The decline of Q magazine

I remember the thrill of buying the very first issue in September 1986 - erudite, intelligent writing coupled with a dry wit and refreshing respect for the out-of-fashion heritage acts. Stuck with the publication down the years but finally had to quit the habit last year as I was buying a magazine I didn't respect anymore. 3rd in quality by a long distance behind Unut and Mojo. What happened and does anyone understand the demographic that Q is trying to appeal to now?

 

Q seems to be after a current "pop" music demographic mainly. They cover those who are "hip and happening", though classic artists such as U2 and Paul Weller who are still working will get an extensive look

 

I bought it every month from almost the beginning until the early 200s. I realised that with each month towards the end I was reading less and less of it and eventually gave up. Why? I guess I was getting more information from the internet, which I could more easily interact with. I found that my interest in newer music was slowing down once the 90s ended, sad but true. I found that it was coming more and more to be lists after list of best album, est single etc etc. I haven't touched a copy in over 10 years now but I remember at one point there was an announcement saying it was moving away from music towards towards other stuff, I am not sure what happened with that.

 

Aren't the people who started Q now behind Uncut and / or Mojo?

 

I guess with Uncut, Mojo (and Classic Rock and Prog), they had to adjust somehow. How many articles on the same subject can be spread among all those mags? I do miss the razor sharp writing, though. A lot of it is still there, but on topics I don't really care to read about. More of a stand at the rack and skim than a purchase anymore.

 

All magazines are in decline. There is no way to keep up with the internet.

 

Oh, great, so it's not just me guilty of that then?

 

I first got a copy of Q in early '88. They had the "Who the hell does (insert difficult celeb here) think he/she is?" - Chuck Berry was the interviewee that month and he was on irascible form. They had articles on sponsorship in the music industry, really good album reviews. I think that Uncut and Mojo definitely undercut them but The Word showed what Q could have been had they kept to their original ethos. It had the likes of Mark Ellen (ex-editor of Q), David Hepworth, Kate Mossman on the staff and was at its peak when it folded in 2012. Q still churns out its download charts, interviews with boy bands etc...

 

I bought roughly up to about edition 150, as I was also buying MOJO and UNCUT, Q got dumped as the inferior of the trio. I still buy Mojo and UNCUT every month, for now.

 

Same story with me - used to love it, it dwindled about ten years ago, the recycling got too much and the journalism standard changed, I went to Mojo, which is sort of in the same recycle-artists loop but they still occasionally have good to great pieces which suck me in.

 

I'm never sure whether it's me that has changed or music mags/papers like Q and NME (if that's still going?) have changed.
Like others, my interest in newer music did fade considerably after the 90s.

 

Pretty sure I dumped it after Kylie Minougue was on the cover. Great read though from 1987 through to early 200o's

edit - did it not shrink slightly and relaunch ?

 

The decline is actually in pretty much ALL magazines! Unfortunately.

 

That's what she said!

 

You lasted longer than me.

I stuck with it for perhaps 10 years. Buying it (very) occasionally after that. Haven’t read a copy for probably a decade now. The flimsy mag I see in the shops now is nothing like the one I started buying in the mid-80s.

It really was essential back then. Much stronger than the copy-cat mags like Vox and Select that cropped up soon after. I remember seeing issue one of Q. It had a free booklet of album reviews from the decades before. Plus, McCartney was on the cover so it would have gone down a storm on here. I still have it. The album reviews were my always favourite part of Q back in the day.

 

Replace Q with Classic Rock and I'm in the same boat.

 

A lot of the people working at Q in the early days had jumped ship from Smash Hits. Their snarky reviews in the latter wouldn’t have gone down with the pop-pickers who bought the mag.

 

I remember those elusive 5-star reviews...Very rare. A release had to be really special to get that accolade *****

 

That's pretty much my comment on any magazine. I used to subscribe to many. And I guess that's why so many are gone now.

 

I bought it as an import mag for years at Borders but when the distribution got a bit spotty and the price jumped to nine bucks an issue I couldn't justify it anymore. It was a good read tho and always had tons of reviews...it was how I kept up with new UK bands and releases.

 

It's been pretty populist/mainstream for a very long time....I think when Mojo and others arrived they developed deeper and more in depth articles for "musos" meant that Q probably had quite a fair % of it's readership taken from it.....you certainly don't see the width of coverage you used to.......It's album reviews were nearly always **** and wrong.

One consistent thing that emerged in the music monthlies from the weeklies is the almost universal praise for records-bad reviews for big artists are almost unheard of....mediocre ones are rare.....back in the day these were commonplace and in some cases fun or at least interesting......music criticism from that aspect is something of a lost art.....

 

In their Bowie “tribute”, on the shelves very quickly after his death, and which claimed on its cover to give the story of all his albums, Buddha of Suburbia got one line: “It was better than (the previous one) Black Tie White Noise”.

Whatever one thinks of it, that Buddha album was a very important one in the Bowie story, semi-autobiographical, and with unprecedented sleeve notes by Bowie which at that time (1994), revealed more about his true feelings about his music and his early years than possibly ever before. The album was also loved by Brian Eno at the time of release, and was part of what led to them reuniting for 1995’s 1:Outside album.

The same “tribute” summed up 1999’s ..hours as “an electronic LP”, which anyone who’s heard it knows it most certainly isn’t. At all.

In my opinion that says all that needs to be said about Q.

 

Never liked Q. They seemed to have very different taste to me in terms of what current acts they championed. Mojo and Uncut were far better in my opinion. Can't say I'll miss Q.

 

Q and Mojo are very much sister magazines, published by the same company (Bauer); so I believe the rationale is that Q is contemporary pop, whilst Mojo focuses on heritage acts. However, there is some overlap.

 

Over the last few months, reviews of reissues in Q have dramatically reduced.