i did say that i'd no doubt end up with the second edition and that has proven to be the case, at least after i found it again. the producers of this magazine seem really confident in people seeking it out - no instore promotions or anything, and the magazine always seem to be stuck in the lowest, most awkwards corners of stores. add to that the fact that a significant number of major chain stores are not stocking it gives one the sense that it is not going to last for much longer.
the apalling, professionally unacceptable disregard for basic editing is also working against it. what do i mean? here's the cover
did you spot it? look at the list of names at the bottom with a touch of care. actually, if you use the most casual of glance you will see a mistake that no one at Rolling Stone magazine did.
yep, that's right. Lou Reed gets listed twice. i can tell you what happened there - in order to accomodate some artists down here in the actual feature the list pertains to, some sub-editor just copied & pasted the names from an international edition in order to fit. they apparently did not bother checking the content, and nor did their editor.
most magazines would do all they could to avoid the humiliation of an editorial error like that on the front cover. Rolling Stone, at least the version here, seem to celebrate such things really. that would explain why such sloppy work extends to the content too.
here - a mere 3 months after it was released - is their review of Noel Gallagher's High Flying Birds album. see if you can spot the mistake - and no, it is not the amount of stars it got!
did you spot it? quite tricky to, really, but here's a close up of the bottom of the review.
key tracks off the album are "Girl", "Power" and "Michael Jackson" are they? i have the album here and.......nope, nothing like that appears on the album, not even as elaborate hidden tracks. my knowledge of the press, however, extends to knowing that certain newspapers and publications use those words (amongst others) as "tags" in articles so that search engines like google draw attention to them.
that's just lazy editing, it really is. if Rolling Stone expects to be taken seriously, then best they hire some subs and an editor that actually read the copy before it goes to print.
as for the articles inside, astonishingly bland - youth have it tough, George Clooney is a lovely bloke, some singer wants everyone to buy her records. the only article of any consequence is a reprint of a 1994 interview with Kurt Cobain.
it's not like they have their finger on the pulse, anyway. here's a paragraph tucked away at the bottom of page 14.
wow. news of The Stone Roses reforming was front page news in the press when it happened. in October last year. Rolling Stone get around to mentioning it 3 months later in a way that suggests they might well not have bothered.
the publishers of Rolling Stone here seem to have it in their heads that the magazine will sell no matter how poor and shoddy a product they put out, and no matter how tricky it is to actually find a copy to buy. i am not at all sure how interested i am going to be in finding the 3rd edition, where no doubt there will be more editorial folly for me to find and reviews of albums i got in November. it is a great, great shame that a magazine with such a celebrated history and status amongst generations of music lovers is being allowed to have its name trashed by people who just do not seem to care.
be excellent to each other!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
No comments:
Post a Comment