I've read the magazine too, and it's a disorganized mess.
Placing the reviews in the front of the book also feels wrong to me. There
were way too many snippets and mini-pieces.
And I didn't find anything particularly enlightening in the features.
If anything, it reminded me of a print version of "Live At The World Cafe,"
all this stuff that aging boomers think is cool, but actually hasn't been
for a dog's age.
I'm a listener over 30 --33 to be precise -- and it's been a long, long,
looooonnnng time since I've gotten excited about a Sting record. And rare is
the day when I buy a major label release.

John.
___________________________
John L. Micek
State Government Reporter
The Morning Call
Harrisburg, Pa.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Stewart Mason" <flamingo@theworld.com>
To: <audities@smoe.org>
Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2003 2:53 PM
Subject: Re: Music magazine article


> At 09:28 AM 12/4/2003 -0800, Anna Borg wrote:
> >Has anyone seen that "Tracks" magazine mentioned?
> >might be right up my alley.
>
> I was really excited to hear about Tracks -- from the initial press, it
> sounded brilliant -- but I was disappointed by the first issue.  For all
> their claims to be for music fans over thirty, it feels like it's more for
> aging baby boomers who feel that rock and roll was never the same after
> FRAMPTON COMES ALIVE.  I mean, *Sting* as your first cover star???  Don
> Henley and Bonnie Raitt on tap for future covers?  There are at least two
> or three generations of pop music fans over 30 now, but it feels like
> Tracks is targeting one and excluding the others.
>
> I don't like the layout at all either.  Having the reviews in the front of
> the book just feels wrong to me, and the graphic design looks like
> Newsweek.  Maybe they'll work out the kinks, but for now I'm sticking with
> Mojo.
>
> S
>
>
>
>