Guitarist Mag: Living in the past

NelsonP

I thought exactly the same thing. What is the average age of the people they've interviewed in the past year? And another burst article = snooze.

I'd like to see them do an issue where they aren't allowed to mention 'classic' guitars from the 50s and 60s, valve amps or interview anyone over 40.

Some ideas for articles that might break the drudgery:
Are old guitars really that special, or are they just a bit, well, old?
The miracle of CNC Part 1 - Why Korean guitars are pretty much as good as their US counterparts (e.g. Musicman Valentine vs Sterling equivalent)
The miracle of CNC Part 2 - Why Mexican guitars are pretty much as good as their US counterparts (Baja tele vs Am professional)
How to dial in great tone on your modeller (could be a series covering all the usual suspects)
Home recording / using an interface and DAW (this is no longer the specialist preserve of sound on sound etc)
Do you still need a 4 x 12 cab?
Interviews with the Youtube stars - Johan Segeborn, Danish Pete, Rabea, Pete Thorn etc.

Jalapeno

etc .... and JUSTIN !!!!!!!!!

Jimbro66

steer said:

Go to a guitar show. Take a step aside, and look at the punters. Notice anything? 

I did - the punters were mainly grey haired old men with beards containing the remnants of their breakfast, who probably love nothing more than Led Zep, Clapton and Peter Green. As a balding 40-something, I felt young. 

Guitarist magazine are probably just catering to their targeted demographic audience (rightly or wrongly).

I dare say that describes a good number of the regular members here but I don't see any of them coming forward to praise Guitarist mag in this thread. Their age doesn't mean they want to be constantly fed articles on guitars and players from the sixties. And how much is there to write about blues (or blues/rock in most cases), yawn.

Guitarist mag needs a good shake up. Kudos to ChrisV for not getting drawn into producing a similar bland glossy.

impmann

Jalapeno said:

etc .... and JUSTIN !!!!!!!!!

HarrySeven

impmann said:

Jalapeno said:

etc .... and JUSTIN !!!!!!!!!

His face is too small for his enormous head.

crunchman

It is difficult for a magazine not to repeat itself.  A new read might find a 'burst article interesting, but if you have been reading them for 15 or 20 years it will be boring.

Gear reviews will need to cover a Fender Strat of some kind or another at least once a year.  There isn't really any way around it.

Getting the balance right and coming up with interesting stuff has to be hard.

Guitar Magazine is currently the best of the bunch.

Even in Guitar Magazine I do think there is scope for widening the artists they look at.  Given how huge he is, a feature on Sheeran's looping technique, and how to do it, would be good.  As mentioned above, you could widen the net to look at country players like Chris Stapleton.

I used to buy 3 or 4 magazines every month but these days the only one I get is Guitar.

jeztone2

To be honest I’m bored out my mind. I’ve been blogging about guitars for years. Never found an in at either guitar magazine. Yet they seem happy to trot out the same articles over and over again. I mean let’s be honest I’ve a greater knowledge of Bernie Marsdens Les Paul than some of my ex girlfriends genitals. It’s gone beyond repetition now. 

Also their entire knowledge of the UK music scene seems limited to the Bath/Bristol corridor. It’s hardly a national magazine anymore. 

i think it’s something to read on a train when I’m bored. But that’s about it. 

Philly_Q

crunchman said:

It is difficult for a magazine not to repeat itself.  A new read might find a 'burst article interesting, but if you have been reading them for 15 or 20 years it will be boring.

It's not 15 or 20 years though, it's 15 or 20 months.  If that.

And those burst articles are shit, they just take a few photos and say ooh, isn't it nice.  Maybe compare it with a new Historic, a Traditional and an Epi.

If they were really bothered they'd measure and weigh everything, note down the codes on the pots etc and print everything in all its nerdy glory.

Grocer_Jack

I dunno - I still enjoy it. All the above complaints are pretty valid though and it could be so much better. It's little stuff the bugs me - like: every time bloody Dave Burrluck gets a guitar for the long-term test feature the first thing he does is change the feckin' pickups three times, takes it to bits, 'fettles' it and then does some timid little gig with a singer-songwriter on which he uses it on one song!!! TEST THE BLOODY THING THE WAY IT CAME OR WHAT'S THE POINT!!  

Grocer_Jack

jeztone2 said:

To be honest I’m bored out my mind. I’ve been blogging about guitars for years. Never found an in at either guitar magazine. Yet they seem happy to trot out the same articles over and over again. I mean let’s be honest I’ve a greater knowledge of Bernie Marsdens Les Paul than some of my ex girlfriends genitals. It’s gone beyond repetition now. 

Also their entire knowledge of the UK music scene seems limited to the Bath/Bristol corridor. It’s hardly a national magazine anymore. 

i think it’s something to read on a train when I’m bored. But that’s about it. 

Ha yes 'The Bristol Jimi Hendrix festival'
FFS! 

Neill

I honestly think the quality of print journalism has gone downhill across the board in the last twenty years.  Whether it be specialist magazines, newspapers, general interest or humour.  Not just guitar mags, if the quality was comparable with that of say 20 years ago I'd still be buying magazines but I can't remember the last time I spent my own money on one. 
   

AlexC

Just noticed that the title of this thread sounds suspiciously like a Jethro Tull reference... Says it all really.


Just kidding!

Sassafras

The only music mag I'd be inclined to spend money on is Sound On Sound.
Least they don't keep harping on about bloody '59 Bursts (whatever they are).

Jimbro66

Sassafras said:

The only music mag I'd be inclined to spend money on is Sound On Sound.
Least they don't keep harping on about bloody '59 Bursts (whatever they are).

Used 59 bursts are guitars no-one wanted in the early sixties. They were old-fashioned. Strats ruled. Jim Marshall’s amps later changed that. Now the ‘bursts’ are hallowed. Are guitarists fickle or what?

Philly_Q

AlexC said:

Just noticed that the title of this thread sounds suspiciously like a Jethro Tull reference...

I've been singing it to myself all day.

TTony

Neill said:

I honestly think the quality of print journalism has gone downhill across the board in the last twenty years.

In a strange coincidence, earlier today I went back through the BBC archives to read a (football) match review from 2010.

It was far better written than today's equivalent.  Today's is simpler, more repetitive linguistically, less textured and more sound-bytey as if they assume that today's reader can't read a sentence longer than 6 words, with no word having more than 2 syllables.



Which may well be right.

Neill

TTony said:

Neill said:

I honestly think the quality of print journalism has gone downhill across the board in the last twenty years.

In a strange coincidence, earlier today I went back through the BBC archives to read a (football) match review from 2010.

It was far better written than today's equivalent.  Today's is simpler, more repetitive linguistically, less textured and more sound-bytey as if they assume that today's reader can't read a sentence longer than 6 words, with no word having more than 2 syllables.



Which may well be right.

I've been a keen cyclist all my life, almost literally, and for many years I was a highly incompetent amateur racer which meant reading the "Comic" - cycling slang for Cycling Weekly from cover to cover every week.  In the 1980's that took some doing, I still have old issues I look at from time to time and the amount of copy is staggering.  Of course in those days there was no digital photography and DTP was in its infancy, so it was all reading material and it was all high quality, written in the main by proper time served journos. 

As in many walks of life we are being short changed these days because people have either forgotten, or have no experience of, the way things were done in the analogue age.  It is (wrongly) assumed that we have moved forwards because things are now done quicker or cheaper.     

mart

TTony said:

Neill said:

I honestly think the quality of print journalism has gone downhill across the board in the last twenty years.

In a strange coincidence, earlier today I went back through the BBC archives to read a (football) match review from 2010.

It was far better written than today's equivalent.  Today's is simpler, more repetitive linguistically, less textured and more sound-bytey as if they assume that today's reader can't read a sentence longer than 6 words, with no word having more than 2 syllables.



Which may well be right.

Tl, dr.

Funkfingers

TTony said:
 today's reader can't read a sentence longer than 6 words, with no word having more than 2 syllables.

HarrySeven

Having actually just read a large chunk of the issue in question, I have to agree with @impmann - features like the *yawn* Burst job are pretty much just a pile of fawning wank.