I think one of the most overlooked aspects of what the music press did, particularly in the heavy end of the spectrum, was act as a foundational part of the community. That's just gone now - social media might seem to be a replacement at a surface level, but it is insubstantial to the point of uselessness when it comes down to forging an *actual* community.
Music magazines might pretend that they're about reviews and features and establishing the canon of what is good and what is bad within their music scene. But to me when I am the audience for that publication, it was about establishing a shared thread of understanding about how that scene unfolds. That isn't to say that everyone who reads a magazine has the same groupthink about how good or bad a record or a band is, but the kind of person who bought Kerrang! versus the kind of person who bought Metal Hammer versus the kind of person who bought Decibel were lines in cultural sand that helped people understand themselves in relation to the art that they consumed.
If you look at Kerrang! now, it's all about the exclusive merch drops (whatever you got to do to pay those bills, I guess). I find it a bit comical that they will describe an online feature as a "cover story" because they think giving it the veneer of a printed article gives an article some kind of legitimacy, when in fact it just underlines how little faith they have in the writing itself to be valuable regardless if it is on a screen instead of a page.
I guess this is a very long winded way of saying, having been on the inside of several print publications and experienced the pain of what happens when ad sales requirements bristle against critical words, I don't lament the passing of mags so much as I lament their absence as a lighthouse in establishing a community.
I think one of the most overlooked aspects of what the music press did, particularly in the heavy end of the spectrum, was act as a foundational part of the community. That's just gone now - social media might seem to be a replacement at a surface level, but it is insubstantial to the point of uselessness when it comes down to forging an *actual* community.
Music magazines might pretend that they're about reviews and features and establishing the canon of what is good and what is bad within their music scene. But to me when I am the audience for that publication, it was about establishing a shared thread of understanding about how that scene unfolds. That isn't to say that everyone who reads a magazine has the same groupthink about how good or bad a record or a band is, but the kind of person who bought Kerrang! versus the kind of person who bought Metal Hammer versus the kind of person who bought Decibel were lines in cultural sand that helped people understand themselves in relation to the art that they consumed.
If you look at Kerrang! now, it's all about the exclusive merch drops (whatever you got to do to pay those bills, I guess). I find it a bit comical that they will describe an online feature as a "cover story" because they think giving it the veneer of a printed article gives an article some kind of legitimacy, when in fact it just underlines how little faith they have in the writing itself to be valuable regardless if it is on a screen instead of a page.
I guess this is a very long winded way of saying, having been on the inside of several print publications and experienced the pain of what happens when ad sales requirements bristle against critical words, I don't lament the passing of mags so much as I lament their absence as a lighthouse in establishing a community.