I think specialised lists are not typical of the wider fanbase for dance music, that's why the lifestyle element came into the media. I didn't like it either but realistically for people who are into the scene, not just the music as such, maybe that was appropriate? Also, I value this list but it's different to a magazine - it's more informal and more interactive than a magazine but the info is less detailed. You don't get artist interviews, for example. It depends on what info you're after too.
---------- >From: "Robert Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Tom Churchill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: RE: (313) Muzik (was 7 Magazine) >Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2003 2:18 AM > > I think the net and lists like this one have taken over as the source for > information on dance music. > The mags did not realise this and thought they had to include more and more > "lifestyle" articles at the expense of record reviews and their sales > slumped even further, hence the crisis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2003 3:15 PM > To: Tom Churchill > Cc: 313; Cyclone Wehner > Subject: Re: (313) Muzik (was 7 Magazine) > > > > > "In contrast, rock titles, such as New Musical Express and Kerrang!, and > magazines aimed at older music fans, such as Mojo and Uncut, have enjoyed > circulation increases." > > I think there is your answer. The clubbers are growing up and are getting > tired of the same old dance music - or at least the way it's presented. I > wonder how XLR8R, URB, and other US mags are doing? There still seems to be > a lot of kids still learning and listening to dance music in the US as > opposed to the UK? correct me if I'm wrong please. > > MEK > > > > > Tom Churchill > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Cyclone Wehner > > rdings.com> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 313 > <[email protected]> > > 07/03/03 02:43 AM cc: > > Subject: Re: (313) Muzik > (was 7 Magazine) > > > > > > >> Yeah, that's a surprise. >> Wonder why? >> What's the talk? > > Full story: > > http://media.guardian.co.uk/presspublishing/story/0,7495,988334,00.html > > Cheers, > > Tom > > > > > > > ############################################################################ ######### > > Note: > > Any views or opinions are solely those of the author and do not necessarily > represent > those of Channel Four Television Corporation unless specifically stated. > This email > and any files transmitted are confidential and intended solely for the use of the > individual or entity to which they are addressed. If you have received this > email in > error, please notify [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Thank You. > ############################################################################ ######### > >
