Worst Music Media Publication

E

Emelia D

New member
I don't know if there is a thread on this yet, but there should be.

What, in your opinion, is the WORST music media publication? Not in terms of the layout/budget, but in terms of quality/bias of reviews. What ranks the highest on your shitlist? (It could range from newsmagazines to an online archives to whatever other music media you read.)
 
Is there really much of a difference between music magazines? I've read a fair amount of them over the years and, outside of some slight tone differences, there doesn't seem to be a more homogenous industry than music journalism. There almost seems to be a formally approved style that music magazines (counting e-zines, like Pitchfork) adhere to and writers for them adhere to.

I found them (and still find Pitchfork) somewhat useful just as information as to what's been newly released outside the mainstream. But there's precious little insight. Their implicit goal seems to be to try and foster an elitist culture and language for their readers to feel a part of. Nothing more, nothing less. At base, it's really not to do with music, though music is certainly the theme. It's about feeling part of an exclusive society.

Music magazine culture is to being a music fan as organized religion is to being spiritual. You can be into music or spirituality through your own exploration...the organized culture is for feeling a part of a society (with the attendant us-vs-them mentality).
 
Music journalism has gone into the toilet over the past decade.

I just don't see in any publication where the next Caitlyn Moran , Taylor Parkes or Danny Kelly is going to come from.

Music publications have always had questionable editorial policy due to the nature of the industry , but a good journalist made them much more readable.
 
Easy option but the NME by a mile.

Even when I was it's target demographic (I.E. teenage indie kid) I could feel my brain cells melting whenever I read it.

Just a bunch of clueless morons more interested in being cool than finding any good music.
 
Rolling Stone is the worst in my opinion. All of the major releases they review are always medicore until the album gets big, then they change their tone.

They've also been doing really sh!tty articles and cover stories in the recent years, such as a nameless amount of Jonas Brothers articles and things like "Rock Band vs. Guitar Hero."
 
That's a really good point there. I think a lot of those dreaded "top 100" lists are meant to reassure people that they don't need to look past their already existing Beatles collections for music.
 
I agree. I have three main problems with Rolling Stone (oo, my first time using a nurabered list):
  1. They only seem to cover teenybopper crap and new music by classic rock dinosaurs. Two things I don't give a shit about.
  2. I don't like reading a music magazine where I feel like I know more about music than the people writing the articles.
  3. Sort of off topic, but their movie reviews suck. They give every fucking movie a good review. I appreciate the positive attitude and everything but this give me zero frame of reference for whether or not I might enjoy the movie.
 
I don't even know if their still in print but Circus and Hit Parader was nothing more than a bunch of posters with fan boi reviews written around them.
 
Back
Top