Small Tape Op magazine critique

[plurgid]

Pics on the interviews, I can take 'em or leave 'em ... but (and I think it's been said before), where I could *really* use them is on the gear reviews.

I mean ... for chrissakes, some of these go on and on for hundreds of words describing, in detail, the control panel layout and which function buttons enable which features, etc etc. It's a bit like reading Dickens at times, and it is *ponderous* ... and really, a simple little picture would really help put things in perspective some times.

Yeah, I get that Tape Op makes money on advertisers, and it behooves advertisers who's gear is reviewed to run an ad (possibly adjacent to the article) ... but you know pretty much that doesn't happen a lot.

Just sayin' ... even a little thumbnail would be nice some times.

[Winstontaneous]

Only request I can make photo-wise is: please consistently identify people in multi-person pix. Not a big idea; in some issues it happens, in the latest (Polvo pic, IIRC) it didn't.

[syntax]

I agree that, unless the gear is particularly rare or esoteric, pure gear shots shots are gratuitous (I know what a Space Echo looks like).

On the other hand, gear in context and gear in action shots are great. For example, the Paul Butler (Bees) article gave us some insight into both his personality and his application of gear. I might say the same of the Jim Scott article, that picture of him in the big room says a lot about his personality and his approach to recording, but, most importantly, it supports the story, since he talks about the room.

I guess if I were to urge anything is that you focus editorial attention on making the photos complimentary (with a wee bias toward gear). I'm sure you already think about it this way, but it doesn't hurt to encourage that practice.

[TapeOpLarry]

"I guess if I were to urge anything is that you focus editorial attention on making the photos complimentary (with a wee bias toward gear). I'm sure you already think about it this way, but it doesn't hurt to encourage that practice."

We try. Photos get neglected so often, as far as planning, quality and such. I can't tell you how many washed out flash shots, over-processed grainy art attempts and shots of rack-after-rack of gear we DON'T run in the mag yet are submitted as "these photos look great to me". It gets frustrating, and I can think of a good pile of articles that would have run by now if the pix didn't blow - every time John B looks at them he goes, "Nope."

I guess I'm trying to say that we're talking about just getting a half-decent sounding overdub at the same sample rate with the same start time as the song and sometimes we get MP3s emailed to us recorded on iPhones.

[syntax]

Nice analogy Larry.

[Jon Nolan]

i love to see peeps rooms too. that said, it would eat up valuable space in the mag. and, once you've seen it, well, that's it, right? i still go back through issues and read articles that include info about stuff that, maybe, wasn't relevant to me when it came out, but has suddenly piqued my interest. (see: caffrey's two stage compression)

how about a little revolving issue-specific photo spread and small "interview extras" on the web page? dunno. just a thought.

love TO mag. as you were...

jon

[TapeOpLarry]

[quote="Jon Nolan"]how about a little revolving issue-specific photo spread and small "interview extras" on the web page? dunno. just a thought.[/quote]

Coming soon