Tuesday, November 07, 2006

Now "Magazine"

Why So Negative

I've never understood why Now considers itself a magazine. A rag? Yes. Magazine? No.

But I don't want to take anything away from that publication; I've read some great articles they've reprinted from better sources.

And while I'm all about negativity, I'm perplexed how Now reviews music. When it seems all the critics like something, Now hates that something. This isn't a scientific sample, but it's something I've noticed.

Exhibit A

Bob Dylan's "Modern Times"

I haven't listened to this album, but reviewers at Metacritic gave an average rating of 88 per cent - "Universal Acclaim." But Now's review works out to 40 per cent.

Exhibit B

Avatar's "Comets on Fire"

I've never heard of this band or album, but it's average review is 80 per cent, except Now gives it a 40 (okay, I know Now didn't give it 40 per cent, but like I said above, that's what it works out to).

Exhibit C

My Chemical Romance's "Black Parade"

I've heard this one, and it's good. Maybe even great and worth the 80 per cent it received. Now, predictably, disliked it saying, "(My Chemical Romance) succeeded at making a good big-dumb-rock record, but you get the sense they didn't mean for it to be quite this dumb." Sure. That's worth 60 per cent.

But I get the feeling those reviews are worth about the same as Now's cost at the newsstand.


No comments: