Q Magazine is no more..

So Q Magazine is no more, it's legs pulled from underneath it by the vicious and unprecedented Corona virus which has devastated the Entertainment industry as a whole. In my estimation, this premier glossy music magazine relied a lot on petrol stations and airport lounges and the like, and now people are not driving and not flying, sales have unsurprisingly plummeted.
      It also sheds a light on its market position which like Select, Melody Maker and The Word before it all fell by the sword trying to cater for one and all. The equivalent in the film industry I imagine would be Empire Magazine but it has few rivals as most seem particularly niche (Sight And Sound for example) whereas Q had Mojo and Uncut. Or did it? These two magazines are relatively niche along with several others such as Classic Rock and Mixmag - I think it is fair to say that, though smaller, they know their target audience better and as such are able to pitch better to them and are rewarded with a higher percentage of repeat readers (and subscriptions). It's why Mojo Magazine has The Beatles, Dylan or Bowie on the front cover every few issues - yes it appears repetitive and frustrating to regular readers and subscribers but it guarantees the issue breaks even (or even makes a good profit to cover other issues which are more niche and maybe make a loss) as those aforementioned readers travelling through are more likely to spot it, pick it up and buy it.
      There is also the prevalence of online sites something which has been particularly noticeable in the U.S. You have the printed Rolling Stone magazine but little else as far as I can understand whereas online there is Pitchfork, Allmusic, Drowned In Sound et al. Indeed some have fallen by the way side - in the early Noughties Ink Blot Magazine was a lovingly run amateur music website written for new and recent artists, many of which were alternative (Bjork, Flaming Lips, Beck were featured in so called 'Mothership' features covering their careers/back catalogues to date) but alas it faded out of view, perhaps due to personal reasons such as lack of time (it was beautifully written, prepared and maintained - not a 5min job by any stretch) but it could have been due to competition; if no one is seeing your ads the site won't make money.

      Back to UK publications and they have seemed to largely stick to their original magazine as the primary format of choice with only cursory websites available. To my mind though, unless you're very niche like Mixmag or Classic Rock, wouldn't more revenue be made from advertisements than from readerships? Did Q have loyal readers or a easy to navigate, bright looking website? Probably not on balance, but it's sad demise is also a reflection of the times (Covid was just the catalyst) which poses this question: how much do we love our music? We no longer buy it, store it physically, look after it even and with that connection, we lose that very essence of anything that is treasured or loved, that brought so much joy to so many. Are we happy with the current state of music? If we don't want to pay for music why would we pay for music magazines?
      Perhaps it is cruel payback for the industry selling music - principally CDs in the Nineties - for £15 an album or £5 for a single. As now the public seem unwilling to pay for the music, or rather only pay a little for a lot, all justified sub-consciously I suppose as it is not owned. I do think the remuneration for musicians of streaming sites needs looking into as it is pitiful - all based on the old dinosaur model established by Universal, Warner Brothers, Sony including EMI - which included the 20th century approach to funding, supporting, managing and promoting artists. However a good portion of the costs no longer remain in the digital 21st century but the same remuneration model exists. Why?? The same cuts still remain which slices the pie ever further reducing what is left for the musician - the person who has created the art! With my business head on, you could argue that the cream rise to the top and that the best musicians survive. Perhaps we have had too much music, certainly the 70s and 80s had their fair share of pop and rock fodder. However what seems to be currently happening is that what is rising to the top - i.e. what is supplanting itself - isn't the best music but the one that sells and what sells is what the music companies want, which funnily enough is predictable and bland; it becomes a vicious circle as repeated profits are sought.

      Whilst music as a commodity has been eroded over the last decade, live music is thriving, at least pre-Covid, not surprising given it's the most profitable part for performing artists. Perhaps it was always going to happen, for music to go full circle and go back to the beginning when there wasn't recorded music, when it was only enjoyed live with an audience. However that would rob us of the future results of over half a century of music evolution where music has been made lovingly by musicians as they grow and influence others and providing joy and wonder to millions and millions of people across the planet. It is this reason why there is still a need for music as a commodity and why there should always be a place for passionate music journalism, to understand why we love music, with all its spellbinding wonder, intrigue and excitement.