Not trying to start an argument, but how is your personal opinion in any way 'what the public want'? Have you conducted research? I can't for the life of me think that The Moody Blues would have an army of fans waiting to storm the aisles of Sainsburys and WH Smiths in the UK to spend nearly a tenner on a magazine about them. No idea of what potential sales would be in the overseas, particularly the US market, they are not a massive legacy act in the US are they? Personally I'd snigger quietly if I saw a Moody Blues Ultimate Music Guide and leave it to gather dust which I think it surely would, but maybe that's just me. You seem to let your heart rule your head when coming up with suggestions here, and don't think of what the publishers are ultimately trying to do, produce a quality publication and make a profit from doing it.
Hi everyone, just thought I'd drop in again. This is a good point I think - "produce a quality publication and make a profit from doing it" - although I appreciate that sometimes our means of achieving that can seem a bit obtuse. One thing to bear in mind, maybe, is that it's not always the size of a fanbase that dictates our choices, it's their obsessiveness. I always make the argument that, for a lot of Kate Bush fans for instance, she is their absolute favourite artists, and I think you can make a similar case for many of those who follow a couple of causes celebres in this thread, Tom Waits and PJ Harvey. People liking an artist isn't enough, it's people who need to collect everything about their heroes that influences our choices, along with all those complex equations about number of archive interviews/number of albums etc. Again, I'll point out that our Waits UMG was a big seller for us; for what it's worth, I believe he'd sell out arenas in the UK if he chose to play them - Leonard Cohen playing similar venues seemed an outlandish bet until he did it. Hope those of you who've picked up the Prince edition are finding it useful. We didn't quite manage to do one essay for each album but, taking on board your criticisms of the Van and Clapton issues, we did try to cover everything in depth: no decade essays, just a few instances where two albums, released in the same year and naturally twinned, are covered in one piece. Let me know what you think when you've had a look. Any other questions I'll try and lurk here for the day and help out. Obviously I can't reveal future plans other than to say that your suggestions are genuinely helpful and will, in some cases at least, come to fruition over the next few months. Very grateful, again, for your serious and enthusiastic engagement with a series of mags that I'm very proud of. Thanks again, J
Steely Dan issue would be appreciated or perhaps Big Star..but if their not on the collectible side. Pity, but understand.
Great stuff, thanks for posting. You have the right to be proud. They've been consistently good and are usually great. The McCartney issue is my favourite. I still hope for Blur, Blondie and Bolan issues and would be grateful for them. I've always thought that doing issues by genre would have worked better than the History of Rock did for sales. Personally I thought the History of Rock was excellent but could see why many people wouldn't buy it if they only were interested in a handful of articles. If the issues were done by genre then if somebody likes punk, reggae, indie, the Britpop era, psychedelia, soul etc then they would probably be interested in most of the magazine and buy it. I don't think people are as passionate about years as they are the kind of music they love. I'm still enjoying the magazines and look forward to the Prince one and onwards. Keep up the good work! It's appreciated. For an obsessive fanbase, Madonna has to be a contender?
My question John is something I've asked you on twitter, and you have responded to, but which I am still confused by; why can you not release details of forthcoming issues in advance? If it's because you don't want to release details in case they don't come to fruition then fair play, but otherwise I'm not sure what harm this would do? As for artists I'd like to see, its Sabbath all the way for me, with Maiden and George Harrison next on the list.
Well yes, not everything we research comes to fruition. But also it's a competitive business, and it'd be pretty dumb of me to leak to other publishers our forthcoming plans.
I've just thought... Obsessive fanbase?, long career?, lot's of albums?, lot's of interviews? Let's have an issue on the magnificent Status Quo!
I would vote (with my money) for the History of Rock continuing with Vol 2 issues of each year of the 60s & 70s. And new Vol 1 issues for at least 1962, 1963, & 1964. Take my money, please !! Idea #2 = UMG: to second what "Man at C&A" said above, I could go for some combo issues of Brit pop/rock artists of the 60s. For artists that wouldn't fill out an entire UMG issue, then combine several artists together. For example, combine The Move, the Spencer Davis Group, and Manfred Mann together. I would think The Hollies have enough press on them to do a stand alone issue, but if an issue would not be commercially viable, then combine them with another artist. Do a combo chick issue with Dusty, Lulu, and Sandy Shaw, oh yeah... Idea #3: we need chart books of the NME and Melody Maker charts. The so called "official" charts did not come into being until Feb 1969, but they decided decades after the fact to "knight" NME as official for the 50s (not a bad decision), and Record Retailer as official for the 60s (a ghastly, most inaccurate, most erroneous, and worst possible decision). Since Uncut has the rights to NME and MM charts, they should issue chart books on them, or at least get them posted on a website. Embrace your history that was the most accurate charts of the 50s and 60s, don't let the "official" charts keep misrepresenting the true history of the UK 60s charts !! Thanks for listening, John Mulvey !
I'm quite happy to take whatever they give me of the 100plus artists I would buy these of.No interest in some they've done already(Prince,Genesis),surprised and absolutely in for some of the less obvious(Byrds,Tom Waits,PJ Harvey,Nick Cave) and very glad they have done repeats for some of the early ones I missed(Clash,Neil Young,John Lennon). My only complaint is that because the distribution in Australia is pretty haphazard I have to order some online and the mailing cost is pretty outrageous compared to any bookseller I have come across.Oh yeah and the treatment given to later period Clapton and Morrison albums. Overall a fantastic publication.Long may it continue.
I've been expecting a Joy Division + New Order (and Electronic) one for years now.. one day! Also, would love a Suede (and related acts) one, but I'm not sure where they are on the demand-scale. Bjork maybe? Or Tori Amos (talk about some obsessive fans... I hear those deluxe editions are selling quite well)? Pet Shop Boys (ditto)?
That's kind of my point. I may be wrong, but I suspect the Uncut/UMG staff think that Moody Blues fans are not their "public" or audience. Which is nothing against the Moody Blues, simply that they lack the relevance to today's magazine buying public , the relevance that say, Genesis still has because of Gabriel's and Collins's solo careers. (Again, I think a Prog Magazine special edition on the Moodies is much more likely). I mean, I would personally LOVE a J. Geils Band UMG , but sadly I know it's unlikely to happen
I've got a lot of the Q and Mojo guides from back in the day, there was a half Sabbath one done by Q but mostly concentrated on Ozzys solo career as well which is not of much interest to me. So basically the post-Ozzy Sabbath story was ignored. They used to be interviewed all the time through the 80s and 90s, especially in Kerrang.
I suggest a couple of themed issues to cover bands who were in their peak at a simultaneous time but not quite warrant their own individual issue. New York could cover four key bands The Talking Heads, The Ramones, Blondie and Television. Also Glam which could take in primarily Marc Bolan but also Sparks , Steve Harley and Slade. Artists that possibly not considered profitable enough for their own dedicated issues but certainly were accessible to the music press during their retrospective peak period. Mind you The Sex Pistols only really released just the one album but incorporating the off shoots managed an entire issue.
Hi John, Thanks for coming on here. I'm a big fan of both Uncut and the Ultimate Music Guides. My question is, who is the target audience for the deluxe edition "reissues"? Are they aimed at people who missed out the first time around, or is it hoped collectors will buy the titles twice (or perhaps both, I guess?!).
