Just been asked a couple of good questions on the forum. Thought I’d post my reply here, also:

…was wondering how you decide on the lead review in the album section (for example Nick Cave in issue 0.5)?
Although the review was favourable, there seemed to be a lot more positive reviews relegated to a less prominent position.
Also (and this isn’t a reaction to Smoosh), was wondering how a cover is chosen? I found the first issue’s illustrated cover a breath of fresh air in the music press, now you have decided to go back to using photographs was just interested in the criteria you use to pick ‘em. (Axel)

Good questions.
Re: lead album reviews. They’re normally decided after consultation between myself, Frances and Daniel (as the albums editor).
We receive a ton of CDs (and vinyl) every day. We attempt to listen to ALL of them. Somehow. Just in case. Something may slip through we didn’t know about. (It usually doesn’t, although there’s a great laptop electronica act from Hove called Listen With Sarah that I’ve been digging the last few days.) After this listening process we go ahead and figure out our leads. These are judged on several criteria.

1) Do we like the album? Unless it’s a band we consider crucial to our readership (which obviously we’re only ever guessing at) we will not give lead review space to an album we consider dire. Waste of space. So, hmm, let me see…we’d probably do the new Sleater-Kinney one as a lead, whatever it’s like - or Comets On Fire, Scout Niblett. Nah. Not necessarily. It’s bugger all to do with our readers actually. It’s more to do with whether WE consider it our heartland territory.

OK.

1) Do we like the album?
2) Has anyone even bleedin’ heard of the group in question, even us? To a degree, deciding lead reviews is all about balance - we don’t want too many obvious names as leads cos we like to encourage new talent. Similarly, we don’t want too many unknown names as leads cos we want people to read the pages and not be intimidated by the unfamilar. There’s a tendency (for me, certainly) to plump for reissues - Dinosaur Jr, TVPs, Babes In Toyland - so that needs to be kept in check. Balance. Plus, we like certain writers to feature an album each - FMM, David Mc, Stevie. And so on.

For the cover, the following factors are taken into consideration (or should be):

1) Image. Is it visually striking? Currently I’m favouring photographs because I think they’re more easily recognisable and we need to establish an identity before we fuck around with it, but I’m not actually basing this judgment on anything. I’m certainly not counting out illustrations on the front in the future (once again, we’re considering an illo as the cover for the next issue) - not least because I’m seriously proud of the illustrator team Andrew has built up over the years. Interestingly, we were accused of ’selling out’ at a bookstore discussion over that issue zero cover, because the group in question were Chicks On Speed. Never mind the fact it was an illustration of a lab technician sticking a syringe into a small fluffy creature’s eyeball!
2) Musical worth (for want of a better phrase) - are the group one that we’re proud to have on our front cover?
3) Story. Is the article worth shoving on the cover? Are we proud of the words written?

and, a very distant…

4) Impact on newsstands and sales. Perhaps this should be higher up, but honestly? Hmm. It’s a factor - very slight - ie: much as I personally dig them, I wouldn’t put The Diskettes on the front but that’s more to do with other factors. (We’re a magazine, not an Everett True fanzine: there doesn’t appear to be too much of a story: much as I love the music, it’s throwaway - albeit delightfully so: we have no images of them.)

The possibility of raising sales through our cover hasn’t been an issue up to this point (and never was at Careless Talk Costs Lives: although I won’t deny we did put Nick Cave on the front in an attempt to sell more copies and, rather sadly, it worked). It might become one if we want the magazine to be a viable commercial venture - albeit one with very high editorial standards - than a fucking all-consuming hobby. Which will do. Otherwise it won’t survive.

So yeah, 4) Sales. Trouble is, how do we put a ‘recognisable’ artist on the front without alienating the very people we care most about? Us. Oops. I mean, the readers. I guess if we cared about sales that much we would’ve gone with Bright Eyes this issue. We didn’t. We opted for what I, rather arrogantly, considered to be the most arresting story - both in terms of the words and pictures. I dug the music, too. Although the Bright Eyes and Roots Manuva photos were great.

I guess it all comes down to a final veto, mine: having said that, we don’t necessarily feature groups on the cover that I like. (I really don’t get Magnetic Fields. I was sold on that one by both the excellent interview, and the fact we considered it ‘our’ territory, whatever the hell that means.) As with the albums, it’s all about balance.

Out of the four covers so far, I’d say Joanna Newsom is closest to filling all criteria.
Except that at the time she was a virtual unknown. Oops.
Guess we’ll have to develop a reputation for taste, and then sales will follow.

Posted on Friday, February 11th, 2005by Everett True