Role Models

Body Glove's advertisement in the January 2006 issue of EM (inside back cover) was distressing. In selling products to musicians, I think it would be best to lose the model in a bathing suit with high heels. Body Glove's attempt at humor with a double entendre (“About our model: tough, curvy exterior, yet soft on the inside. And we think Amber is pretty hot too!”) was appalling. There is a reason that a professional magazine such as EM doesn't sell sex: it's cheap, shallow, and degrades both the exploited model and the consumer.
Dan Bradley
via email

I'm a longtime subscriber to EM and have always enjoyed its informative articles and reviews. But what's up with your advertisers' fascination with “models” in recent editions?

IK Multimedia's “Super Modeling” advertisement for Ampli-Tube 2, in the December 2005 issue of EM (p. 105), has been around for months. And now Body Glove's “Bombshell” advertisement, complete with its model named Amber, in the January 2006 issue (p. 139), leaves me wondering where EM is heading.

Don't get me wrong — I enjoy and employ my fair share of attempts at humor. But come on, folks, are we going to have pictures of scantily clad models in advertisements for every device that uses modeling algorithms? I hope not.

It's getting hard to find an appropriate place to read EM. At my day job, such pictures are considered offensive and referred to as “sexual harassment in the workplace.” At home, my wife and three daughters would wonder what kind of magazine I'm reading with pictures like that. I also wonder if it makes your female readers feel like the world of music and music technology really is only for men, despite the articles you occasionally publish that try to persuade them otherwise.

So, please, have a talk with your advertisers. Give me the great articles and reviews that I need for wisely spending thousands of dollars on music equipment and for being productive. There are plenty of other magazines out there for those who want to see pictures of supermodels.
Dan Haas
via email

EM associate publisher Joe Perry replies: Our advertisers conceive and create their ads and buy the ad space, so they decide on the message and company identity they want to convey. That said, the publisher reserves the right to refuse advertisements that do not adhere to the publication's standards, policies, and principles. Publisher Dave Reik is ultimately responsible for this at EM, and he has delegated the immediate responsibility to me as the associate publisher. The editorial staff has no authority with respect to advertisements, although I respect their opinions. In fact, the editors usually don't see ads prior to publication.

Practically speaking, I have to use my judgment regarding “taste” in advertising. We serve a diverse readership, and the distinction between acceptable and potentially offensive can be hard to define. On occasion, we have advised advertisers that certain ads were unacceptable and have either refused the ads or induced the advertiser to change the offending portions.

The ads with the models obviously are intended to appeal to our 93 percent male demographic, and, according to the feedback I've gotten, these ads have been successful in that they resulted in product inquiries. On the other hand, some readers may feel that the ads are sexist or simply inappropriate for a technical magazine. But in my judgment, the ads are harmless and are well within mainstream American culture. Given that, I support the advertisers' right to communicate their messages as they see fit.

Claim Check

The 2006 Editors' Choice Award for Microphones (Condenser), in the January 2006 issue of EM, went to the Røde NT2-A ($699 MSRP). In support of EM's reasoning for giving the award, the mic's reviewer, Rob Shrock, said that the NT2-A's excellent sound was like “a quieter version of a Neumann U 67.”

This key quote contains two assumptions that will be drawn by your magazine's readership: (1) the mic sounds like a Neumann U 67, and (2) the mic is appreciably quieter than the (noisier) Neumann U 67.

Such arguments are irresponsible and somewhat condescending toward your readers. Would a significant number of professional users who test both mics side by side truly come away with a similar impression? If so, I'm in the wrong business, and maybe on the wrong planet. Professionals who spend upwards of $4,000 for a healthy U 67 must be delusional, irrational, and fiscally irresponsible, because the equally good-sounding, but quieter, Røde costs only one-tenth of the U 67's street price. If beginners or semiprofessionals looking for a good microphone read this and, in good faith, base their purchasing decision on such promises, what will the outcome be the morning after, and in the long term?

Don't misunderstand my reflections. I'm not slamming the Røde product, which may or may not be a fine microphone in its price class. (I have no idea, because I've never heard it.) But if what EM claims in its Editors' Choice Awards write-up is true, then conventional assumptions of what a microphone is worth, as well as entire business and economic models, would undergo a revolution and seismic realignment worthy of front-page treatment in every audio and economic periodical on this planet.
Klaus Heyne
German Masterworks
Corbett, Oregon

Klaus — My comparison of the Røde NT2-A to a Neumann U 67 was intended as a broad stroke to convey the general flavor of the NT2-A to the EM reader. In fact, I still maintain that the NT2-A would be a good choice for recording applications where a U 67 would be used (such as vocals, cello, and so on). It's simply a matter of fact that the Røde microphone contains quieter electronics, and I'm sorry if that offends your sense of right and wrong. I have used U 67s a lot throughout my career, and — although I would not characterize them as a noisy microphone — the latest generation of microphones is setting new standards for both quiet electronics and price.

EM's readership includes the semiprofessional and hobbyist markets, as well as professionals with personal studios and limited budgets. I'm not condescending to them when I inform them of a product that I believe brings them closer to the “big gun” products that are venerated by top professionals with larger budgets. In fact, that's my job as a reviewer. I appreciate — in fact, I own — many big-ticket items as well, fully understanding their practical and psychological benefits for the recording process.

However, the fact that many big-name producers regularly use modern, less expensive tools — including microphones that cost less than $1,000 — for lead vocals on major-label productions further attests to the fact that, indeed, a revolution of both economic and technical models has already occurred. The fact that second-generation ADATs sounded better than digital recorders that cost 50 times more only a decade earlier is a trend that is continually playing out in all areas of audio and video production.

I love and respect the U 67, and I'm not implying that the Røde NT2-A is better, or even the same — only that they are broadly similar. The NT2-A makes a good option for those who cannot afford a large-diaphragm microphone of that caliber.
— Rob Shrock

We Welcome Your Feedback

Address correspondence to:
Letters
Electronic Musician
6400 Hollis Street, Suite 12
Emeryville, CA 94608
or email us at emeditorial@penton.com.

Published letters may be edited for space and clarity.