What would you like to see in your ideal Guitar magazine for the 21st century?

xchrisv

As ever, threads like this provide plenty of food for thought for those of us on the 'inside'. 

It's possibly worth mentioning that despite the global decline in print media sales and the apparent dearth of great new guitar bands, Guitarist posted a year-on-year ABC increase recently, tens of thousands of people still think we are doing plenty of things right and the title still makes a significant chunk of profit for the company while other print brands have a more difficult time. It's a tough climate, certainly, but we're not heading to the knacker's yard just yet ;-)

Just to throw this out there, I've often wondered why so many people on guitar forums have the perception that we're somehow in bed with the man and that our reviews are untrustworthy, then in the same breath say how great a review/demo video/whatever is when it has been created and funded by, or in association with, a retailer. Now they are definitely trying to sell you something, yet they are considered to be more objective or honest somehow?   

It's really not some big conspiracy to promote the big brands regardless of the quality of their product. But the fact remains that if you were to set up a publication about football then the top six in the Premiership would probably get more column inches than the little guys. 

Every single member of the team got into the job because they fucking love guitars to an unhealthy extent, and we all have our individual prejudices and blind spots when it comes to gear, but it's a business, and we have to try to create a balanced product with a broad appeal. I still think we're better at it than any of the competition, too... but criticism is healthy, so bring it on... :-)

 

Dave_Mc

Lixarto said:

Dave_Mc said:

ABSOLUTELY NO MENTION OF "This guitar is so much better than what I learnt on!". I don't care. Times move on. Computer magazines don't give every current computer 5 stars on account of the fact that it's so much better than computers in 1983. You rate against what's currently available, not some arbitrary time period in the past.

Guitars are not computers. A lot of people care about guitars from the past, and few of us learned on The Vintage Classics, we learned on what we could afford in those far-off days. A significant and important distinction.

I still think rating against what's currently available is far more useful (!) than what was available 20 years ago, surely? It'd get rid of all the 4 star reviews which everyone (or almost everyone) complains about, for a start. Don't get me wrong- if they want to say that in passing in the review, that's fair enough. It just shouldn't have any effect on the final rating.

EricTheWeary said:

Intelligent reporting. Not that they don't do that but they don't do enough - an article on fakes or valve production or sourcing tropical hardwoods or how to make money out of gigs or something that I couldn't have written after 5 minutes on google.

Good call.

dindude said:

Proper comparison tests, you know without being scared of picking a favourite at the end. Guitar Player in the 90's used to round up, say, 15 valves amps in one room, it made for a great read.

Grumpyrocker said:

Reviews that aren't merely a reward for advertising revenue. Rather bored of seeing a Blackstar advert on one page and a four star review of the same product on the opposite one. I just don't trust the reviews in guitar magazines. 

(To both of those, since they're more or less the same thing) Yes.

stickyfiddle said:

There are some good article suggestions in here so far, but not enough to make me pay for a magazine again. 

I think that's the big problem with any of these suggestions- as I said in the other thread, it's one thing listing everything you'd like to see in your ideal mag, it's another making it work in the real world (i.e. ending up with a mag that enough people will buy to not go bankrupt within the week)...

Gassage

I have 5 main things:

1. Gilmour stuff

2. Pink Floyd stuff

3. Reviews of Pete Cornish gear and black strats.

4. Gilmour tabs/theory

5. Pink Floyd tabs/theory

I know that's a wide and eclectic range and difficult to fit all in one mag......

impmann

@chrisv very well put mate. One thing though - can you honestly say that there has never been an occasion when a feature has been flat-planned, costed and given to a journo where the effect (good or bad) has been considered on prime advertisers?

When I was an editor (the title is now part of the Future portfolio), we had to consider the content constantly to align it with advertisers and anything niche or in any way controversial had to be offset. I would imagine that with advertising revenues dropping and what not, this could be even more important. Maybe I'm totally out of touch, though...

Btw - if any if my ideas end up in Guitarist, my consultancy invoice will be in the post! ;-)

kelvinburn

The bottom right of each page to become a flick book of Rebecca Dirks getting naked?

xSkarloey

Gassage said:

I have 5 main things:

1. Gilmour stuff

2. Pink Floyd stuff

3. Reviews of Pete Cornish gear and black strats.

4. Gilmour tabs/theory

5. Pink Floyd tabs/theory

I know that's a wide and eclectic range and difficult to fit all in one mag......

You don't need a magazine. You need to go to the Gilmourish website (another instance of where the web not only augments but takes over from any coverage a traditional magazine could ever possibly hope to provide). 

Gassage

Skarloey said:

Gassage said:

I have 5 main things:

1. Gilmour stuff

2. Pink Floyd stuff

3. Reviews of Pete Cornish gear and black strats.

4. Gilmour tabs/theory

5. Pink Floyd tabs/theory

I know that's a wide and eclectic range and difficult to fit all in one mag......

You don't need a magazine. You need to go to the Gilmourish website (another instance of where the web not only augments but takes over from any coverage a traditional magazine could ever possibly hope to provide). 

I have known Bjorn for years. Top man. His work on that is epic and and absolute masterpiece of a resource. 

grungebob

@Chrisv i get what your saying about reviews etc but with the magazine being in print i cant hear or see your printed opinion be they genuine or view askewed, however when a retailer promotes a product their selling ( shall we say andertons as i think their who you where alluding to?) I can at least hear and see the gear in question and thus engage my bullshit filter.

xchrisv

@grungebob when I wrote that I was thinking of PGS actually, although Andy does really good demos

Dave_Mc

FWIW I take reviews done by shops with a pinch of salt, too. I don't think I'm being unfairly hard on the magazines and then being credulous with shops.

Also, in case it sounds like I was being overly harsh, I did subscribe for several years, so you must have been doing something right ) And as I've said elsewhere, the main reason I stopped was I was running out of room )

xSkarloey

JAYJO said:

I would like a Fretboard Fanzine. Nothing glossy or expensive just a monthly rag produced by members of this forum . I think there is  enough nouse on here to produce 12 of these a year and it would be ace to see were it leads to.Everyone who wants to can have a pop at writing for it and someone who is more equal than the rest of us can decide what to go with etc!! Effing ace idea. 

I love that idea, and I'd be an enthusiastic contributor, but I think it'd be even better as an online presence. The 'fanzine' spirit is one I would wholeheartedly go along with. 

chrisv said:

It's really not some big conspiracy to promote the big brands regardless of the quality of their product. But the fact remains that if you were to set up a publication about football then the top six in the Premiership would probably get more column inches than the little guys. 

 

Good of you to chip in Chris. 

I know what you mean about that. I still think, however, that there are plenty of relatively unexplored highways and byways of guitar culture that can be explored away from the strictly mainstream. I don't mean being left-field or obscurantist for the sake of it, but trying to give fairer coverage to those things which are slightly less obvious. With talented and enthusiastic writers as a guide, there's no reason why people couldn't be interested. 

As John Peel's old producer at the BBC John Walters said of their programme (and the BBC in general) "We're here to give the public what they didn't know they wanted". 

xchrisv

impmann said:

@chrisv very well put mate. One thing though - can you honestly say that there has never been an occasion when a feature has been flat-planned, costed and given to a journo where the effect (good or bad) has been considered on prime advertisers?

When I was an editor (the title is now part of the Future portfolio), we had to consider the content constantly to align it with advertisers and anything niche or in any way controversial had to be offset. I would imagine that with advertising revenues dropping and what not, this could be even more important. Maybe I'm totally out of touch, though...

Btw - if any if my ideas end up in Guitarist, my consultancy invoice will be in the post! ;-)

@impmann ah, can I ask what title that was/is? 

As you well know, politics are inevitable, but I do feel that we navigate all that stuff successfully without compromising the integrity of the words on the page and certainly without lying to the reader. I wouldn't pull any punches when reviewing a piece of gear just because it's manufactured by a company that advertises with us or not - if something has sharp fret ends, scruffy finishing or is flawed in some way then I'll mention it, whether it's a guitar made by Fender or Gibson or a stompbox put together by a bloke in his shed in East Anglia.

In terms of features, it's interesting that so many readers responded well to our Copies, Clones & Fakes feature from last year - that's a great example of a piece that simply wouldn't have happened if we really were tiptoeing on eggshells in the way that some people seem to believe. 

grungebob said:

@Chrisv i get what your saying about reviews etc but with the magazine being in print i cant hear or see your printed opinion be they genuine or view askewed, however when a retailer promotes a product their selling ( shall we say andertons as i think their who you where alluding to?) I can at least hear and see the gear in question and thus engage my bullshit filter.

@grungebob - there's plenty to hear and see here: 

Anyway, there's also plenty of mag work to do, so I shall stop chipping in on forums and get on with it! :-)

xchrisv

Oh bollocks, sorry about that. Browser went mental. 

Lixarto

chrisv said:

Oh bollocks, sorry about that. Browser went mental. 

Your post got picked up by the Spam Filter - it won't happen again

johnnyurq

I have bought Guitarist since the very beginning @chrisv and still like it and choose to filter the stuff out that I am not keen on, much like with any other mag and/or website.

The reviews i use as a launchpad to investigate further if I have GAS lustings for the gear.

The reviews are not bad considering the shit out there but yes even excellent tomes can be improved.

Nowadays I tend not to subscribe and buy it most months and tried the digital edition on iPad and may go down that road for a new sub.

My biggest bugbear as an aging guitarist is the font size and typeface as I now need to hold it about 12 foot away from my eyes. It hurts using reading specs too, now where is my DIY eye laser kit.

Joking obviously becasue it is my failing eyesight and not the mags problem, although a myopic seniors edition might be a hoot for folks in the same boat.


I really like the UK centric content and humour etc but a wee bit more diversity on the interviews giving lesser known players a chance.

I do get the football analogy but to me that is what is wrong in our media these days in the first place.

Still the best of the crop for me though.

RocknRollDave

^ lots of wisdom there, johnnyurq

I actually wish the typeface were smaller...I think the interviews should be extended. The US mags do it by reducing the font size and cramming lots in. Doesn't make for such an easy-on-the-eye look, but the photography in Guitarist should make up for that.

impmann

chrisv said:

@impmann ah, can I ask what title that was/is? 

It wasn't a music one... so maybe my analogy was flawed. :-)

mellowsun

Roland said:

Playing.  The very first dvd that Guitarist did had a video, I think it was from Thomas Blug, and it was fascinating to understand the level of detail that he thought about to get his sound. Similarly I once heard an interview where Tommy Emmanuel talked through how he played a particular piece. At one point he said (and I paraphrase) "I try to mute the 6th string with this finger, but if that doesn't quite work then I do this on the next note". Fascinating detail.

I remember both those DVDs and I still have them. Absolutely brilliant and worth more than the cover price of the mag. 

I just wish they'd do more of these DVDs, say a couple per year, but sadly they've gone down the 'Vault' route so I doubt it (I f**king hate the Vault, sorry guys).

EricTheWeary

The vault is/ was terrible.Fiddly and quite often hard to watch on anything that couldn't cope well with those apple/ ios files. I gave up looking even when I bought the mag. Either give something physical , like a DVD, to add value to the mag or just upload the clips straight to the MR site/ YouTube which is where they end up anyway.
Some of the new reader offers for Guitarist have been great and I can see that attracting new subscribers. I don't know the economics of a free gift worth more than the subscription but it feels unhealthy as a long term strategy.
At least Guitarist seems to have come out of its arty white font stage. What a fucking stupid idea that was ! :x

Fez

Granted guitar magazines are not perfect but I wonder how many of can remember the time before Guitarist magazine? 

Prior to the publication of Guitarist (what year for a bonus point?) there was only the very staid "International musician" which had small amounts of guitar related stuff, then there was "Electronics & Music Maker" any one remember their make your own guitar feature?

Other than that there was only the occasional article in NME or Sounds. Oh I appear to have gone all four yorkshiremen.

Suffice to say the advent of Guitarist and the slew of other magazines was a revelation back in the day and the backing track of full songs on a CD feck me sideways through a rosebush we must be in heaven!

However time marches on and technologies change so lets not be too hard on the magazines that have given us so much over the years, I could be rambling now, maybe it's time for my medication.