observer music magazine

S

simon silverdollar

Guest
just wondering about this, spurred on by comments in another thread: what do people think of OMM? there seems to be a great deal of animosity towards it from lots of people, but i'm not sure why. ok, it's not a *great* publication, but i do get the sense that it's written by genuine music lovers [unlike the NME], and is reasonably forward looking and open minded [unlike the wire, ha!]. so what's the problem? i mean, that grime piece they did was pretty good, and the reviews often seem truly informed and enthusiastic, unlike so many reviews from so many other magazines.

as a 'free' supplement to a national newspaper, isn't it really pretty much as good as it could be?


or is it just shit? if so, why?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
......trouble with 'genuine music lovers' is that often their taste is bobbins. I mean 'loving music' doesnt mean the music they love is any good.

its just a risible Q-lite isnt it? something for the Hornbys of this world to eat over their macro-biotic cornflakes of a Sabbath, nodding away to Keane as their neighbours clean their Galaxies with fire hoses.

Im wondering why they make it at all, surely their target audience buy Q, Mojo, etc anyway.....a shame as the Observer sport monthly is usually pretty good (I would say).
 

shaun L

Member
To begin with I really liked the idea of a music magazine with the observer, y'know .. read some mildly left wing journalism.. drink some coffee and then muse over a review of LFO... but OMM is tending towards the trite lifestyle end of the observer journo spectrum.... Liza Tarbuck interview, Robbie Williams photo story... purposeless columns and lists.
--- music as gossipfactory, pop as pub quiz.
There is plenty of that on TV.
For me the other major failing of OMM is that it is 'Later with Bilbo Baggins', cosy chat with deeply irrelevant people, music writing that participates in the usual myths--- Dylan the genius, Blur the post Britpop artband.... and so on... It's not that these myths are untrue, its simply that most people who read the observer have already been exposed to these ideas... and would probably benefit from a more eclectic 'John Peel' kinda magazine--- its not as if I'd have to hear Atari Teenage Riot, I could even turn the page if the words were too dissonant.

Yeah the grime piece was alright... but it seemed a little tokenistic, and more crucially it was published about 6 months too late-- like OMM in general.

Still, its nice to read music reviews on a Sunday morning.
 

shaun L

Member
well yeah, ... I was feeling generous yesterday. Q-Lite is possibly the most damning criticism available... nice one.
 
S

simon silverdollar

Guest
this is good! i'm pretty much convinced now that OMM is shit. i guess my initial indecision was due there really being like two whole different approaches within the magazine- the long articles that often actually make the effort to try to explain the importance that music undergrounds can have in people's lives [e.g the piece on grime, the piece on mexican gangster songs, the piece by the [admittedly obnoxious] helen walsh on taking pills at acid house clubs every week when she was 13]

and then there's the OTHER side to it- that insufferably smug, and yeah 'Q-lite' thing, where they review Keane, and do stupid lists, and get fucking members of supergrass to interview people that worked with the beatles...AND NOBODY IN THE WORLD TRULY CARES ABOUT ANY OF THIS. not the writers, the editors, or the readers.

so yeah, i'm a hater now!
 

Rambler

Awanturnik
I've only read it once in full, although I skip in and out of things online, but what annoys me most is that it feels like a missed opportunity: other than the occasional decent piece (and even the Big Issue have done a grime article), it offers pretty much nothing that you can't get in tedious quantity elsewhere. And the title 'Observer Music Monthly' annoys me since they're obviously working to a pretty narrow definition of music. It's like having a food supplement with the editorial brief to ignore anything not fish-based.
 

xero

was minusone
I have to say I agree with most of the above but one of the worst things about OMM is the shite newspaper that comes with it! And if the narrowness of the music covered by OMM is bad, how abut the music review section in the paper every week in which every record review & live review is written BY THE SAME PERSON
 

mms

sometimes
i actually went to their industry morning where they explained to people who were potentially gonna provide music and advertsing what they were gonna do.
the original plan i seem to remember was to have a nick hornby top 10 thing every month, and greater input from a certain mr pedris who i know is very popular in blogland, so lucky escape there.

me and people from other labels i was with were all pretty gutted because from their descriptions it did seem like a wasted opportunity, but then again you are talkimg about producing a magazine that has to appeal to people that buy 3 x cds a year.

Hpwever the magazine doesn't make music seem that exciting, rather for them music is part of some kinda coffee table aspirational lifestyle, without embarrasment, a good editorial mix of the popular classics and a bit of world music, maybe something new, a celebrity endorsement, all quite educated, self aware, liberal and reassuring, but without any irrational enthusiasim, no poetry, nothing smashed down or rethought , none of that kind of blind viral joy that music fans pass over to those who aren't that big into it.
 

stelfox

Beast of Burden
it is more or less entirely atrocious. i mean, really, the idea of a "record doctor" is bad enough, but peter paphides prescribing the remedies necessary to cure your music taste - now that's just plain daft. and as for the inclusion of tom cox , well, i'm not saying any more at all. it's a very very boring read and even manages to make paul morely seem less interesting that he can be. the design doesn't help at all, either. still, i'm bound to say this. i applied for the deputy editor's job and didn't get it.
 

stelfox

Beast of Burden
also, did anyone notice that in the "10 worst cover versions" thing, the nitwit wot wrote it picked "the tide is high by atomic kitten", referenced blondie but never mentioned that *their* version was a cover of the original john holt track?
 

boomnoise

♫
No change for magazines after a 50quid binge?

Every month I dispense with OMM after a quick scoff and turn to the weekly review supplement and thoroughly enjoy the writing of one Molloy Woodcraft. I initially formed an intense disliking for the man. Now, however, I have grown to love his sprawling mop of hair and uninspired, languid reworking of press releases. I wish i could remember some of his greatest lines to quote. His writing makes me laugh and entertains me where as I find that OMM frustrates and annoys me.

The problem is we are too discerning and we are not 50quidmen© OMM
isn't meant to appeal to us.
 

Grievous Angel

Beast of Burden
I dunno, I quite like it, after reading the hysterical hipsterism of blogspace for a few weeks it's quite nice to take a languid stroll down 50quid man road.

I used to really like Q in the early nineties -- was so refreshing to read enthusiastic, knowledgable reviews of Sandy Denny rereleases.

I read the Uncut issue about The Clash -- it was alright, though I did have to let my bile about the tokenistic treatment of black music subside before I could relax with it. That and the terrible repro of Penny Smith's pictures.
 

gragy10

Veteran Lurker
2stepfan said:
I dunno, I quite like it, after reading the hysterical hipsterism of blogspace for a few weeks it's quite nice to take a languid stroll down 50quid man road.

I can kind of empaphise with you on that score - much as I appreciate the blog approach to music criticism, it can all get a bit too shrill now and then. Easy as it is to critique OMM, I can't escape the feeling that there's a dearth of half-decent music magazines out there at the moment- anyone got any reccomendations?
 

mms

sometimes
Easy as it is to critique OMM, I can't escape the feeling that there's a dearth of half-decent music magazines out there at the moment- anyone got any reccomendations?[/QUOTE]

i've been enjoying plan b whenever i've read it, there are a bit too many hairy faced troubadours in it , but the writing is lively, fun and enthusiastic, the photos are good and it's got a nice *professional amateur * feeling to it, and seems to have a broad spectrum of writers, and time for non guitar music.
http://www.planbmag.com/
 

mms

sometimes
what do you mean when you say 50 quid man?
is that reference to a person that spends that much on records a year?
 
B

be.jazz

Guest
Is 50quidman defined by the amount spent or the kind of music bought (apparently, things that remind him of his youth and hyped middle-brow stuff)? Because otherwise, aren't most of us already (or will be one day) part of them?

"But frankly," says Hepworth, "blokes get the same giddy rush from buying CDs and DVDs that most women get from shoes. It's a spiritual thing."
I don't know if it's spiritual, but I definitely get that rush, even though I very, very rarely spend 75 euros in one go.
 

Backjob

Well-known member
50quidbloke is defined demographically. Middle-class, late-30s or older, likes to spend 50 quid on music, dvds etc on a friday afternoon.
 

mms

sometimes
Because otherwise, aren't most of us already (or will be one day) part of them?


not me sir!

and i'm very well aware of the other kind of person, the old raver who spends all their money collecting

first gen chicago and detroit records and for whom nothing else surpasses them.
 
Top