?

^Very good point.

When it comes to things like Pitchfork, they obviously know the influence they have, so of course they use it well/hoe they want to.

I think that will all magazines, online or not, you just have take take each review with a grain of salt. In the end, do listen to bands people/mags reccomend, but if you like it you do, if you don't you don't.

Pretty simple really.

Bastardous Bassist · « **Reply #23 on:** 10 Apr 2006, 22:30 »

Also, in reading reviews, try to pick up the facts, and the reasons for their opinions. If they absolutely hate something, then try to figure out why and think whether you'd hate something like that, or whether what causes the reviewer to hate something would cause you to hate something, and vice versa.

Edit: Dear, just write

Quote from: Person's name

blah blah blah blah

Nemba · « **Reply #24 on:** 10 Apr 2006, 22:58 »

Copper Press is good, I guess. Other than that I don't really know many.

butmyrobotloves · « **Reply #25 on:** 11 Apr 2006, 07:52 »

Quote from: Rubby

Any editorial work is going to be served up with a side of pretension. How could a person’s ego not be even mildly inflated while being told: “Your opinion is just so sound and valid to everyone that I’m going to give you money just to write it out for me”?

I agree to a certain extent, but I feel like a lot of it has to do with the desire on the reporter's behalf to actually help people find music. I think if you focus really hard on the purpose of the job, it's easier to not let that pretension come through in your writing.

If anybody's in the Madison WI area, you should pick up the music mag I write for, Emmie. It's not perfect, but we try.

Luke C · « **Reply #26 on:** 11 Apr 2006, 10:09 »

Quote from: Fortnight

You don't like Pitchfork? SMACK

Oh man thay video is so good.

sjbrot · « **Reply #27 on:** 11 Apr 2006, 19:11 »

Magnet is always a good one. It's a shame it's only a bimonthly. A great reviews section, well written features, a wide variety of artists. Always cool.

Rockpile! is not bad at times. There's a heavy concentration on the layout and design aspect.

And, if you live in Canada, or if you feel like reading their monthly issues online, Exclaim! is usually stellar. I find so, at least.

BeoPuppy · « **Reply #28 on:** 13 Apr 2006, 10:40 »

Quote from: KharBevNor

Quote from: Moiche
claim it's transcendental

I declare vendetta on the man who wrote this review. My life shall not be complete until he lies dead at my feet in a pool of blood. This man is worse than Hitler, Stalin, Nero, Maggie Thatcher and a traffic warden combined.

That would be someone who hates everyone and that would be a black metal fan?

Oh ... and I read Aardschok. It's good. Whenever they like a band I'm almost certain to hate it and this works out quite well.

Iwan · « **Reply #29 on:** 13 Apr 2006, 13:08 »

All the Internet-reviews are not my thing. I still prefer actual magazines. How many of you keep those magazines stashed like a squirrel his food? So, I've never read a Pitchfork-article, or Tiny Tapes or whatever, I just don't care.

What is out there?

Deng; a Belgian magazine that has now been cancelled. It was not really a music magazine but it had some really good articles; an small biogrphy about Bill Hicks, long and good interviews with The mars Volta, great reviews about (maybe) upcoming bands.
http://www.deng.be

Mindview; I like these fellows. They are not professional journalists but very down to earth and honest. They are not too pretentious to say things like "this genre is not really my cup of tea" or "I gave it a poor review that it did not deserve but we are overthrown by new releases every month".
It is metal orientated but still a very good read.
http://www.mindview.be

HUMO; still the most influential magazine in Flanders. Not everything in it is great (an interview with XXX-Tina Aguilera can NEVER be justified) but most of it is very good reading material. Also, a big online archive with reviews and great interviews with Kurt Cobain, Marianne Faithfull and Bob Marley to name but a few.
http://www.humo.be

sjbrot · « **Reply #30 on:** 14 Apr 2006, 00:16 »

Quote from: Iwan

How many of you keep those magazines stashed like a squirrel his food?

I have a stack about a third of my height beside my bed. It wouldn't surprise me to find out that mice have burroughed inside and made a home for themselves at the bottom, where all the Spin's with Sugar Ray or Blink 182 will eternally reside.

Velly · « **Reply #31 on:** 14 Apr 2006, 04:45 »

I used to buy music magazines, until I realised that I was spending more on magazines than I was on CD's so I stopped.

I just rely on what people recomend to me over the internet now.

Garcin · « **Reply #32 on:** 24 Apr 2006, 08:53 »

Quote from: missscenester

When it comes to things like Pitchfork, they obviously know the influence they have, so of course they use it well/hoe they want to.

Sorry to necropost, but I just came across the worst review I have ever seen. This dude on Pitchfork gave NYC Ghosts & Flowers a 0.0 because he doesn't like NYC. What. The. Fuck.

Also, does anyone else think that this thread on recommending mags, blogs, etc. on music could use a sticky? I like stickies

THESE FORUMS NOW CLOSED (read only)

Author Topic: Favorite Music Magazines (Read 11275 times)

Garcin

Praeserpium Machinarum

Garcin

Fortnight

supatyouKERI

nescience

Omnicide

missscenester

Nemba

sjbrot

Iwan

sjbrot

Velly

Garcin