Backward looking or forward thinking? Kerrang V NME

Is the traditional rock press supporting new music? Is the indie press too keen to move onto the next hot band?

I compare an issue of Kerrang and an issue of NME from 19 Feb 2011, investigating the bands they feature.

I counted the images from each magazine and categorised them as such:

I included the front cover but discounted paid for adverts.

A few of my initial thoughts are below, feel free to share yours.

Many thanks!

NOTES

I was interested to see that Kerrang features so many new artists- the general feel of the magazine has always felt to me a little classic-thinking. (it must be noted that this particular issue featured a new band and multiple page spread of a hot NEW band, Black Veil Brides AND coverage of the Kerrang Tour, which featured a couple of new bands.)
I was not surprised to see that Kerrang favours “old” bands over current, although there is little difference between NEW and OLD in terms of figures.
NME is significantly less interested in “old” artists, although it does favour them to extablished in this issue. (again this may have bene swayed by the frontcover and multiple spread article, which featured The Strokes, a band I classified as OLD, but could just have easily fallen into the established category. I placed them in “old” as they were being treated in the magzine as returning legends, this is the perception of the band.
Both magazines follow the same PATTERN: with interest dropping off as bands get older, then returning as they enter the 10 years + category. Ironically, I would say KErrang has a younger readership than NME, yet the drop off on interest normally associated with a younger readership is less than NME.