Classic Rock Magazine Moan

[Stefan]

Well I guess I'm in the canoe on this one. I like reading 'Classic Rock' I guess if you don't like it, don't read it!

That's right. I'm not reading it. Anymore. Or maybe occasionally....

[Wotty]

Well,Malcolm Dome of "said mag" excelled himself with his careully honed attack on UFO's "Misdemeanor" album,(which is a fave album of mine) which is like....

 

"In 1986,came a true nadir in UFO's history with Misdemeanor,showing a band running on empty,with indifferent tracks and no revelence".Then slating guitarist Atomik Tommy M.claiming his playing didn't get close to matching both Schenker and Paul Chapman.And proceeded to give it 3/10

 

Well,Mr."Chrome"Dome,take another listen you arse-hole.WANKER !!!!!!!!!

[Jez]

Well,Malcolm Dome of "said mag" excelled himself with his careully honed attack on UFO's "Misdemeanor" album,(which is a fave album of mine) which is like....

 

"In 1986,came a true nadir in UFO's history with Misdemeanor,showing a band running on empty,with indifferent tracks and no revelence".Then slating guitarist Atomik Tommy M.claiming his playing didn't get close to matching both Schenker and Paul Chapman.And proceeded to give it 3/10

 

Well,Mr."Chrome"Dome,take another listen you arse-hole.WANKER !!!!!!!!!

 

I can see where Mr. Dome (and alot of others at the time it must be said) is coming from to a certain extent, as this was far beyond the UFO sound of old and not what alot of people wanted them to sound like (i.e Everyone else). It's a good, very competent AOR/MR album, but I think half the problem was that that it saw them definitely trying to fit in with all the other bands of the time, and people didn't want UFO to jump on any bandwagon, just do what they do normally (i.e fucking rock) - just check out the hair and wardrobe for more proof of that. I must also agree that Atomik Tommy doesn't come close to Schenker or Chapman either, so there is total truth in that statement to be honest. I wouldn't slate him, as he is an ok guitarist, but this is Schenker and Chapman we are comparing him to. I happen to really like 'Misdemeanor' as an album, It has some great songs , is well played and produced, but put it up against most of the classic UFO back catologue and it 'Struggles' shall we say and I can understand to a certain extent where some peoples negative views come from, even if I don't share them. Opinions are opinions, but 'Misdemeanor' taken as a lone album is fine but hardly a classic.

[Wotty]

Well,Malcolm Dome of "said mag" excelled himself with his careully honed attack on UFO's "Misdemeanor" album,(which is a fave album of mine) which is like....

 

"In 1986,came a true nadir in UFO's history with Misdemeanor,showing a band running on empty,with indifferent tracks and no revelence".Then slating guitarist Atomik Tommy M.claiming his playing didn't get close to matching both Schenker and Paul Chapman.And proceeded to give it 3/10

 

Well,Mr."Chrome"Dome,take another listen you arse-hole.WANKER !!!!!!!!!

 

I can see where Mr. Dome (and alot of others at the time it must be said) is coming from to a certain extent, as this was far beyond the UFO sound of old and not what alot of people wanted them to sound like (i.e Everyone else). It's a good, very competent AOR/MR album, but I think half the problem was that that it saw them definitely trying to fit in with all the other bands of the time, and people didn't want UFO to jump on any bandwagon, just do what they do normally (i.e fucking rock) - just check out the hair and wardrobe for more proof of that. I must also agree that Atomik Tommy doesn't come close to Schenker or Chapman either, so there is total truth in that statement to be honest. I wouldn't slate him, as he is an ok guitarist, but this is Schenker and Chapman we are comparing him to. I happen to really like 'Misdemeanor' as an album, It has some great songs , is well played and produced, but put it up against most of the classic UFO back catologue and it 'Struggles' shall we say and I can understand to a certain extent where some peoples negative views come from, even if I don't share them. Opinions are opinions, but 'Misdemeanor' taken as a lone album is fine but hardly a classic.

I've a tendancy to agree,in some respects,with the Jezster,but as the sleeve state,it was a case of keeping the UFO flag flying.It was hastily thrown-together line-up,and as Jez stated,it was an album of the time,when interest in UFO was waning.So comparisons to the other guitarists was unjustified,but was always gonna happen.Still,I think it's a fantastic album,and because of Mogg's well-known vocal delivery,it was always gonna be.."It's not the UFO of old"......Criminal !!!!!!!

[Nick C]

Well,Malcolm Dome of "said mag" excelled himself with his careully honed attack on UFO's "Misdemeanor" album,(which is a fave album of mine) which is like....

 

"In 1986,came a true nadir in UFO's history with Misdemeanor,showing a band running on empty,with indifferent tracks and no revelence".Then slating guitarist Atomik Tommy M.claiming his playing didn't get close to matching both Schenker and Paul Chapman.And proceeded to give it 3/10

 

Well,Mr."Chrome"Dome,take another listen you arse-hole.WANKER !!!!!!!!!

 

I can see where Mr. Dome (and alot of others at the time it must be said) is coming from to a certain extent, as this was far beyond the UFO sound of old and not what alot of people wanted them to sound like (i.e Everyone else). It's a good, very competent AOR/MR album, but I think half the problem was that that it saw them definitely trying to fit in with all the other bands of the time, and people didn't want UFO to jump on any bandwagon, just do what they do normally (i.e fucking rock) - just check out the hair and wardrobe for more proof of that. I must also agree that Atomik Tommy doesn't come close to Schenker or Chapman either, so there is total truth in that statement to be honest. I wouldn't slate him, as he is an ok guitarist, but this is Schenker and Chapman we are comparing him to. I happen to really like 'Misdemeanor' as an album, It has some great songs , is well played and produced, but put it up against most of the classic UFO back catologue and it 'Struggles' shall we say and I can understand to a certain extent where some peoples negative views come from, even if I don't share them. Opinions are opinions, but 'Misdemeanor' taken as a lone album is fine but hardly a classic.

I've a tendancy to agree,in some respects,with the Jezster,but as the sleeve state,it was a case of keeping the UFO flag flying.It was hastily thrown-together line-up,and as Jez stated,it was an album of the time,when interest in UFO was waning.So comparisons to the other guitarists was unjustified,but was always gonna happen.Still,I think it's a fantastic album,and because of Mogg's well-known vocal delivery,it was always gonna be.."It's not the UFO of old"......Criminal !!!!!!!

 

I reckoned 7/10 on my HH review of Misdemeanor...and I stand by that!

Actually I went to see them on this tour and Atomik Tommy M was excellent. Twas a good gig but odd without Way.

 

I reckon 1.5 out of 10 for Classic Rock...and I stand by that too. Not bought it now for aaaages!

[edwithmj]

There is no such thing as a Sleaze Glam magazine or I would subscribe. I have no reason to buy any music mags currently out there. I don't need a know nothing telling me my music is crap and that I should love what they tell me to. Every time I read a mag it makes me want to break someones face.

 

Agreed.

I have no use for music magazines.

[Wotty]

But,at least in their 100 great guitarists list they included............

 

BILL NELSON !!!!!!!!

[Jez]

But,at least in their 100 great guitarists list they included............

 

BILL NELSON !!!!!!!!

 

 

But no Lukather = JOKE

[Nick C]

BUMP

 

Not a moan this time, just noticed the Heavy Harmonies boards got a name chack in the 3rd AOR issue with regards the detective work done in bringing the history of the release to light and prompting it's official release.

[Jez]

BUMP

 

Not a moan this time, just noticed the Heavy Harmonies boards got a name chack in the 3rd AOR issue with regards the detective work done in bringing the history of the release to light and prompting it's official release.

 

 

Yep - saw that aswell. The AOR issues are turning out to be really good I think.

[Nick C]

BUMP

 

Not a moan this time, just noticed the Heavy Harmonies boards got a name chack in the 3rd AOR issue with regards the detective work done in bringing the history of the release to light and prompting it's official release.

 

 

Yep - saw that aswell. The AOR issues are turning out to be really good I think.

Yeah! They are good....but what are you doing reading??? You should be sending me visitors or working in the police station!!!! Nice Baps and Nibble my Sausage made me laff!

[Captain Howdy]

I actually gave up on Classic Rock years ago.

In its early days it lived up to its name, covering bands from the 70s and 80s etc, and while it did harp on too much about how great the "legend" bands were like Queen and Zepp etc, it was usually a good read because it got some nice articles about 80s bands like Crue and GNR etc.

I gave up on it when it started featuring articles and reviews on modern bands who have fuck all to do with classic rock.

If I wanted to read about new modern sounding bands, I wouldnt be buying an album called CLASSIC ROCK!

 

From what I was told by people who know people, the magazines original conception was sposed to be a lot more of a mixed bag of 70s and 80s rock genres, but when some other people got involved due to needing financial backing, they took over and turned it into a "we love the 70s and especially Zepp" magazine.

 

Also, going back to an early mention in this thread of a certain Mr Dome, well I lost any respect I had for him when he reviewed a Poison CD (probably Hollyweird) for Classic Rock.

I have no problem with the fact he disliked the album, even though I do really like it, its the fact that he said how shit Poison were and how shit he had always thought they were. What pissed me off with that was that firstly why review an album by a band you hate as you are only ever gonna give it a negative review, but then I just happened to pick up an old Kerrang yearbook that I still have from 86 or 87 and there is a review by the same Mr Dome positively sucking Poison's cocks in a review of their debut album, and saying how great the band are.

I can fully accept a person not liking a band, but pretending you never liked a band because its not hip is a fucking joke.

But then again, this is the guy that when a classic rock band like Whitesnake becomes available to interview for TotalRock, instead of sending one of his long serving DJs who specalises in the sort of music they play, he sends someone who has been with the station for five minutes and wouldnt play Whitesnake on their show because they usually play some shitty goth or modern nu metal shit.

 

Going back to the magazine though, I think that the name is their biggest problem. By calling themselves Classic Rock, they pidgeonhole themselves.

With the likes of Kerrang, Raw and Metal Hammer back in the good old days, they worked because they covered all bases, where as nobody is going to pick up a mag called Classic Rock unless they want classic rock.

Of course, the less said about what happened to Kerrap and Raw, the better.

[Nick C]

Hahaha! Just going through it again....page 104...I thought the Electric Boys had recruited Jack Dee for drum duties!

[Big D]

I have mixed feelings about Classic Rock. I like the articles-I can guarantee learning something I didn't know - but they do seem to be edging ever closer towards being "Q" and the bands on the CDs are either 70s rock wannabes or desperately want to be the next Guns n Roses.

The AOR specials are worth a read, mind.

[Nick C]

Gaspo!

I bought last months issue with the useless Kings of Chaos on the cover to read on hol (hmmm...Kings of Banality .... don't get me started on that waste of time & energy...on the cover as well!!!). It was in the bin after well under an hour, I kept the CD so I didn't feel quite as burned!

 

I was wary about buying this when I saw it and had a quick look through - but this months is a stellar issue with great pieces on the James Gang (shock! Maybe people will now know who they are when I wear my JG shirt!), Bob Seeger, J Geils Band, Brownsville Station, Creedence and even...The Ozarks to name a few and for the real obsucrists Pacific Gas & Electric.

As comic book guy may say "Best issue Ever!" I'm still reading it after 3 days of dipping in!

 

So I moan about it but when they get it right then well ... hats off in this case!

[manicego]

I haven't been able to find the AOR issues for about a year now ... sucks. The Prog issues are out in full force every time, tho8gh, which blows as I can't stand prog music.

 

The Kings of Chaos issue was pretty good, yeah. And, to be honest, I had no idea who Kings of Chaos are. I was wondering why those guys from different bands were on the cover together ... after reading the feature, who cares??

 

The thing that pisses me off every issue is that I pop the CD in hoping to discover SOMETHING worthwhile and 99% of the time just finding utter crap.

 

I've actually been reading through a bunch of old Kerrang's from 83 - 87 or so lately (found them in one of my boxes). The writing was "unique" to say the least but it was also a lot of fun. Reading old gig and album reviews that makes me wanna go pull out those albums (or find them on YouTube in full) is kinda cool. The ads were a lot more creative back then, also.

[Nick C]

There's a new AOR issue out in the UK this September (18th??) apparently so keep you're eye out mate...hope it turns up over there (U.S.?).

 

I agree with the old Kerrang viewpoint....the old magazines had that feel of "put together by people who love the music". The layout wasn't perfect, but the passion was in there. Most magazines these days seem to be 50% adverts .... same bland layout, boring writing, it all seems so cozy, no fun, no proper critique as such just writers fawning over bands. Seems most writers are too scared to express their opinion .... either that or they assign the writer to the bands they love so you don't get an objective viewpoint...but at the same time it's no use assigning a writer to do a feature on a band they hate for the same reason.

Like a lot of music theses days - writing has become homogenised and dumbed down...or the same old questions ... I like Aerosmith but I swear nearly every article I read still refers to their late 80's drug clean up act....for fuck sake change the record.......even on TV when on Johnathan Ross show (hardly the most intelligent of interviewers though - everyone he has on he bleeds (in)sincerity "I love you're music/film/restaurant/colostomy bag/ rectal scan" wotacunt......duh!)...he was still referring to the clean up days.....Joe Perry wasn't impressed either it seemed. So back to magazines I mean the Kings of Chaos issue of Classic Rock was a fuckin' joke.....a bunch of old twats (like myself) playing nothing new, doing nothing new, doing nothing interesting...if you're doing it for fun then go and play your local pub or tennis club for peanuts rather than arenas for shit loads of CASH...oh yeah...NOW I GET IT!...if this is rock then no wonder I'm retracing the stuff I missed out on in the 70's...it rocked, was sexy, was loud, was fun, CHEST BEATING MAYHEM, not hackneyed one eye on the money accountant music ....Kings of Chaos is Coca Cola rock...and Classic Rock will probably get the ad revenue from it.

Most writers I feel are hacks afraid to dis the music they love in case they fall out of favour with the bands they like.

 

David Frost died this weekend....R.I.P.

[Gibbo]

 

I really don't like this magazine much. It's entirely full of bloody adverts, & it also completely refuses to accept that it is no longer 1978. A reviewer is supposed to have an appreciation for the different genres & be able to compare the sound of a band to other similar bands, to help those who might like to buy the product. They should also be able to objectively review material based upon it's merit. The writers are so utterly unhelpful for those wanting to understand what a band sounds like...

 

I stick to Metal Hammer...

You have to remember that it's ex-Kerrang writers.

 

For those of you unfamiliar with Kerrang, it used to be a hard rock & heavy metal magazine

 

 

Ah, yes - THOSE were the days! I still remember their 'controversial' Prince cover ... man, I'm old!

[Gibbo]

I stopped reading Classic Rock some time ago ... I stick with the copies of whatever magazines JamesEagle chooses to send my way

 

That said, if anyone on here can get to Pitsea market on a Saturday, they have a stall that stocks magazines ... not current issues, obviously ... but I've picked up Classic Rock's Alice Cooper, Jethro Tull, Blondie and Motorhead Fan-Packs there (magazine, plus full CD, plus other bits) for £2 apiece (about £12 or £13 less than the cover price.) I've also grabbed a couple of AOR and Prog 'specials' for the same price

[Jez]

I gave up with CR last year, as I found myself just flicking through it and not actually reading much of it. I still get the AOR specials and some of the fan packs that come out, but that's about it.

[manicego]

Picked up the latest issue of Metal hammer (we're on the Avenged Sevenfold cover) and to be honest, there wasn't one single feature that interested me. I like Avenged but it's not really a band I want to read about ... I did finally read a feature about some black metal guy from Iran, which was interesting enough.. Nah, it really wasn't ...

[heaven&hell]

I almost bought the new issue of CR yesterday with the American Rock feature but I just couldn't do it. I let my subscription go and haven't missed it much., I need to get that Fireworks mag just wish you could get that one in the US on newstands.

[Captain Howdy]

I think the difference between Classic Rock and Kerrang during its heyday is the fact that Classic Rock comes across as stiff and stuffy. Professionally written articles and layouts etc, whereas classic Kerrang was kind of a reflection of the music it represented. It was bright, brash, in your face and came across as a magazine made by fans who just happened to be journalists. It was more relaxed, less formal.

There were in jokes. Bands could do interviews that were totally not serious. And even the letters pages were fans saying whatever they liked instead of pontificating or kissing arse (hell I remember them printing my letter about what a miserable bastard Richie Kotzen was at the Poison signing session at Tower Records, London).

 

I think with the state the music industry is in these days, it would be impossible to capture that spirit in a magazine format that would sell to the masses. Kerrang really was a product of its time, and a true case of lightning in a bottle.

[manicego]

I think the difference between Classic Rock and Kerrang during its heyday is the fact that Classic Rock comes across as stiff and stuffy. Professionally written articles and layouts etc, whereas classic Kerrang was kind of a reflection of the music it represented. It was bright, brash, in your face and came across as a magazine made by fans who just happened to be journalists. It was more relaxed, less formal.

There were in jokes. Bands could do interviews that were totally not serious. And even the letters pages were fans saying whatever they liked instead of pontificating or kissing arse (hell I remember them printing my letter about what a miserable bastard Richie Kotzen was at the Poison signing session at Tower Records, London).

 

I think with the state the music industry is in these days, it would be impossible to capture that spirit in a magazine format that would sell to the masses. Kerrang really was a product of its time, and a true case of lightning in a bottle.

 

Absolutely. I was just reading through another Kerrang from 82 or 83 and, I'll have to go back and see who the feature was about, but they were hardly mentioned at all (just basically a three paragraph mini interview over a two page spread) and the story was still fascinating. Complete entertainment all around.

[JamesEagle]

I think the difference between Classic Rock and Kerrang during its heyday is the fact that Classic Rock comes across as stiff and stuffy. Professionally written articles and layouts etc, whereas classic Kerrang was kind of a reflection of the music it represented. It was bright, brash, in your face and came across as a magazine made by fans who just happened to be journalists. It was more relaxed, less formal.

There were in jokes. Bands could do interviews that were totally not serious. And even the letters pages were fans saying whatever they liked instead of pontificating or kissing arse (hell I remember them printing my letter about what a miserable bastard Richie Kotzen was at the Poison signing session at Tower Records, London).

 

I think with the state the music industry is in these days, it would be impossible to capture that spirit in a magazine format that would sell to the masses. Kerrang really was a product of its time, and a true case of lightning in a bottle.

 

Interesting view. Sounds like a challenge (to someone) and you're probably right. Until recently, I was an avid reader of Terrorizer and still rate it as the best metal publication, but they seem to have fewer reviews in there these days and the articles are a bit samey, so I only buy it when there are bands featured that I really like.

 

It does lead me to wonder what a magazine could do to make me (for example) want to read it. I find these days that I enjoy the 'fun' articles, such as bands scoring points for guessing what tracks are from brief samples, naming their ideal mixtape, etc, far more entertaining than the usual interviews about the latest album. They all end being the same, i.e. "this is our best album yet", "we really feel we've matured as a band", blah blah blah. Maybe getting band members playing games, answering 'silly' questions, etc is the way to go...