Re: Will "Trouser Press" Magazine Ever Return?

I have just logged onto this message board for the first time. Maybe my question has been addressed by someone before now. "Trouser Press" was better than the other rock music magazines around in its day, including "Rollong Stone," which features articles and reviews by Ira Robbins. Its focus was on cutting edge music and historically relevant bands that were inspirational in some way to contemporary music or on specific musicians. Most current magazines, music oriented or otherwise, are hype, drivel and overpriced. Too bad there doesn't seem to be a magazine like "Touser Press" now.

I was never fortunate enough to see the magazine, but wore through several copies / editions of the Trouser Press Guide.

As far as a magazine that fits your description, try The Big Takeover (www.bigtakeover.com). It's editor, Jack Rabid, was a contributor to Trouser Press. Published twice a year, it's $20 for 4 issues, post paid.

Thanks for the info. on "The Rabid," Inger. I will definitely read that magazine. "Trouser Press" was an oasis in a desert of mediocrity for people who wanted to read about cutting edge bands in the 1970's and 80's. Every other magazine was devoted to dinasaur bands and bloated AOR rock in those days. The only major magazine of that type that was decent was "Creem," now also defunct. I found out about many great bands from reading "Trouser Press," and I was saddened when it went out of publication. I am happy that Ira Robbins now writes for "Rolling Stone," as I have always enjoyeed his writing.

i haven't written for rolling stone in ages

I wasn't aware that you left "Rolling Stone." It's good as a general interest magazine with a focus on music, but for the past few years devoted a little too much attention to Britney, N'Sync, et al. I still think "Trouser Press" was great, and I would read it again if you bring it back. I remember that the early issues covered The Who quite a bit. What do you think of the current band of Daltrey, Townshend and sidemen billing itself as The Who?

the who it's not

I saw Daltrey, Townshend and crew on their 2002 tour. It was not "Live At Leeds," although it was entertaining to see "The Two" perform their classics live. Zak Starkey is a good drummer, and Pino Palladino is an excellent journeyman bassist, who also toured with Simon and Garfunkel on their Fall 2003 reunion tour. Both of them are able musicians, but they cannot pack the punch of Keith Moon and John Entwistle. No one can replace those guys, and they should not be expected to replace them. The new guys do the best they can with the material. I don't begrudge Pete and Roger working together again. They are apparently recording a new album. I just wish they would not use the name, "The Who." They should do something like Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young or use some other new name that is cool and denotes who they are as musicians. Perhaps a simple name change that would be artisticaly appropriate would not be financially rewarding.

At this point I wouldn't be surprised if they're releasing a record (and under the Who moniker) for the same reasons the Stones do: as "product" to justify yet another tour.

With the advent of THIS media, I can imagine how difficult it would be to finance a print magazine with the content of Trouser Press - though they seem able to do so in UK. Of the many online mags, have u tried pitchforkmedia or buddyhead?

Sorry I misspelled your name, igner. I cought it after I posted.