Just for oldsters? (Q)

Name: robqueen

Hello doyoo user, You have to be logged in to use these functions... Login or register Close window

Send message to member

Product:	Q
Date:	04/08/01 (50 review reads)
Rating:

Advantages: well written, thorough, excellent reviews section

Disadvantages: tend to over-focus on the older acts

Recently, when it happened to come up in conversation that I read Q magazine, the response of my 30-something friend was 'You know you're getting old when you start reading Q'. But was his highly hurtful comment justified? And should I care anyway?

Well, Q is certainly not aimed at the teenage market. Articles on Billie and Britney do make it occasionally, but they tend to be of the 'what are those crazy kids listening to now?' variety, rather than 'hear all the latest about Britney's boyfriend!!!!'. And thank christ for that!

For me, the strongest thing about Q is the sheer variety of music they feature. One month, they'll have Billie on the front cover; then they'll have U2; then they'll have Dylan; then Iron Maiden. Basically, they don't consider any kind of music to be beneath their dignity.

The Q writers are genuine fans of the music. Not for them the sneering sarcasm of the NME. Not that I don't enjoy sneering sarcasm, but occasionally I want to hear from a journalist who actually enjoys the music and isn't ashamed of it.

Another strength of Q is that all acts are treated with respect, even the laughably naff. So, for instance, they can have a 'where are they now' feature on Kajagoogoo, which will be amusing, but not in a sneery way. I mean, we all know Limahl is a joke, but Q leaves it up to us to laugh at him, rather than telling us to do so.

One thing that Q can be criticised for, though, is that they can't really claim to be at the cutting edge. New trends tend to be well established before they ever make the pages. Most of the new bands that get featured tend to be of the safe variety. And there's more likely to be an article on Dylan or Bruce Springsteen than on some angry young hothead. But maybe that's what most of the readership is looking for?

The quality of writing is almost uniformly excellent. One writer who is particu
larly noteworthy is Stuart Maconie. He's witty, intelligent and informative. He has an unfailing eye for the absurdities of modern music. And he's a real music fan. Everything a music journalist should be.

The free CDs which occasionally come with the magazine are well worth the subscription fee in themselves. There's many a band that I only got into because of these CDs. It's great to be able to hear these bands that they're on about, rather than waiting for the radio stations to catch on to them.

Last but not least, I have to mention the absolute strongest part of the magazine - the reviews section. This is so comprehensive, it covers just about every new album (and lots of re-releases) that you could ever wish to hear about. The live reviews are a bit few and far between, but the CD reviews are difficult to fault.

All in all, Q is highly readable, entertaining and informative. It's great for keeping up with the latest music news, if you're into good quality music. But maybe not for you if you're into all that is trendy. And not very much at all for the Vengaboys fans!

Summary: