Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
First the Bull & Gate and now this. *raises glass*
It's one of my locals. I know it's up for sale, that's all.
Or has this been looming since 2011?
Closing as a live venue.
I always liked that it was in print, and doing something a bit different, and I loved its design. But as they say, it's just not tenable.
but I once wrote them them enquiring about working there for free and they never got back to me.
Not even a single email. It's like when you PM a Disser and they don't get back to you.
you're probably not cut out for journalism (see that thread about the 'Angry Quietus Editor' or whatever it was).
I agree its annoying though.
I won't miss its passing.
What did you have against it, if you don't mind me asking?
...its design made it a pretty infuriating reading experience. joeymahone is correct - it was unique and instantly recognisable, but that in itself isn't a good thing. The sheer meddle of fonts, sizes and borders didn't make for a good reading experience. Style over substance of the worst kind.
The reviews, when you could find them, were terribly written as well. Sub-pitchfork guff for the most part. The whole rag reeked of pretention to me, but it had the same quality of journalism as The Fly (i.e. rubbish).
Although, thinking about it, it did do a few good interviews, so I'll give it some credit there. But, everything else... nah, not having it.
(What did you expect for free etc. etc...)
But i'm always a bit suspicious when pretentious gets levelled as a criticism, seems like a bit of a vague cop-out usually.
I think that the style over substance suggestion is a bit unfair - isn't the visual style quite an important part of magazines and stuff? The fact that it managed to be that distinctive on such a budget is pretty impressive. As for the substance, that comes back to personal taste, but i think there was some good stuff in there, much better than pretty much any other print publication i can think of off the top of my head.
Surprisingly, needy internet troll sean adams put it quite nicely: *It seemed like such a labour of love and the passion for music poured out of it*
Don't get me wrong, i'm sure there was plenty of crap in there over the years if you look for it, but i always thought it was worth going through for the good stuff.
...I guess it's the opposite side of the critical coin where something is described as `unique` or `different`. They seem like cop-outs to me and represent a fascination with an aesthetic rather than content but... as you say, each to their own.
Visual style is CRUCIAL to magazines. But, it depends what your philosophy on visual style is. My philsophy is that design is a tool to guide the reader through the magazine in a clean, efficient way, and that it should embellish the magazine's content whilst always being secondary to it. This is what good design does. So, in my view, The Stool Pigeon didn't have good design because it was trying too hard to push the design to the forefront at the expense of content. Ease of reading suffered as a result, and the vain approach was one backed up in the largely hollow and inferior reviews.
But this is just my opinion. If you enjoyed reading it - fair play. I didn't.
As long as content isn't secondary to design then no problem...but there's a subtle difference.
The main thing to rememeber is that Stool Pigeon was unreadable cack.
did my head in.
I seem to remember them having a bit of a celebration a year or two back for its 5-year anniversary, and they seemed to be pretty bullish about the future.
Not a great week for the inkies, with Artrocker announcing that they're going web-only too.
but they needed someone to tell them that it isn't necessary to fill ever milimetre of a page with content
Still a shame for it to be going though.
*Shame to lose them but I might start researching the Stool Pigeons finances then publishing the findings in a "supportive" article.*
I quite liked the Stool Pigeon but I could never tell which were real articles and which were spoof articles.
it were good