Boards

about a month or so ago, he suggested there be no bad reviews in it. i think he's missed the point slightly.
it might work. but it probably won't.

i've already agreed to contribute a few months back when he suggested it.

there's a twitter for it here http://twitter.com/TheArkMagazine

"We want to frame those that have enjoyed disproportionate success due to their either providential or purposefully manufactured) commercial marketability in a proper perspective. In short, we want to create a magazine that does what music journalism should, in theory, do."

Ok clever clogs. Wanna describe how you justify saying which successful people are more worthy of success than others? I personally think a band like Keane, for example, are a pile of shit who've got where they have through releasing mediocre, apathetic rubbish that 90% of the general public buy because they don't know or care what else is out there. But that doesn't make that band invalid. I've got no right to assume they didn't put all of their belief into doing what they do... There's easier ways to make money at least for the first year or so of a band's life when most acts give up anyway.

I fucking hate that self-righteous "indier than thou" wank. Especially when I consider the band this thing has arisen from to be ONE OF THE WORST terrace anthem-lite dogshit bereft of ideas collectives out there. If you don't like something, don't talk about it (at least not on a national platform... Pub is all good)... And no we're not discussing politics or race or anything that might be important to make a stand on... We're talking about pop bands.

Let people make their own decisions. Writing agendas makes you look about 12.
Writing on forums makes you look about 13.