Thursday, June 14, 2007

We want to get "Loaded"...


I’m looking at the magazine racks in Tesco, and I’m asking myself the following: Why can’t I find a men's magazine that's readable and that's not as embarrassing to be left around the house, as say, a copy of Mayfair would be? When did the men’s monthly magazine industry go literally tits up? Or should that be tits out?


"Men's magazine". Of course I mean something in the FHM market, not your one-handed art pamphlets. Maybe if I said “lad's mag” it would be clearer. Well, it wouldn’t, as I’m not a “lad” and that’s part of the problem. You see, these "lad's mags" weren't always this way. Once upon a time they were new, inventive, readable, credited its readers with an ounce of intelligence and didn't rely on a photoshoot of page three girl Sophie Howard's (impressive, I'll grant you that) breasts to sell it.

Yes kids, I'm off on one of my grumpy rants about things not being as good as they used to be (see my Q article from last year). But I’m right. You just read on.

Into the Tardis we go…

Prior to 1994, there wasn't such a thing as a "lad's mag". Yes, we had the likes of the aspirational GQ, Arena, and a formative FHM but these were full of expensive fashion, fads and fiction, and stuffy as hell. Great if you're on £40k a year working in the city, flying off every Winter for a skiing holiday in Switzerland and wearing Armani suits, but not really saying a great deal to me, a bloke in average job, who doesn’t give a shit what the best fountain pen is to be seen with. These were refined titles, without the broad appeal that is seemed to be so effortlessly achieved in Women's magazines. All that "New Man" bollocks didn't do it for me. There were newspapers for your sport and current affairs, the likes of Q, Select or the NME catered for your music, and The Face or Sky for anything else. Oh, and Viz. That basically was it. Unless you looked higher up the shelves in the newsagents.


The
re you had your shifty “reach furtively for the top shelf” adult pornographic mags such as Penthouse, Mayfair and Men Only (see above), which featured women in various states of undress, and some factual articles which nobody actually read, but you had to appreciate that they'd gone to the effort to make it look as if it wasn't all about masturbation. These mags were only for the under the bed library, oh and bushes (yes, why don’t you find discarded old porn mags in bushes anymore?).

So all in all an unsatisfactory business, but you had to put up with this situation.One day in 1994, I read in the Guardian (look at me, all highbrow) that ex-NME editor James Brown was setting up his own magazine. I made a note to keep an eye out for that one, since I considered that Brown was a very good writer and his passion shone through in his articles, especially around the Madchester-era when his hedonistic outlook matched well with the subject matter. He could walk the walk and talk the talk. His creation, "Loaded" was that rare type of magazine - one that created a genre, and one that suddenly made the aforementioned men's titles that were around look very archaic indeed.

When issue one was released in May 1994, it's unselfconscious, irreverent style came to define a 'laddish' culture that was ground-breaking and was to make a lasting impression on our consciousness for the next 5 years. This, if I might be pretentious for a moment, was the magazine that rode the zeitgeist, albeit whilst trying not to spill it’s pint. In the media, the same laddish element was increasingly seen in BBC TV programmes such as sitcom “Men Behaving Badly” and the comedy sports quiz “They Think It's All Over”, in music with Oasis, Blur, and the Britpop movement, and in the world of football, which was now fashionable again post-Hillsborough/Italia 90 and due to Sky and the Premier League, Nick Hornby and Baddiel & Skinner's Fantasy Football. These latter two were part of the new wave of 90’s comedians who often trod an un-PC line, along with contemporaries such as Paul Whitehouse, Steve Coogan and Vic & Bob.

Now, a good editor is, by nature, an individualist who tends to react badly to being strait jacketed. They will use their own language and terminology. Their attitude and style is often the difference between running a top title and an also-ran. James Brown brought in attitude by the crateload. In the first issue of Loaded, Brown set out his agenda, and wrote:
"What fresh lunacy is this? Loaded is a new magazine dedicated to life, liberty and the pursuit of sex, drink, football and less serious matters. Loaded is music, film, relationships, humour, travel, sport, hard news and popular culture. Loaded is clubbing, drinking, eating, playing and eating. Loaded is for the man who believes he can do anything, if only he wasn't hung over."

In short "For men who should know better." which became the cover strap line for years.

Lazy journalistic slags misconception number 436: Issue one featured Liz Hurley semi naked on the cover... ahh, no it didn't. Sorry to rain on the parade of many a journo looking for an easy story, but in fact issue one had a distinctly non-sexy black and white picture of edgy actor Gary Oldman on the cover (as you can see). The scantily clad girl content in those early issues was actually rather low. The idea that you could actually come out and admit to enjoying looking at beautiful women was something Brown introduced as if it had never been thought of before, like it was a new concept in the magazine industry. And it did seem like a fresh idea.

Towards the end of the 80’s and the start of the 90’s, glamour and sex was something that the media wasn’t pushing, probably a legacy of the AIDS media madness from 1987 onwards. The nearest you'd get is a Vanity Fair photoshoot of some supermodel like Cindy Crawford, or film star such as Julia Roberts, tastefully done. And of course there was still Page 3 in "The Sun", which seemed to stand as a lone voice in those wilderness years, happily printing it’s glamour girls day in day out. Loaded didn't go in all guns blazing, but put a few toes in the water first, pointing out that there's nothing actually wrong with looking at gorgeous girls, and celebrating them. It was like taking The Sun’s cheery philosophy but doing it with knowing irony.

Thus each issue usually celebrated some up and coming starlet or model over a couple of pages. That first issue did have photographer John Stoddart's rather revealing black and white images of “actress” Elizabeth Hurley (see above), who we must remember at that point wasn't a big celebrity - yes she'd done "Passenger 57" and a memorable episode of “Sharpe”, but Hugh Grant wasn’t a star name then, and she hadn't yet made the appearance in that dress at the premiere of “Four Weddings”. Loaded was quite good at catching them early.


From early on, the whole playful ethos of the magazine permeat
ed every article. Yes it might have a photoshoot of Kylie in swimwear (above), but it would balance it out in the same article with say, Lee & Herring in theirs. Yes, there would be a fold out poster of Kelly Brook, but with a badger on the reverse. A scantily clad model sat on a pile of biscuits. Model showing a bit of leg in a chippy. And so on. But it wasn’t all women…


…Three Lions, Statto, Kathy Lloyd, Rod Hull, “TFI Friday”, Zoe Ball, The Fast Show, stag weekends in Dublin or Prague, Trainspotting, They Think it's All Over, David Seaman, Ben Sherman shirts, hard drinking women, Anna Friel, George Best, Pot Noodles, hedonism, Jo Guest, crisps, Phil Tufnell, havin' a LARF, “good work fella!”, sorted, Dodgy, large-ing it up, Keith Allen, Country House, Damien Hirst, lager lager lager, Champagne Supernova, Office Pest, Vindaloo, Dr Mick, bottled beers with complicated tops, Ian Wright, Fat Les, Des Lynam, Vic and Bob, Ulrika-ka-ka-ka, Alex Higgins, Beavis & Butthead, Michael Caine, 5 a side footy, Paul Calf, Louise Wener, Paul Weller, the Mini…


Loaded tapped into a four-year “mo
ment” when Britain seemed to be on the verge of being “Great” again, and celebrated it. But being British, it also took the piss out of it relentlessly – but we were in on the joke. You can’t beat them interviewing Kevin Keegan (see right) and telling him he’d be on the cover, which he was, only with a drawn on ‘tasche and glasses.., which they forgot to mention.

Old forgotten great actors-stroke-boozers like Leslie Phillips, Oliver Reed and Peter O’Toole were given the status of greatest living Englishmen (or Irish if you please!) and prominence was given to the rogues of their particular chosen fields such as Bestie, Dennis Leary, Jimmy White… Maradona even. Even when it was a rubbish issue there would be something to make it worth the purchase.


Of course, the success of Loaded meant most other men's titles looked very out of step, and one by one they had a reboot. Brown jumped ship to try and lift the circulation of fellow men’s mag GQ, and came unstuck very quickly, as his irreverent style didn’t seem to fit with the type of reader the management and advertisers seemed to want the magazine to be aimed at, and he soon left.


Loaded continued to be the market leader for the next 5 years under the helm of new editor Tim Southwell, and the other titles such as Esquire (above), GQ and the new kid on the block Maxim were playing catch up. However in 1996, FHM’s subtle update immediately got the formula right, with a fine balance of girls, fashion, celebrity, bad jokes and importantly, reports, working on a formula of "if our readers couldn't do it, we won't feature it". FHM’s core belief was that men are not noble or heroic, and are better off not trying to be. The idea that it was all right to be funny and self-deprecating about, say, failure in the pursuit of women came as an enormous relief to readers.

Plus, they hit upon the genius idea of the readers voting for the FHM Top 100 Sexiest Women each year, banishing male celebrities from the cover (we shall never see Rupert Everett and Mickey Rourke again! Hurrah!) and celebrating the biggest female stars of the day, usually by depicting them in states of half dress wherever possible (but not essential).

Less obvious figures of desire like Gillian Anderson became the face of 1996. Popstress Louise Nurding came out of the shadows of Eternal to become the hot babe du jour, and TV presenters like Gail Porter (below) went from Saturday morning kids telly to nationwide notoriety after flashing her bum on the cover. By the end of the nineties, FHM had overtaken Loaded in sales and became the top UK men's magazine.


Okay, FHM, Loaded and the others undeniably objectified women, in that they were shot, lit, made up, clothed and photoshopped to the nines in order to make them make them more appealing to look at, but in the midst of the heady days of Britpop and New Labour, society had now deemed such images acceptable, and the buying public were lapping them up. There was a clear difference back then between what FHM and the others were doing and what you needed to resort to the top shelf for, and similar images were commonplace in advertising, film and television, music videos, even women's magazines. The acid test seemed to be “could people read it openly on the bus”? At this point, yes.


By the turn of the 21st Century though, it would appear that increasingly the Internet, multi-channel TV, mobile phones, video games, MySpace, instant messaging and the rest has taken huge bites out of the time formerly allotted to magazine reading across the board.

Mass-market men's monthlies, which once stood in such thrilling contrast to everything that came before, are now thought of by a new generation of readers as last year's model, as exciting as a black-and-white movie. Other media have plundered their best ideas, diluting their originality further. The Americans have had their first major casualty, as their once successful version of FHM was laid to rest in December 2006, due to “difficult trading conditions". Yet it’s website lives on, which is telling.

Celeb culture also became dull. It didn't use to matter whether actors and actresses were talented or not, but it did matter that they were interesting. Publicists now make sure that a glimpse of any stars weirdness is a rare occurrence. An interview with a sportsman like Beckham or film-star like Matt Damon is just PR puff, with nothing to be learned about such celebs and no insight into what makes them tick (if they do at all). They can’t be seen to spoil the “brand”. And if you did get an article that might be of interest it’d be so dumbed down it’s practically unreadable.

At some undetermined point, men's monthlies in this country made, in hindsight, a potentially fatal error in an attempt to shore up flagging circulation when they decided to show bare breasts. Lots of them, especially in the newer mags such as Front (right). Okay, there may have been bare breasts displayed in the magazines and papers before but this was different, far more blatant, and almost a desperate move to keep readers interested. All done without the humour that would have made it half way acceptable a couple of years earlier.


Almost overnight, it became impossible to defend against the porno accusation. The magazines no longer passed the bus test. Circulation and advertising figures dropped.

Worst of all, the increasing indecency meant that the big celebrities woul
d never return, and no one sells magazines like big stars. Porn stars, glamour girls and z-listers moved in to fill the void. Goodbye Kylie and J-Lo, hello 7th person to be evicted from the Big Brother house and Michelle Marsh (above).

The great men’s magazine bubble had well and truly burst.


Loaded is now almost unrecognisable from it's former self, being little more than a tit mag for someone with the attention span of a gnat. And sadly, most of the others are the same. This hasn’t been helped by the arrival in 2004 of the lads weeklies; Nuts and Zoo were the product of feverish market research, based on a hybrid of the girls ”Heat” mag and the lad’s monthlies, with all the sport, bizarre photos, and topless lovelies you'd normally get plus a “Heat-esque” TV guide and more up to date "news". Although they won’t admit it, the publishers seem to be aiming these at the 14 to 22-age bracket. Basically, schoolboy porn. And this again hit the circulations of the monthlies badly. Their reaction? To try and compete with the weeklies, rather than offer an alternative. Hence an already dumbed down men’s magazine market became mostly barely readable semi-porn.


I'm now 37, and I never thought I’d say this, but I am getting a little perturbed at what can be found on the middle shelves of your local newsagent. The line between porn and lad's mag is now a very fine one. There are still a few magazines I can tolerate such as Esquire (right), which is still very much aimed at the £45k income man, but the articles are good, and Arena (below), which for years was a bit up it’s own arse, as you’d expect from a magazine from The Face’s Nick Logan, but although it’s one of the lowest selling men's mags, it's now actually the best.

Yes it's got the usual fashion for people who like to spend £1590 on a shirt and articles on how to find the best bars in Singapore, but it does have really good articles and the obligatory babes don't look too gratuitous - all very classy. It sometimes walks a fine line but is really quite readable. But it seems to be alone.


All I want is a magazine that's not afraid to treat it's re
aders with some intelligence, that will feature a 6000 word article without having to use "Boxouts" and that shows a little more respect to women, like the early mags used to. It used to be a bonus to have beautiful women in the magazine, not compulsory. Is this too difficult? I fear so. For much of what we can buy now seems, to these eyes, not much more that glossy mysogyny.


The ironic thing is that the once classy perv mag Penthouse has been relaunched, but aimed at the middle shelf rather than the top. And even more ironic is that despite the skin, it looks like a copy of FHM from the mid 90s. How times change. The porn mags look classy and the lad's mags look like Mayfair.

Not that I’ve read it of course. I found it in some bushes.

Wednesday, June 13, 2007

Post-match analysis

Well, the football season’s over, and with no summer cup tournaments to bother with this year, this seems an appropriate time to look back at how it all ended.

Manchester United won the Premiership, ending the three-year London teams’ grip on this prize quite emphatically, with the job done and dusted with a few games to spare. Bloody good job as well, as they were showing signs of flagging towards the end, and by the time the FA Cup final came, I’d say we were a spent force. Ditto Chelsea really, who more or less had kept with us all the way, being knocked out of European Cup at semi-final stage by Liverpool. These campaigns took their toll on both United and Chelsea, as both the league game and the final between the two were dull lifeless affairs. As it is, Chelsea did do a sort of "double", winning the League Cup and FA Cup, but they and we know that the Premiership is what really matters - never mind “new Wembley”.


United won the League in some style, with the victory over Citeh at their Council House being the point where we knew it was game over for Mourinho. Frankly though, I reckon if it hadn’t had been for sublime skills of Ronaldo and the rock that was Vidic in defence, we’d have been in deep doo-doo. But respect to the likes of Giggs, Rooney and especially the mercurial talent of Mr Paul Scholes, who was back to his best after a season and a half where we thought he’d lost it completely. Good to see Michael Carrick fitting in as well, though he went a bit off the boil towards the end – I suppose you don’t get used to playing so many games when you’re at Tottenham. And it looks as if the intention is there to stay at the top, with early Summer signings made already to bolster the team for the season to come.

The bin-dippers ragged their way to another European Final, playing against the team that quite rightly knocked us out in the semis, AC Milan. And yet again the Final was another dull affair, with the subdued Scousers outplayed by a below par Milan, falling foul of a couple of goals from Inzaghi. They attempted a late comeback with a goal (at last) from Kuyt but to no avail. The trophy winged it’s way to Italy, rather than England, which at semi-final stage you couldn't see happening as three of the four teams still involved were English. Milan, remember, at the start of the season were involved in that match-fixing scandal, and by rights shouldn’t have even been in the competition but turned out to be the best team. Funny old game isn’t it?


What wasn’t funny were the shenanigans outside the ground. Yes it’s those self proclaimed best fans in the world again, in trouble. It's common knowledge that ticket allocation is always a problem for the European Cup Final, in that UEFA have seen fit to hold each final in a different European country each year, so that each competing country’s league gets their shot at holding this prestigious tournament. Now when you’re talking about holding it at the Neu Camp in Barcelona, with capacity of 100,000, that’s fair enough, but the Olympic stadium in Athens held only 63,800. Hmm.

Maths 101 time. UEFA allocated 17,000 tickets to each club. That leaves 29,800 tickets to be shared amongst the “UEFA family”, a typically ambiguous phrase coined by the Fifa presidentn and fat bastard Sepp Blatter, that covers almost anyone who has anything to do with the game, i.e their member associations and federations, clubs, officials, administrators, referees, sponsors (all 16 of them), suppliers, uncles etc. Many of these make there way to ticket touts though, where they can be sold on to gullible fans for a pretty penny.

Okay, out of those 29,800 tickets are a certain allocation which are available in a general sale ballot to the pleb public, so conceivably if you got one of these you could be a fan of either Milan or Liverpool, or any other club, or not a fan at all i.e. a tout who could sell them on etc.

Back to the 17,000 tickets for Liverpool. You have to ask why did only 11,000 of these make their way to the fans, who sell out every home European tie at Anfield (so say 45000 go to every match, 1 in 4 might get a ticket for the final). Where did the other 6,000 go to? Liverpool FC’s explanation was that for every major event like this they have an obligation to their own sponsors, their former players and the like. Any club would use the occasion to award tickets as a thank you to those who work for them, This isn’t unusual, or unreasonable, but you’d have to question why 6,000? Isn’t that rather excessive?

So 11,000 genuine ticket holding fans make their way to Athens, as well as those who have bought off E-bay and the like. So far so good. But no. Thousands of ticket less fans make their way over as well, some hoping to get lucky with the touts over there, some to just enjoy the atmosphere and then some who have no intention of getting a genuine ticket and are going to try and blag their way in with or without forged tickets.

So you’d have thought the latter bunch wouldn’t have got a sniff of getting into the stadium, especially at a final. Ha ha ha, no. Champions League tickets had holograms, barcodes and watermarks on them - in theory enough to put the forgers off, but in the melee of getting into a football match, that counts for little. Police officers controlling crowds make isolated decisions based on public safety first and foremost. There were no turnstiles in Athens, and when the fans with forged or no tickets started to cause crushes at the entry points, fans were waved through with the most cursory of checks. Some said their tickets weren't checked at all.

"Is it giro day yet?"

The Athens police say there were 7,500 officers on duty, more, for example, than the number on duty for the FA Cup final. They had support from both the British and Italian police forces, who had spotters monitoring the fans. Around the stadiums, police in riot gear were much in evidence, assisting the stewards with ticket checks and in ushering the crowds in through the 'funnels' they created with lines of police vans etc. There was CCTV covering the main access points. In theory, that should have been enough. What went fundamentally wrong is the system in place for ticket checks just was not effective. As soon as that broke down, the problems began. Stewards inside the stadium could not or would not do much about the problem of fans with forgeries sitting in the seats of genuinely ticketed fans, who in turn took someone else's seat. In the end the gangways and access areas filled up with displaced fans, so UEFA took the decision to close the stadium, when you ended up with the crazy situation of fans with genuine tickets being denied entry to the ground.

And that’s without even mentioning the fans who allegedly had their tickets stolen. Loveable scousers eh?

UEFA spokesman and knob William Gaillard got his pre-emptive strike in early, proclaiming that "Unfortunately, in Britain, it is the behaviour. Liverpool fans are responsible for the problem before, during and after the game. They were trying to go over the barriers to get into the stadium without tickets, which is not behaviour we can condone. Milan supporters didn't face the same problems because they didn't behave in the same way. What other fans steal tickets from fellow fans or from the hands of children?" In his report, he paints a damning picture of the Anfield club's supporters' behaviour at the Champions League final. "We know what happened in Athens, and Liverpool fans were the cause of most of the trouble there. There have been 25 incidents involving Liverpool fans away from home since 2003 and these are in the report - most teams' supporters do not cause any trouble at all.”

Fair enough, but even as a United fan I can see that there is an element of attacking and blaming the Scousers whilst trying to play down UEFA’s inadequacies and the dismal handling of the whole affair. Understandably, there has been much outrage from the ambulance chasers of Merseyside and the club itself who, whilst not denying that a percentage of so-called fans have let them down badly, have gone on to rightly criticise UEFA for their shortcomings in organization. It’s like a tit-for-tat playground fight: “You did it” “No you did it, it’s your fault”.

"The vast majority of Liverpool fans are impeccably behaved, but there has always been a hard core of mindless thugs that ruin it for the rest. It hurts me to say this, but I won’t be following Liverpool on their travels in future.“ These are the words of Phil Hammond, who lost his son Philip at Hillsborough and is chairman of the Hillsborough Family Support Group. Damning indeed.

UEFA seem to hold the Champions League final at inappropriate, generic venues that can be plastered with it's myriad of shiny euro-making brands. Next year’s venue is in Moscow, so is bound to be a nightmare with outrageous hotel and flight prices, not to mention bizarre bent policing and potential mafia involvement. Great.

The bottom line in all this is that if people behaved responsibly, the European Cup Final would have gone by without trouble, much like when a few years ago it was held in England at Old Trafford. Those with tickets would have got in, those without would have watched the match elsewhere. Yes, ticket allocation is a joke, it always is, but there was only trouble at one end of the stadium. So Scousers bleating on about the unjustness of it all need to look at themselves before pointing fingers.

If Derek Jacobi’s on at the National Theatre in a rare production of Hamlet, and you can’t get a ticket as the chin-stroking brigade have nabbed all the tickets first, you might go turning up anyway and trying to score a ticket from a tout. Fair enough. But if that failed, would you then go forging or stealing one, blagging your way in and then sitting in a stranger’s seat? Or if all else failed, charging the entrance to the stalls? And then when your crusade ends horribly, in violence, injury or distress, would you then blame the management at the National Theatre for staging it at the Cottesloe Theatre, not the larger capacity Olivier Theatre?

If you cannot get a ticket for for the premiere of "Die Hard 4", you don’t go. Only in the stupid world of the big Football match do we find nothing unusual in 20,000 people arriving with tickets and the same number arriving without, but still expecting to get in, with nothing to do but get pissed and fume at their predicament until a combination of frustration, anger and rowdiness culminates in the stupid scenes that we saw outside the Olympic Stadium in Athens, where you get riot police using batons and tear gas (as they do) on anyone who wanders into their path. End of rant.

In other news, Citeh sack their manager Stuart Pearce, as predicted in an earlier blog entry. They seem to think they're going to get some overseas millionaire to invest in the club, and attract a top European manager, which is unlikely to happen. It's Man Citeh for Eric's sake. We said goodbye to Watford, Charlton and controversially on the last day, Sheffield United. Bye bye. You won't be missed. We say a big hello next year to Keano’s amazingly revitalised Sunderland, Steve Bruce's Burminghum (again), and Derby. Unfortunately, Wolves didn’t get through the play-offs, losing to the dreaded West Bromwich Albion in a heated two leg decider, the home leg of which Celia and I travelled to in the pouring rain one miserable Sunday. Enjoyable match but frustrating. From what I've seen, I think they’ve got it in them to go up next year, but bearing in mind the rebuilding Mick McCarthy has had to do this year, with very little money, it’s a feat that they got to the play-off’s at all. And anyway, it was good to see Derby County stuffing the Baggies to gain promotion. Boing boing indeed.


Blackpool will be playing both Albion and wolves next year as well as rivals Preston North End, as down a great unbeaten run towards the end of the season, they gained promotion via the Play-Offs. Yes, we’ll be able to watch Wolves hammer the mighty Tangerines at their half-stadium at Bloomfield next season, where we’ll find the 30,000+ that went to Wembley to watch them gain promotion will have dwindled to just over a third of that number. Glory hunters everywhere. I don’t begrudge Blackpool FC it’s success, as the team played some good football to get there, but if half of the 30,000 that travelled down to London supported them week in week out, they wouldn’t have been in the state they’ve been in for so long. Can they stay up? Let’s wait and see.