Bass Guitar Magazine

[Jase]

[quote name='BigBeefChief' post='474856' date='Apr 29 2009, 10:30 AM']Bought the new copy yesterday with high expectations. Thought it was still lousy. Maybe a bit better, or maybe I'm just being hopeful?

That wasn't actually an interview with Flea, it was just an advert, so you can tear that out.

Is it that difficult to but a load of guitar magazines, read them, coipy the good bits and apply it to bass? Yes, a review can be entertaining and informative. Currently, they are neither. There are a number of posters on here that are both entertaining a informative. Sling them a few quid.[/quote]

We've already been told about some changes that will be made but it's not going to happen in one issue, give it a chance. New editors first Issue IIRC.

[BigBeefChief]

[quote name='Jase' post='474899' date='Apr 29 2009, 11:25 AM']We've already been told about some changes that will be made but it's not going to happen in one issue, give it a chance. New editors first Issue IIRC.[/quote]


Why?

Why does it have to be gradual? Surely a new editor means a fresh start? If these "improvements" continue at this gradual rate, we'll have a decent Bass magazine in time for my grandkids.

The current team of crack music journalists just aren't cutting it.

[EBS_freak]

[quote name='BigBeefChief' post='474904' date='Apr 29 2009, 11:29 AM']Why?

Why does it have to be gradual? Surely a new editor means a fresh start? If these "improvements" continue at this gradual rate, we'll have a decent Bass magazine in time for my grandkids.

The current team of crack music journalists just aren't cutting it.[/quote]


You are expecting too much - I only buy it for the pictures.

[BigBeefChief]

[quote name='EBS_freak' post='474912' date='Apr 29 2009, 11:34 AM']You are expecting too much - I only buy it for the pictures.[/quote]


All of which are available on the manufacturers website!

[EBS_freak]

[quote name='BigBeefChief' post='474913' date='Apr 29 2009, 11:35 AM']All of which are available on the manufacturers website![/quote]

True. But it saves me taking the laptop to the bog...

[BigBeefChief]

[quote name='EBS_freak' post='474917' date='Apr 29 2009, 11:37 AM']True. But it saves me taking the laptop to the bog...[/quote]


BGM saves you taking toilet paper to the bog.

[skankdelvar]

Zing!

[EBS_freak]

[quote name='BigBeefChief' post='474919' date='Apr 29 2009, 11:38 AM']BGM saves you taking toilet paper to the bog.[/quote]

Drip dry is fine by me.

[skankdelvar]

[quote name='BigBeefChief' post='474904' date='Apr 29 2009, 11:29 AM']The current team of crack music journalists just aren't cutting it.[/quote]

Rather than crack, the term usually associated with journalists is coke.

The usual reason why changes are implemeted on a rolling basis is that there's less chance of alienating those readers who like the mag as it is; at the same time, you externally promote the new stuff to bring in new bodies.

So you add new readers without losing the old ones, thus increasing your circulation.

Or they could just be crap. Who knows.

Edited April 29, 2009 by skankdelvar

[maxrossell]

For what it's worth, I've never been a regular buyer of a guitar magazine without at some point ending up ditching it for exactly the problems that have been described in this thread.

Beyond the obvious typos, repetition, occasional direct contradictions and factual errors, which are just signs of poor editorial work (which, agreed, all need fixing in the long term if you expect anyone to take a magazine seriously), I've observed any number of guitar magazines start to suffer from bland journalism, wishy-washy review approaches, subservience to advertisers, and a gradual tone of patronising indifference to what the readership really wants versus what the editor wants to tell them or what the advertisers want to sell them.

I remember in one particular case, although I forget which magazine it was, they got so far as to start publishing inaccurate tabs for basic songs that any idiot could figure out (and accordingly see that the tabs were wrong), and just buying in articles about bands from other magazines, some of which were at best loosely relevant to guitar playing.

I think the number one problem is money, and given that money comes from advertising, there's the immediate problem that if someone's buying a lot of advertising space in your publication, you can't just outright claim that their latest product is an overpriced piece of embarrassing junk, no matter how bad it actually is. But then it's of no help to me as a consumer - if I'm buying a guitar magazine to help me make a decision about my next purchase, I need to know what everything is but I also need to know what to steer clear of. And it's not just the Behringers and Line6s, either. I can totally see how these guys can't afford to state outright that Gibson are taking the piss - even though everyone's thinking it - because Gibson won't buy any more advertising.

So if you hire good journalists who know their gear and have the balls to point out when a guitar is nowhere near what it should be for what it costs, you risk losing your advertisers, or having the manufacturers refuse to send you any more review models (when this happens with cars in Top Gear they just go out and buy one, but you can't exactly see Guitar Noodler Monthly going out and buying a £4,550 Les Paul Class 5 for the sake of a two-page feature, especially if you're not even getting any revenue from Gibson) - if you tell your journalists to keep the reviewers and manufacturers happy by glossing over or sometimes not even mentioning the product's most glaring faults (I've seen it happen more than once), you risk losing your readership. And rightly so, because frankly I've no interest in reading a magazine that tells me I should buy a product that sucks.

[peted]

To be fair the magazine cover doesn't advertise an interview with Flea. The actual print is: "Flea! Red Hot Chili Peppers - Flea introduces his new signature axe!", which is exactly what he did. It's a bit disceptive putting him on the cover though as you'd expect him to be in a feature interview. I guess that move was just to sell copy.

[wateroftyne]

I picked this up the other day. It was.. innaresting for a quick read.

However - the level of apostrophe abuse on show was far, far worse than you get on signs at the local town market, even.

[BottomEndian]

[quote name='wateroftyne' post='474959' date='Apr 29 2009, 12:19 PM']I picked this up the other day. It was.. innaresting for a quick read.

However - the level of apostrophe abuse on show was far, far worse than you get on signs at the local town market, even.[/quote]
Yeah, the usual raft of typos, but the review of the Fender head uses the phrase "high frequenciess", which I really like. I love the onomatopoeia of the double-S. I might adopt it in all references to high frequenciess.

Might make me sound a bit too Gollum...

[Jase]

[quote name='BigBeefChief' post='474904' date='Apr 29 2009, 11:29 AM']Why?

Why does it have to be gradual? Surely a new editor means a fresh start? If these "improvements" continue at this gradual rate, we'll have a decent Bass magazine in time for my grandkids.

The current team of crack music journalists just aren't cutting it.[/quote]

Why give it a chance? The same reason you would give most things a chance, so they can have a fair crack.You [i]might[/i] have a fair point if the current editor had been churning out the same old stuff for ages but that's not the case is it.

[BigBeefChief]

[quote name='Jase' post='474991' date='Apr 29 2009, 12:53 PM']Why give it a chance? The same reason you would give most things a chance, so they can have a fair crack.You [i]might[/i] have a fair point if the current editor had been churning out the same old stuff for ages but that's not the case is it.[/quote]


I mean why does it have to be a gradual thing? Why should there gradually be less typos, less adverts masquerading as articles, less borring reviews? Is the editor so busy that he can't read the mag from cover to cover with a red pen?

[xilddx]

[quote name='BigBeefChief' post='474996' date='Apr 29 2009, 12:57 PM']I mean why does it have to be a gradual thing? Why should there gradually be less typos, less adverts masquerading as articles, less borring reviews? Is the editor so busy that he can't read the mag from cover to cover with a red pen?[/quote]

Fewer

[maxrossell]

[quote name='silddx' post='475000' date='Apr 29 2009, 01:01 PM']Fewer[/quote]

Sick burn!

[Eight]

The only thing I was bit gutted about is that they haven't brought in extra full transcriptions yet. With only one, if you're not interested then there's nothing (beyond some lesson stuff) for you to play.

Not interested in Flea really = no transcription for me.

Edited April 29, 2009 by Eight

[Johngh]

[quote name='BigBeefChief' post='474996' date='Apr 29 2009, 12:57 PM']I mean why does it have to be a gradual thing? Why should there gradually be less typos, less adverts masquerading as articles, less borring reviews? Is the editor so busy that he can't read the mag from cover to cover with a red pen?[/quote]


Got to agree with you Beefy. There is no excuse for typos in a magazine. That's what spell checker is for.

[johnnylager]

[quote name='EBS_freak' post='451536' date='Apr 1 2009, 02:32 PM']I'm sure that ... Bernie Goodfellow ... would make for [a] fantastic interview[s]s[/s] ...[/quote]
It certainly would. An audio interview would be even better.

[EBS_freak]

[quote name='johnnylager' post='475061' date='Apr 29 2009, 01:38 PM']It certainly would. An audio interview would be even better. [/quote]

True - can I be the person inserting the bleeper during the post edit?

[BigRedX]

If Stuart Clayton is reading this thread I have an observation about the Hagstrom 8-string review.

For me one of the most critical things on a bass with octave pair strings is being the correctly intonate each string in the pair. Looking at the photos, both strings in the pair appear to share the same saddle, so either this isn't possible, or the saddle is compensated which will affect the types and gauges of strings that can be fitted. However this point has been completely ignored. Was it missed out of the review or edited out for space? From my PoV this is a massively important point because it doesn't matter how good an instrument sounds if it's impossible to play it in tune. Bearing in mind the cost and availability of this bass, the review is the closest I'm going to get to one without either finding one at a trade show or buying blind. Poor show.

Also I note that the design/artwork department still hasn't learned the difference between a closing double quote and the inch symbol, and the standard of retouching on some of the photos is extremely poor - the full page photo of the Esh Sovereign on page 45 in particular.

[wateroftyne]

[quote name='BigRedX' post='475272' date='Apr 29 2009, 05:07 PM']Also I note that the design/artwork department still hasn't learned the difference between a closing double quote and the inch symbol, and the standard of retouching on some of the photos is extremely poor - the full page photo of the Esh Sovereign on page 45 in particular.[/quote]
Aye.. I noticed that. The bleed into one of the strings is awful...

[BigBeefChief]

[quote name='wateroftyne' post='475284' date='Apr 29 2009, 05:22 PM']Aye.. I noticed that. The bleed into one of the strings is awful...[/quote]


I thought it came with a burgundy E string??

[steve-soar]

[quote name='Hamster' post='466020' date='Apr 18 2009, 12:03 PM']Page 33 - picture of Normferatu - it looks likes he's had a cover girl makeover![/quote]He's paid in full for those legendary bags, so it was a poor show airbrushing them out.
I think it was to stop younger readers cacking themselves.
In fact the more I think about it, the more cringeworthy it becomes.