Attitude. GayTimes. etc.

[ladsnet]

Do you read them ?


I used to subscribe to Attitude. Back in the 90s. And I recall quite a few people on here did.
It was a good read I thought.. as well as the pictures.

I was recently given a 2020 copy, as it had a feature in that a friend thought would interest me.. and what struck me, flicking through, was how little interest I had in the mag.


I don't know if this is changing times.. or me.. or the mag has changed.


Anyone still read them?
Views?

[Heinrich]

We just have better, more direct ways to get our information now. Proper magazines are dying.

And our community has gotten much bigger. There's no catch all way to reach us.

[Vic]

Not sure about our community having got bigger; I think it is that part (now the much greater part) that is out has got bigger

[Heinrich]

That's an excellent point.

[ken_85]

I'm the same on Attitude, loved some of the pics back in the day, sex issue and the like. I'll still buy the occasional (digital) copy these days, but...I can't help but think/feel that it either the magazine or I have changed too much, especially since it seems to be very...I dunno, not queer?

Back in the day, even when interviewing straight guys, they would play with queer ideas or their place within the community; now, it just seems to be marketing and advertising the new album/single or the likes...

[ladsnet]

Yeah. I didn't want to slag it off, as it might just be me. Getting old maybe? But I couldn't really see who it was aimed at.
It's more like a coffee table mag for the very well-off than the 'gay' mag I remember.

I certainly wouldn't buy it and couldn't work out who exactly would.

[Heinrich]

Ha! Upper-class liberals in their 50s who think they're very progressive and need to show it off. Parsi's straight friends in Manhattan, perhaps.

[jdcyl]

There is no mystery here. When people used to pay for magazines and magazines could sell ads based on their readership, the publishers could afford to pay content providers for creating interesting material: editors, writers, photographers, etc. These magazines can’t afford to produce a good product anymore.

[Parsifal]

Ha! Upper-class liberals in their 50s who think they're very progressive and need to show it off. Parsi's straight friends in Manhattan, perhaps.

Parsi's straight friends in Manhattan (or elsewhere) do not read Attitude magazine.  No.

[jumbler]

Yeah. I didn't want to slag it off, as it might just be me. Getting old maybe? But I couldn't really see who it was aimed at.
It's more like a coffee table mag for the very well-off than the 'gay' mag I remember.

I certainly wouldn't buy it and couldn't work out who exactly would.

100%. I do actually subscribe (via iTunes). But somehow I never manage to get round to reading it. I think it’s more for the Will Young’s of this world, really.

The app is OK, but a bit buggy and clunky sometimes. Or was. Haven’t checked on iOS 14 yet. Maybe a return to good old web pages would help (like online newspapers). Quite a bit of the content is free if you sign up to the newsletter.

---

I'm the same on Attitude, loved some of the pics back in the day, sex issue and the like. I'll still buy the occasional (digital) copy these days, but...I can't help but think/feel that it either the magazine or I have changed too much, especially since it seems to be very...I dunno, not queer?

Back in the day, even when interviewing straight guys, they would play with queer ideas or their place within the community; now, it just seems to be marketing and advertising the new album/single or the likes...

Yes, it’s much more like a lifestyle mag now. Nudity isn’t that common, even on photo shoots. And the stars are quite niche, even for LGBT interest.

[Heinrich]

Ha! Upper-class liberals in their 50s who think they're very progressive and need to show it off. Parsi's straight friends in Manhattan, perhaps.

Parsi's straight friends in Manhattan (or elsewhere) do not read Attitude magazine.  No.

Well then who the FUCK is?!

[ladsnet]

Yeah. I didn't want to slag it off, as it might just be me. Getting old maybe? But I couldn't really see who it was aimed at.
It's more like a coffee table mag for the very well-off than the 'gay' mag I remember.

I certainly wouldn't buy it and couldn't work out who exactly would.

100%. I do actually subscribe (via iTunes). But somehow I never manage to get round to reading it. I think it’s more for the Will Young’s of this world, really.

The app is OK, but a bit buggy and clunky sometimes. Or was. Haven’t checked on iOS 14 yet. Maybe a return to good old web pages would help (like online newspapers). Quite a bit of the content is free if you sign up to the newsletter.

Why subscribe if you never read it ???

And funnily enough... the recent issue I flicked through had an interview with Will Young.
Maybe thats (all) what he does now. Just give interviews to Attitude every month.

[jumbler]

I did used to read it. It’s probably due to lack of interest (in lots of things) than not wanting to read it.

---

Waiting for each issue to download was a bit of a pain...

[Hugh]

The last issue that I bought was the July 2016 with Prince William on the cover.
First was with Shane Filan issue 79.
Bought a few other issue of the magazine between my 1st and last.
Just thought that as I've gotten a bit older, who I was changed. Someone who Attitude magazine might not appeal to.
Attitude magazine used to have adverts in the back for sex story phone lines that you called up. Adverts for gay porn DVDs, Triga was one.

[Parsifal]

Ha! Upper-class liberals in their 50s who think they're very progressive and need to show it off. Parsi's straight friends in Manhattan, perhaps.

Parsi's straight friends in Manhattan (or elsewhere) do not read Attitude magazine.  No.

Well then who the FUCK is?!

I don't cross paths with the pretentious crowd.  They're on the East Side.  I'm on the West Side.

[Heinrich]

Of course not, you class act.

[jumbler]

Forgive me, I am a dumb person (when it comes to New York, anyway).

Which districts are more upmarket than others??

[Parsifal]

Forgive me, I am a dumb person (when it comes to New York, anyway).

Which districts are more upmarket than others??

It's constantly changing.  50 years ago the priciest part of town was the Upper East Side and Midtown East (just north of the UN) hands down.  The Upper West Side was what I would describe as "educated middle class".  Today the UWS bests the UES by a slim margin with some of the wealthiest people in the world living on Central Park West (UWS) on the block just north of Donald Trump's Trump International Hotel at Columbus Circle.  Central Park South (i.e. West 59th St. between 5th and 8th Avenues) has always been up there in the clouds too.

But today (based on my last reading - I don't work in real estate) the priciest neighborhood is TriBeCa, downtown just north of the World Trade Center and a former warehouse and light manufacturing district.  Those former industrial spaces make for large loft apartments with high ceilings.  JFK Jr. was living there at the time he died.  New residential buildings have been going up there too.  Hugh Jackman and Nicole Kidman live in TriBeCa.

It looks like the highest price street in NYC may be West 57th St. in Midtown in the not too distant future.  That's where these mega-high-rise residential buildings are going up.  An apartment (multi-story) sold in one of those buildings recently for $190 million (do I remember that number correctly?) and the building hasn't even been finished yet.

Stay tuned.  It keeps changing.

[Heinrich]

Isn't Hell's Kitchen gentrified as fuck, too?

[jumbler]

I’m sure Rustin Low could teach you a thing or two about NYC real estate. He seems to know his shit.