thedavidescapeplan Posted March 8, 2010 Share Posted March 8, 2010 I appreciate your response, Scott. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suburbanargyle Posted March 8, 2010 Share Posted March 8, 2010 Sorry, I only read: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcm1610 Posted March 8, 2010 Share Posted March 8, 2010 Also, I don't know why anyone got pissed that Scott said no thanks to reviewing whatever Heitman was involved in. Kid doesn't appreciate the magazine, so why do him a favor? Bad press is better than no press, so just ignore that it exists. It's not like any of you are even reading the magazine, right? i had nothing to do with the split. at all. overall, i had 0% input on that release. the only favor he'd be doing would be for the bands and label involved. even if i were involved, me saying a magazine is "not very good" is definitely not as bad as what people have said about the magazine in the past (on this board or elsewhere). My bad, for some reason I assumed you did. Oh well! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oakland Posted March 8, 2010 Share Posted March 8, 2010 Are people really starting to question a music critic's right to criticize music? This I don't get. Everything is always fine while you're heaping praise on a band, but say one critical thing and all of a sudden you don't know what you're talking about. I had this happen with a guy I've known most of my life, the singer of a pretty well known but now defunct band. I gave his old band tons of press, even before anyone knew who they were. When they broke up he started a new band that wasn't nearly as good as his old band, but was still OK. I gave it 3.5 stars out of 5. My reward for this was to be de-friended on Facebook and shunned. What a baby. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steventangent Posted March 8, 2010 Share Posted March 8, 2010 don't forget to pick this up to:http://www.shopaltpress.com/shop/index.cfm?fuseaction=product.display&Product_ID=195 Marilyn Manson was easily one of the most important cultural figures from the late 90s to the early 2000s. It only makes sense that he'd be on the cover of a magazine for people into "not mainstream" mainstream music. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcm1610 Posted March 8, 2010 Share Posted March 8, 2010 Yea, it's not like he's an undeserving idiot, either. Every time I've seen him on TV (not performing) he has had intelligent things to say and raises strong questions. Since I haven't seen him on TV in years, I can't really cite anything specifically, but he always impressed me, and I didn't like his music. So I don't see anything wrong with him on the cover. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest adam526 Posted March 8, 2010 Share Posted March 8, 2010 Yea, it's not like he's an undeserving idiot, either. Every time I've seen him on TV (not performing) he has had intelligent things to say and raises strong questions. Since I haven't seen him on TV in years, I can't really cite anything specifically, but he always impressed me, and I didn't like his music.So I don't see anything wrong with him on the cover. I agree with this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimmythescumbag Posted March 8, 2010 Share Posted March 8, 2010 I gave it 3.5 stars out of 5. My reward for this was to be de-friended on Facebook and shunned. What a baby. Oh no! Not de-friended on Facebook?!?! I love it when people treat Facebook as serious business. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oakland Posted March 8, 2010 Share Posted March 8, 2010 I gave it 3.5 stars out of 5. My reward for this was to be de-friended on Facebook and shunned. What a baby. Oh no! Not de-friended on Facebook?!?! I love it when people treat Facebook as serious business. The funny part of that is I only realized he had de-friended me many months later when he friended me again. Guess he forgot what an asshole I am. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steventangent Posted March 8, 2010 Share Posted March 8, 2010 Yea, it's not like he's an undeserving idiot, either. Every time I've seen him on TV (not performing) he has had intelligent things to say and raises strong questions. Since I haven't seen him on TV in years, I can't really cite anything specifically, but he always impressed me, and I didn't like his music.So I don't see anything wrong with him on the cover. Yeah, totally. Dude actually sounded a fuck of a lot more reasonable than the people that were trying to ban his performances and blaming him for shit like Columbine. There's a strange irony to that. Every once in a while someone comes along who makes waves in a way that's bigger than just music or sometimes even pop culture...Marilyn Manson is one of those dudes, like it or not, for better or worse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
casey Posted March 9, 2010 Share Posted March 9, 2010 Also, I would never just write, "This band is shit," in a review, at least not without citing specific reasons/examples as to why they are (in this writer's opinion) shit. When a band member (or some random message board flunkie) talks smack on the magazine I work for, it's generally from a place of ignorance, because they know absolutely nothing as to what goes into producing a monthly publication -- that includes everything from writing and editing to photography and design to printing and circulation to any number of other things that most people have no clue about. Now if someone on here is employed by a similar magazine (i.e., Alex, who works at Rocksound), then his words carry a significantly heavier weight to them, as he actually knows how the industry functions. Ignoring the screaming pomposity of the first half of this post, I'm just curious as to how a large production budget and physical toil negate a magazine's content. Nobody said AP was poorly assembled or ugly. They said the content sucks. Saying that no one can make an informed opinion about what's inside a magazine because they weren't there to witness the production is just stupid. That's like saying no one should object to The Turner Diaries because it took a really long time to staple. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tanukichu Posted March 9, 2010 Share Posted March 9, 2010 ^It's funny you say that casey, because my big/only gripe with AP IS the layout. Heh. I'm extremely picky about editorial design/graphic design in general. It's kind of my schtick. It really just makes me dizzy to look at. I'm not into that aesthetic at all...even if it is popular with the young folk. I'm more into clean, playful layouts. As for the content, I know it's for the younger set and I really do hate seeing awful bands with bad haircuts but I remember when I was 14 and I was into an awful band with bad hair (Good charlotte) and I bought AP and ended up getting into better stuff as a result. I was flipping through the 100 Bands You Need to Know issue it was really nice seeing a good handful of bands I'd NEVER thought would grace the pages of AP. I can only hope there will be some kid that might check out Andrew Jackson Jihad, the Menzingers, Title Fight, Kudro, Ruiner, or Nightmares for A Week because of that issue. It's not really meant for the older set. As far as the tiff between Gabel and the eic, I love Against Me! and I like Tom. I do think it was a little childish to start shit with Tom and if I were him I'd probably be snide back too. I don't know what went on behind closed doors, I don't fucking care. For the most part this thread's just a tad ridiculous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lokithelion Posted March 9, 2010 Share Posted March 9, 2010 Also, I would never just write, "This band is shit," in a review, at least not without citing specific reasons/examples as to why they are (in this writer's opinion) shit. When a band member (or some random message board flunkie) talks smack on the magazine I work for, it's generally from a place of ignorance, because they know absolutely nothing as to what goes into producing a monthly publication -- that includes everything from writing and editing to photography and design to printing and circulation to any number of other things that most people have no clue about. Now if someone on here is employed by a similar magazine (i.e., Alex, who works at Rocksound), then his words carry a significantly heavier weight to them, as he actually knows how the industry functions. Ignoring the screaming pomposity of the first half of this post, I'm just curious as to how a large production budget and physical toil negate a magazine's content. Nobody said AP was poorly assembled or ugly. They said the content sucks. Saying that no one can make an informed opinion about what's inside a magazine because they weren't there to witness the production is just stupid. That's like saying no one should object to The Turner Diaries because it took a really long time to staple. not gonna lie, that last sentence brought hardcore lolz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattstrike Posted March 9, 2010 Share Posted March 9, 2010 ^It's funny you say that casey, because my big/only gripe with AP IS the layout. Heh. I'm extremely picky about editorial design/graphic design in general. This. (Well, and I don't like the content. I am totally not the target demo!) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oakland Posted March 10, 2010 Share Posted March 10, 2010 I don't read Cat Fancy and have no real criticisms of the magazine because I DON'T HAVE A CAT! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pjaicomo Posted March 10, 2010 Share Posted March 10, 2010 I don't read Cat Fancy and have no real criticisms of the magazine because I DON'T HAVE A CAT! I read Cat Fancy and I have no real criticisms of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
axlrose Posted March 10, 2010 Share Posted March 10, 2010 I don't read Cat Fancy and have no real criticisms of the magazine because I DON'T HAVE A CAT! Well, someone's getting fired from punk. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steventangent Posted March 10, 2010 Share Posted March 10, 2010 Can we at least all agree that Cat Fancy is a top-notch publication? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
axlrose Posted March 10, 2010 Share Posted March 10, 2010 Can we at least all agree that Cat Fancy is a top-notch publication? I think you got this dudes vote Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steventangent Posted March 10, 2010 Share Posted March 10, 2010 Thanks in advance for next week's nightmares. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattstrike Posted March 10, 2010 Share Posted March 10, 2010 Can we at least all agree that Cat Fancy is a top-notch publication? I think you got this dudes vote Is that David Bowie dressed up as a cat? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
casey Posted March 10, 2010 Share Posted March 10, 2010 I think you got this dudes vote Is that David Bowie dressed up as a cat? Ha! I was just going to mention the D-Bo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flood Posted March 10, 2010 Share Posted March 10, 2010 I don't read Cat Fancy and have no real criticisms of the magazine because I DON'T HAVE A CAT! you're just bitter about the mountain lion that outsmarted you! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pjaicomo Posted March 10, 2010 Share Posted March 10, 2010 I don't read Cat Fancy and have no real criticisms of the magazine because I DON'T HAVE A CAT! you're just bitter about the mountain lion that outsmarted you! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mediocore Posted March 10, 2010 Share Posted March 10, 2010 Question: Where does the term "rag" come from in this context? Back in the day (i.e., colonial days), paper used to be made from rags. Now rags refer mostly to tabloids and other crappy publications. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.