Attack of the Music Writers

|

Don't look now, another music mag is gearing up to explain what your ears hear to your brain. This one has a twist, though. Good Music aims to be the music mag for those who don't read music mags.

The effort already has $500K behind it and launches in the fall.

The target niche is adults over 30 who are helpless in their search for—wait for it—good music. Here the writers and editors will step in with profiles on artists ranging from Neil Young to Norah Jones.

Yep, that'll fling the demo's musical horizons wide open.

Advertisement

NEXT: Rights to Reality

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Well, you can’t sell a new music magazine to ad buyers based on obscurity, can you? I suspect there are more than enough folks who lapped up every word in Option, Spin or Creem back in the day to make this sucka soar. There are already a couple of smaller-time contenders out there (Harp, Paste) trying to make a go at this market–their problem, straight out of the gate, is that they *look* too self-righteous. The editor of this venture, Alan Light, did his master’s thesis on the Beastie Boys way back when.

  2. My experience with Option is that it covered relatively unknown and nonmainstream artists.

    (As well as extremely obscure ones, like me)

  3. I wasn’t comparing one magazine’s motivations to another, just relating where the target demo has been, and where it’s seemingly headed. There comes a point where Neil Young and Norah Jones make for better copy than Eugene Chadbourne and Jandek …

  4. actually, the wire seems to have made a pretty decent life for itself selling obscurity, actually. despite the pretentiousness (it should come with a spoon to skim the curd from david toop, for example) it’s probably the most well-written and interesting music rag around. (if you like that sort of stuff, which i happen to)

  5. Well, if you don’t know who Norah Jones is, then you can’t comment on the sheer snobbery of the post we’re commenting on … A publication setting out to write something different and/or interesting about the #1 selling album, Grammy sweeper etc. is going to have more mileage than one trying to force-feed obscurities on its readership, particularly with the Internut rendering utilitarian record reviews obsolete. Plus, after 35+ years of the “rock press”, it’s been reaffirmed time after time that the more populist stuff usually (if not always) makes for more interesting copy …

  6. Re: There comes a point where Neil Young and Norah Jones make for better copy than Eugene Chadbourne and Jandek …

    Huh? At what point is that? I’d think that would be a matter of taste that differs wildly with the individual. Personally I like Neil Young, Eugene Chadbourne and Jandek all, and I don’t know who Norah Jones is. (Maybe I’ll look her up on AMG next…)

    I’m not sure exactly what marc w’s point is, but my reverse snobbery detector’s antenna is quivering!

  7. “Force-feed”??? “more populist stuff usually (if not always) makes for more interesting copy”??? That’s ALL I need for my reverse snobbism detector to go off the scale!!!!

    Look, I really don’t care who this new endeavor writes about, that’s their business, not mine. And if it sells more copy and makes more money, that’s where I’d invest my dollars.

    But the claim that covering more popular artists is inherently more interesting and the claim that covering obscure artists is force feeding unwanted material on its readership are both utterly asinine. Sez who? YOU?? That’s what I mean by reverse snobbism!!!

    And as dhex pointed out, it’s not impossible to be successful covering less popular artists. Have you ever heard the word, “niche” perhaps??

    And if covering mainstream artists appeals to more people and makes more money, well fine, they can cover mainstream artists. I sure don’t give a shit.

    But for to claim that covering mainstream artists is more interesting and to diss anyone covering obscure artists with the ludicrous charge that they’re trying to force something on someone just shows that you are engaging in the same snobbery of the elitist critics you are presumably opposing, only in the opposite direction.

    Popularity means one thing: popularity. It is what it is, no more no less. I don’t whine about it, but I don’t glorify it either!

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.