Last week, a colleague at work left me a couple of back issues of Mojo and Uncut – “I’m done with these – you may be interested”.
One time, I used to read both regularly, I even briefly took out a subscription with Mojo. In pre-Mojo days I would buy Q every week.
Way before that (in the late 1970s to be precise) I would devour NME every week and was grateful for articles explaining how bands like MC5, The Doors, The Stooges and The Velvet Underground had paved the way for the ‘overnight sensation’ of Punk rock.
So what is it about all these titles that I now find so depressing.
Here are some of the main reasons:
- They unearth meaningless trivia about rock ‘icons’ and ‘classic’ albums . Pink Floyd, The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, Bob Dylan, Nirvana, REM etc. etc.
- High profile imitators like The Libertines or Oasis are routinely treated as innovators and elevated to ‘classic band’ status.
- They run articles about rock history as if they were writing exam pass notes.
- They run retrospective articles with celebrity endorsements – like we need to know which ‘stars’ are into a band to make us feel we are cool.
- They make endless lists of best and/or life changing albums.
- They constantly reminisce about ‘memorable’ gigs from a time when many of their readers were still in nappies (e.g. Uncut September issue 2010 : Alexander Palace 1964, Isle of Wight Festival 1970, Rick Wakeman’s King Arthur on Ice 1975)
- They run more features on artists who are dead or dying than those who are alive and kicking. (e.g. Mojo March issue 2010 : in-depth pieces on Charlotte Gainsbourg, Sly Stone, Dr Feelgood Captain Beefheart and Syd Barrett and none on current performers).
