Professional Documents
Culture Documents
ARTICLE
j Eamonn Forde
University of Westminster
ABSTRACT
The popular music press in the UK has undergone a number of important changes
since the mid-1990s. These changes are due to a variety of factors including the
emergence and proliferation of high-production glossy niched monthly titles, the frag-
mentation and over-saturation of the market for consumer music titles, the bureau-
cratic restructuring of music magazines, the occupational re-evaluation of the music
journalism profession and an increasingly PR-led industry climate. What all this has
meant is that the space devoted to, and the access required for, ‘immersion reporting’
– the New Journalism touchstone which informed the music press through the 1970s
and 1980s – has been greatly reduced, resulting in a refocusing of resources and the
once autonomous ‘personality writer’ being superseded by a single branded magazine
identity. The article draws on interviews with music journalists, editors, editors-in-chief
and press officers as well as participant observation in music magazines, all conducted
as part of the author’s PhD research at the University of Westminster.
KEY WORDS j arts criticism j consumer magazines j journalism j magazine
Introduction*
The role and function of popular music journalism has been much overlooked
in both media studies and popular music studies and its rise, since the late-
1960s, as a cultural and journalistic form has been traced by academics only
elliptically. The purpose of this article is to consider the professional and
organizational factors behind the form’s evolution and eventual decline in the
1990s, locating how the professional and stylistic freedom afforded New
Journalism-influenced writers in the 1970s and 1980s has been overturned in
the late-1990s by dramatic and complex shifts in working and employment
24 Journalism 2(1)
Unusually for the music press at the time, they seemed to have a really vivid
point of view and they were very funny about what they didn’t like and they
could be very, very critical . . . They were very influential figures at the time
because they were almost the first rock writers-as-personalities over here which
they picked up from Bangs. And put a lot of themselves into the pieces that
they wrote. Which is what I tried to do. I wanted to put myself in the front-line.
To be a direct line of communication with the reader and say ‘This is what
it was like’ and . . . write in an almost kind of documentary style. (Interview,
November 1998)
market share, carving the readership into ever-more specific niches, while
wider cultural changes have seen rock and pop become key to the agendas of
broadsheet and tabloid newspapers (Rimmer, 1985; Johnson, 1998; MacArthur,
1999). The traditional music press no longer has a monopoly on the subject.
For the popular music press, the process of increased competition that pro-
pelled the fragmentation of the market can be historically traced to the period
1986–97, book-ended symbolically by the establishment, respectively, of Q
and Ministry. This period, in publishing terms, saw the rise in market import-
ance of Emap Metro,5 a publishing wing of the Emap organization. Emap
Metro not only brought much greater competition into the market, but also
fundamentally reshaped the music magazine publishing arena and oriented it
towards glossy, high-production, niche titles. Its two earliest successes were the
fortnightly pop title Smash Hits (1979) and the monthly adult rock title Q
(1986), both of which are in the top three selling music titles (along with Top
of the Pops) in 2000 with sales of 250,388 and 196,099 respectively (McGeever,
2000: 3).
It is the publishing in late-1997 of Ministry and the speed with which it
asserted its market position (by mid-1999 becoming the UK’s biggest selling
dance title and the fifth biggest selling music title) which most symbolizes the
direction in which the publishing market has moved since the mid-1980s.
Ministry was launched as part of the Ministry of Sound’s organizational rise
and move into global branding opportunities and, as a magazine, it taps into
wider cultural and lifestyle publishing trends in a post-’lads’ mag’ market. Its
monthly sales in mid-1999 were 80,476, a 31.1 percent year-on-year sales rise
that made it almost unique in a market where the majority of consumer music
titles recorded slides (Media Week, 20 August 1999: 30).
The consumer music titles market is currently characterized by a virtual
publishing duopoly. In 2000, Emap Performance owned six of the top 12
selling consumer music titles6 while IPC owned four.7 The BBC’s Top of the Pops
has, by far, dominated monthly sales in recent years selling 389,235 in 2000
(McGeever, 2000: 3). Intense title rivalry cuts alongside intense publisher
rivalry, characterizing the current dynamic with smaller publishing companies
such as DMC (publishers of 7), Nexus (DJ) and Future (Metal Hammer) operat-
ing with a limited number of titles within particular niche market areas. These
smaller companies do not have the financial resources to compete on the same
level as IPC or Emap with the set-up and launch costs of a new title in the
current market estimated at around £1 million (Gibson, 1999). Indeed, as
Schiller (1989) notes, high-level entry costs work as a constraint against small
companies entering the market and competing on a level playing field. Despite
the dominance, however, of the big players, there remains a degree of scope for
smaller publishing organizations to operate, but often this is in the role of
Forde From polyglottism to branding 27
founded on the premise that readers were deserting the music press because they
were alienated by the ‘vicious journalism’ and ‘highbrow pretensions’ that
especially characterised the NME of the early eighties. Q’s success . . . had the
effect of lowering, if not the tone, then the temperature of music journalism
throughout the field. Q’s ‘objectivity’, its non-partisan approach and avoidance
of vehemence, has become the norm, resulting in the virtual extinction of the
confrontation interview and critic-as-star ‘self-indulgence’.
indicating long-term IPC plans to extend this brand name to TV10 and radio
shows (alongside the paper’s website) to ensure that ‘the brand “NME” will
30 Journalism 2(1)
avoid sub-optimisation’ (Randall, 1997: 138). The titles must be arranged and
managed carefully within the current publishing market. Such ‘category man-
agement’ (Randall, 1997: 139) involves the developing of a strategy for the
category as a whole and not for each of the individual title brands separately.
Therefore, to take an example, IPC’s overall strategy for their ‘Music and Sport’
titles is considerably more important in company and market terms than their
strategy for any individual music title which exists within that portfolio. The
first duty of each magazine’s branded identity is to contribute to and support
the branded identity of the portfolio of which it is but one part.
most of the people in all . . . [our] . . . offices are subs, designers or section editors
who are responsible for commissioning stuff, getting it in, processing it, putting
it through. The number of people who are simply paid to sit and write is very
small. That’s just a general trend in the industry and certainly we’ve been part of
that. (Interview, March 1999)
It’s not a particularly well-paid job and it’s paid by the print that appears on the
page rather than the time you put in; so the emphasis, if you want to pay your
rent, is to get as much into the paper as quickly as you can. So that’s fairly
detrimental to a well-researched, well-rounded piece. (Interview, December 1998)
We felt [before the redesign] it was really too close to NME. That didn’t matter
when the scene was healthy. In fact it worked perfectly well for us. But as the
scene became less healthy and there was less advertising about people began to
wonder why we were publishing two titles which essentially had the same agenda
– i.e. indie rock. (Interview, March 1999)
The editor of MM for this market and editorial repositioning, Mark Sutherland,
occupationally sidelined and removed the polyglottic writers from the paper
and his editorial shift in the title’s direction was a cause for internal political
schisms. Several staff members and contributors left in protest at his appoint-
ment, while others followed Allan Jones to the newly launched Uncut. Several
MM freelancers argued their commissioned work dried up because Sutherland
informed them that their polyglottic ideology and professional approach were
‘old school MM’ and unsuited to the title’s redirection. Sutherland recruited
several younger writers and explicitly withheld reviews and features from
those writers inherited from Allan Jones’ editorship who refused to com-
promise their stylistic approach, meaning they had to look to other titles or
careers to make a basic living. A former MM section editor said of the changes
in the paper and the decline of polyglottism and writer autonomy (and the
quality of writing and analysis he felt came with it):
Well, Melody Maker is like a joke now. It’s horrible . . . Now they’re talking down
at people. It’s funny . . . when I was 11 or 12, I was reading Ian MacDonald, this
really dense, verbose . . . work. That’s what you do when you’re 12. You don’t
want to read the fucking Dandy when you’re 12 . . . So for them to put out a
comic with [in faux-excited voice] ‘Wow! Kids! Oh Natalie [Imbruglia]! She’s
sexy!’ That’s really wrong . . . You don’t want someone talking down at you . . .
You want something intelligent, even intellectual I think. (Interview, February
1999)
Forde From polyglottism to branding 35
Sutherland stated that he removed the polyglottic writers from the paper – and
decreased the length of features and reviews – because ‘they were woefully
self-indulgent, they had no idea what a deadline was and wrote far more for
themselves than for the readers’ (quoted in Addicott, 1999b: 7). Confusingly,
however, each week in the paper he runs a photograph and a short biography
of MM staff and contributors as a point of reader identification, despite the fact
that such explicit personalization of writers did not take place under Jones.
Sutherland effectively removed the personality from the journalism and
enforced an increasingly restrictive monoglottic house-style while still seeking
the reader-identification and empathy that came with such writing. The
changeover of freelancers took place over several months as new (increasingly
monoglottic) writers were fore-fronted to the professional and fiscal frustra-
tion of the more established polyglottic writers. Everett True had been acting
editor before Sutherland became editor (being led to believe by IPC executives
that he would become editor) and the appointments he made during his brief
tenure were overturned immediately by Sutherland who insisted that staff
members reapply for the positions they were already occupying, causing
considerable friction within the title. Few polyglottic freelancers remained
more than a few months after Sutherland’s appointment (citing extreme
professional and social incompatibility with the new editor as their reasons for
leaving) and those who remained tailored their copy to such an extent as to be
– as one staff member said of True’s abandoning of his confrontational and
vitriolic writing style – ‘almost unrecognizable’.
In sharp contrast to Sutherland’s agenda, Allan Jones stated that during
the majority of his editorship at MM (1984 until 1997) he did not encourage or
attempt to enforce a rigid and homogenizing house-style, implying that there
was not the same corporate newsroom hierarchy at the paper which is now
increasingly sidelining the opinions of freelancers. With a plethora of voices
discussing music and its inherent polysemic characteristics: ‘there’s not going
to be a consensus. So I thought we should basically build that in as part of
our appeal. This cacophony of voices all wanting to be heard’ (interview,
November 1998). However, he argues that ‘there aren’t those personality
writers that there were even just a few years ago. Perhaps [Taylor] Parkes
being one of the last.’ Parkes clearly wrote from a NJ-influenced perspective
and took pride in the fact that his writing was an obvious point of reader-
identification:
It’s great when you provoke people to feel emotional, whether they really like
what you’ve said or want to kill you as a result. It takes a lot of effort to write and
post a letter to a stranger. If you can blur the boundaries between journalism and
creative writing to the point that you are actually affecting someone, then that’s
something to be proud of. (Quoted in Handley, 1996: 14)
36 Journalism 2(1)
Linking into this, David Stubbs (an Uncut and NME contributor and a
former MM staff writer) says of his contemporary, Simon Reynolds, during this
era: ‘He was writing, unapologetically, as if he was addressing a seminar of post-
graduates and didn’t see any reason to do otherwise. These days there would
be a pressure to adjust according to the market’ (interview, November 1998).
Reynolds is now a contributor to The Wire and its editor, Tony Herrington, says
of his severing of ties with MM when Mark Sutherland became editor: ‘He
refuses to have anything to do with it because he knows that if he writes
anything for them, it’ll either be hacked to death, to turn it into a Melody
Maker piece, or it’ll just be spiked’. Former MM freelancers suggested that their
review copy was substantially re-edited to fit the conservative parameters of
the title’s new house style and this was something they were powerless to
oppose (telephone interview, February 1999).
In a prescient discussion of music journalism’s stylistic evolution and
subsequent monoglottic decline, Parkes (1994) raised a number of important
points in an article written for MM as a reaction to a reader’s letter which
criticized the paper for not producing writers of the calibre of Morley, Bangs or
Kent. Parkes’ central thesis was that there was a clear need for music journalists
to break from (and not be constrained by) the legacy of these writers, but that
an encroaching cultural apathy (detectable in writers, artists and readers) was
pushing the music press away from a position as a polyglottic forum where
ideas and concepts could be debated and worked through by writers who had
distinct and unique writing styles, views and aesthetics. He neatly sums up the
tensions that exist between those writers who wished to build on what the NJ
template proffered (rather than surrendering to it) and market pragmatism and
conservatism which pushes them towards title branding:
Look at it this way: a couple of years back, ‘rock writing’ underwent a contraction
so immense that the entire music press (and ultimately, indirectly, the way the
music we write about is perceived and consumed) had to change shape to
accommodate it. Because nobody was trying for anything much anymore, we all
had to assume that nobody wanted them to; these days (so we’re constantly
assured), no one’s interested in theory, no one’s bothered about ideas – basically,
no one cares what we think. Why should they? It’s only rock ‘n’ roll, boys.
Personally, I can’t agree – but then, fuck, I’m a music critic. I don’t have to buy
the bloody paper. (Parkes, 1994: 46)
As music titles have multiplied and the publishing market has further frag-
mented, the press officer (as a buffer zone) has become increasingly central in
Forde From polyglottism to branding 37
the adjudicating of journalistic access to artists: the end result has been that
access has exponentially decreased as it has become increasingly more com-
plex and protracted12 to secure. Access is spread much thinner (and has to be
negotiated between press officers and features editors much more) as yet more
titles have entered the market and the wider print media encroach on the
music press’ beat. Press officers quantitatively and qualitatively gatekeep
access to their artists and music journalists are now organizationally and
occupationally distanced from their subjects. NJ writers held the belief that
‘personal involvement and immersion were indispensable to an authentic,
full-blooded account of experience’ (Pauly, 1990: 114). They argued for a need
to be directly connected to the people they wrote about and then to be able
to articulate the nature of this connection to their readers (to experience
vicariously), but such connection is increasingly being subjected to a com-
plex nexus of organizational gatekeeping by ‘career publicists’ (De Rogatis,
2000: 163).
During participant observation (February 1999) at Uncut, Paul Lester (the
music features editor) was negotiating access with Suede’s press officer for an
18-page cover feature on the band (to be published in the May 1999 edition of
the magazine) designed to synchronize with the release of their album, Head
Music. The access he was trying to secure was for Simon Price, an Uncut
contributor who had known the band professionally for seven years and had
been one of their earliest champions. In the end, access for two days (as a face-
to-face interview) was agreed upon and this was considered – in the late-1990s
climate – somewhat exceptional. Duff Battye, press officer at Word of Mouth
(an in-house press division of BMG), echoes this point about the erosion of
‘immersion reporting’ noting that for the Puff Daddy campaign (for the Forever
album) in 1999 ‘journalists would be lucky to get 35–40 minutes’. He states
that The Face was key to the overall Puff Daddy campaign and the access their
writer was granted amounted to spending a day and evening with him in the
States, then following his entourage when he came to London, and finally a
40 minute face-to-face interview. This was supplemented with a photo shoot
in Paris (a European exclusive). ‘But that’s an exceptional case. They had an
amazing amount of access’ (interview, October 1999).
NME editor, Steve Sutherland, neatly summarizes the changing occupa-
tional and organizational conditions and how this works against polyglottic
journalism when he says:
At the moment I don’t think we’re in an era which encourages celebrity writing.
I think people have been discouraged from the self-indulgence that it actually
requires to be a great writer . . . Writers aren’t encouraged . . . to stick their necks
above the parapet. You get one-offs . . . I think it’s a more difficult time to stand
out than it was before. Because I think that these people that we hold dear like
38 Journalism 2(1)
Nick Kent and all that – there weren’t very many people writing in those days so
it was easier to be a star. And also you don’t have the access you used to do. You
can’t go on the road for a week with Led Zeppelin anymore. You can’t go on the
road for a week with any fucker any more. You’re given half an hour and ten
minutes of that is for the photos. So it’s tough. You don’t get the access.
(Interview, December 1998)
Conclusion
While polyglottism and writer autonomy have clearly subsided within the
mainstream music press, it would be erroneous to suggest that they have
evanesced completely and there does remain scope for such a stylistic and
ideological approach at the margins of the publishing sector. The Wire (along
Forde From polyglottism to branding 39
with the Irish music paper, Hot Press) is one of the few remaining music titles
that will occasionally run the name of senior contributors on the cover. The
magazine, due to its pursuit of a left-field musical agenda, believes that it is not
subject to the same commercial pressure that mainstream music titles are. The
magazine’s editor, Tony Herrington, argues that a branded monoglottism in
music journalism is the result of publishers’ bureaucratic readjustments and
concessions to an over-saturated and highly competitive mainstream market-
place. Of The Wire’s polyglottic agenda and identity he says:
Certain writers carry a reputation before them . . . I mean we put David Toop’s
name on the cover . . . Because one of the things we think people read The Wire
for is the quality of the writing. I hope. So that is an issue for us. Whereas, I think,
for other magazines it’s not important. The issues are getting scoops. Getting
exclusives . . . Because now it’s not enough to sell a piece on the journalist itself.
You need to sell it in the most spectacular way you can. Getting the big stories
with the big names. (Interview, November 1998)
Music365 and former NME and Q editor) notes, the music press no longer
attracts polyglottic writers and its importance as a bridging career into the
wider media has declined dramatically (in Reeves, 1999), thereby resulting in
a never-changing, self-perpetuating monoglottism.
The systematic bureaucratic restructuring of the music press in the light
of increasing market ambiguity has brought about an occupational imbal-
ance between freelance gatherers and processors, the former increasingly de-
democratized, and the latter increasingly central in the promulgation of a rigid
and conservative (corporate) house-style set by executives. Indeed, as Rivers
(1973: 533) notes, the ‘effort to appeal to masses of readers causes many
publications to express fewer editorial attitudes or none at all for fear of
offending readers’. This is undoubtedly true of the popular music press where
it is becoming progressively harder to distinguish the voice of the individual
from the voice of the magazine: in effect the bureaucratic transmutation from
idiosyncratic polyglottism to branded monoglottism.
Notes
* As this article was going to press, it was announced by Emap that Select would cease
publication in December 2000 (Harding, 2000). Shortly after this, IPC announced that
Melody Maker would be absorbed into the NME ‘Superbrand’ and would no longer exist
as a stand-alone publication (Harris, 2000). The closure of both titles was attributed to
a decline in the overall alternative music market.
9 The one exception here is the post of news editor where industry-recognized
training is a prerequisite.
10 NMETV (a weekly half-hour magazine show) began a trial eight-week run on
Bravo on 3 November 2000.
11 Sutherland was made ‘NME brand director’ in February 2000 (Addicott, 2000a)
when Ben Knowles replaced him as editor with the explicit task of turning
around falling sales (Addicott, 2000b).
12 One broadsheet journalist stated that it took over 10 months of concerted
negotiation on their part to confirm an interview with a UK solo artist to discuss
his drug problem.
References
Addicott, R. (1999a) ‘Editor Blames Mixmag Fall on Lost Covermounts’, Press Gazette
19 February: 7.
Addicott, R. (1999b) ‘Melody Maker Unveils New Magazine Format’, Press Gazette 22
October: 7.
Addicott, R. (2000a) ‘Flagging NME Appoints its Youngest Editor’, Press Gazette 25
February: 1.
Addicott, R. (2000b) ‘Face of the NME’, Press Gazette 14 April: 15.
Addicott, R. (2000c) ‘Pemberton Axed from Q in Shock “Scapegoat” Sacking’, Press
Gazette 4 August: 1.
Addicott, R. (2000d) ‘Emap to Revamp Music Sites’, Press Gazette 25 August: 4.
Addicott, R. (2000e) ‘Covermounts Count in Bid to Boost Music Magazine’, Press
Gazette 25 August: 6.
Addicott, R. (2000f) ‘Smash Hits goes Multimedia’, Press Gazette 15 September: 5.
Blumler, J.G. and M. Gurevitch (1997) ‘Media Change and Social Change’, in James
Curran and Michael Gurevitch (eds) Mass Media and Society, pp. 120–37. London:
Edward Arnold.
Bourdieu, P. (1986) Distinction. A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. London:
Routledge.
Bourdieu, P. (1993) The Field of Cultural Production. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Breed, W. (1955) ‘Social Control in the Newsroom: A Functional Analysis’, Social Forces
33: 326–55.
Burchill, J. (1998) I Knew I Was Right: An Autobiography. London: Heinemann.
Campos, G. (2000) ‘Freelance Anger at Music365 Contracts’, Press Gazette 1
September: 6.
De Rogatis, J. (2000) Let it Blurt: The Life & Times of Lester Bangs. London: Blooms-
bury.
Du Gay, P. (2000) In Praise of Bureaucracy. London: Sage.
Franklin, B. (1997) Newszak and News Media. London: Edward Arnold.
Frith, S. (1983) Sound Effects: Youth, Leisure, and the Politics of Rock ‘n’ Roll. London:
Constable.
Gibson, J. (1999) ‘Hot Off The Press’, The Guardian (‘Media Guardian’ Section) 11
January: 2–3.
Handley, C. (1996) ‘Rocking in the First Person’, Press Gazette 24 May: 14.
Handley, C. (1997) ‘[Inside] Top of the Pops’, Press Gazette 10 January: 20.
42 Journalism 2(1)
Reynolds, S. (1990) ‘Return of the Inkies’, New Statesman & Society 31 August: 26–7.
Rimmer, D. (1985) Like Punk Never Happened: Culture Club and the New Pop. London:
Faber & Faber.
Rivers, W. L. (1973) ‘The Press as a Communication System’, in I. De Sola Pool,
F. W. Frey, W. Schramm, N. Maccoby and E. B. Parker (eds) Handbook of Com-
munication, pp. 521–50. Chicago: Rand McNally.
Savage, J. (1991) England’s Dreaming: The Sex Pistols & Punk Rock. London: Faber &
Faber.
Schiller, H. (1989) Culture Inc.: The Corporate Takeover of Public Expression. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Scott, R. D. (1999) ‘Bridging the Cultural Gap: How Arts Journalists Decide What Gets
onto the Arts and Entertainment Pages’, Critical Quarterly 41(1): 46–55.
Stratton, J. (1982) ‘Between Two Worlds: Art and Commercialism in the Record
Industry’, Sociological Review 30: 267–85.
Sullivan, C. (1998) ‘Rock Bottom’, The Guardian (‘Media Guardian’ Section) 16
March: 4.
Théberge, P. (1991) ‘Musicians’ Magazines in the 1980s: The Creation of a Community
and a Consumer Market’, Cultural Studies 5(3): 270–93.
Toynbee, J. (1993) ‘Policing Bohemia, Pinning Up Grunge: The Music Press and
Generic Change in British Pop and Rock’, Popular Music 12(3): 289–300.
Tunstall, J. (1971) Journalists at Work. London: Constable.
Tunstall, J. (1972) ‘News Organizations Goals and Specialist Newsgathering Journal-
ists’, in D. McQuail (ed.) Sociology of Mass Communications, pp. 259–80. Harmonds-
worth: Penguin.
Tunstall, J. (1983) The Media in Britain. London: Constable.
Vernon, P. (2000) ‘The Acne and the Ecstasy’, The Guardian, The Guide Supplement,
14 October: 8–10.
Wolfe, T. and E.W. Johnson (eds) (1975) The New Journalism. London: Picador.
Biographical note
Eamonn Forde is a PhD student at the University of Westminster. His work focuses
on the popular music press in the UK with particular emphasis on the professional
roles of journalists and their links with record industry press officers. He has taught
on media studies and popular music studies courses at the Universities of Leicester,
Loughborough, Nottingham Trent and Westminster and he is currently a tutor on
the MA in Mass Communications course at the University of Leicester.
Address: CCIS, School of Communication, Design and Media, University of West-
minster, Harrow Campus, Watford Road, Northwick Park, Harrow HA1 3TP, UK.
[email: fordee@westminster.ac.uk]