New Holland, Illinois
P.S. The only thing we read out of your, “uh” magazine was Hollywood International, because we didn’t have the nerve to read the rest of it for it also contained a pack of lies!!! Any other magazine is better than your pack of lies! Such as 16, Flip, Tiger Beat, and Teen Screen. Your whole magazine is a big fat failure because of one outrageous article. Shape up or ship out!
If those are the choices…—Editor.
I read with great interest the letter from the “Irate Reader” in your January issue, and would like to offer my opinions on some of the points which Gayle Kapena brought out.
Sue Cameron’s information does not seem to be “made up in her head.” However, she has often added her own opinions, such as her comments concerning the Troggs in the January issue. It seems to be a sad fact that anyone brave enough to express what they honestly feel to be the truth is bound to be unjustly put down.
I once believed that 16 magazine was the magazine that printed only the truth. I read 16, and only that, from September, 1965, up until last month. Then, I suddenly realized that I was wrong. I have since purchased two issues of TeenSet (Dec. and Jan.), and several other publications. I do not intend to stop buying 16 at the moment, as it is quite an entertaining magazine. I enjoy Neil Aspinall’s column, and some of the pictures, but the rest of 16 is for the birds.
I have found TeenSet to be an outstanding mixture of humor, sensitive beauty, and serious reporting. Keep up the good work. You have gained another devoted TeenSet reader.
In your October issue you had an article called Mark Lindsay (sigh) Or: How Teenset’s Editor blew her cool. It was all a bunch of lies. If you would read 16 magazine, which never lies, you would know.
The only reason I have a TeenSet was because my dad brought it home to me. It has a lot of other lies too!
Wichita Falls, Tex.
P.S. You can get in a lot of trouble for printing lies! You can bet I’ll never buy another one!!
Very interesting. But at least your father knows where it’s at.—Editor.
I recently began buying TeenSet on a regular basis and I think that it is the greatest teen magazine around. The color pictures are beautiful, fantastic and look “live.” The stories are interesting and not run-of-the-mill details on each star’s favorite “everything.”
I wish to make a distinction between 16 Magazine and TeenSet. I subscribed to the former for three years and enjoyed it. It is for the younger teenager who likes lots of pictures of his favorite stars and wants to know all of what they like. Your magazine is more for the older teens who want a story with substance about the modern entertainment world. So please stop feuding with 16 magazine… you are actually geared to a different audience and beating each other down won’t change anything much.
I agree with all you say, except one thing—what feud?—Editor.
At last after years of sorting through teeny-bopper type magazines, I’ve come upon one that presents intelligently written facts with the more mature young people in mind.
We either have to sift through page after page of stretched truths aimed at selling magazines (?) or suffer the (and I use the term loosely) insult to our intelligence by the WOW! KABAM! styled magazines loaded with tiny, poor quality pictures and hot news scoops that are only two months old by the time they reach the stands.
A big thanks to TeenSet’s editor and congratulations, TeenSet readers for making a wise choice in magazines. Keep up the great work!
Your articles get better and better, even though they make me appear as a lazy, drunken Sybarite—all the same, many thanks for your literate coverage of the deeply uninteresting lives of Chad and Jeremy.
More power to your ink-stained finger and a very happy Christmas.
Congratulations to TeenSet for the magnificent article on Frank Zappa (WHO?) in the January issue. This guy’s fabulous—I thought Bob Dylan could send you up, but Zappa puts you in orbit! Please have more about him—the Mothers of Invention are bound to go SOMEWHERE… I mean, with a leader like Frank Zappa, how can they go wrong (straight?)!
Also, thanks for the terrific Beatle coverage and great Beatles photos. Please have more on Donovan, and I’d appreciate something about Keith Allison, too, Keep up the great work.
Thank you so very much for your article about the Association in the January issue. I saw them once and it really convinced me that they were the greatest. I think you’re right when you say “older” people like them. Their style is so different and their personalities so great that the adults can’t help but appreciate the best thing that’s come to today’s music.
There have been very BIG rumors concerning the fact that the Beatles are not coming back to America next year… there have been many newspaper and magazine articles on this, and I don’t think it’s any rumor—I think it’s true. If it is, will you please get your Beatlemaniac editor to do something?
More on Great (you better believe it!) Britain and keep putting pictures of Pauley (pant) on the front cover…
Los Altos, Calif.
The Beatles will not be back, at least not for concerts. Your Beatlemaniac editor IS doing something about it—I’m going to England!—Editor.
I really wish you wouldn’t put down other mags (namely 16). Your mag is great, but there are other good mags, too. (You don’t seem to know that, though). 16 is great, and so is TeenSet, and I could name a few more, too. Furthermore, I’m sure 16 wouldn’t be caught dead putting down TeenSet or any other mag, for that matter.
A Reader of Many Good Mags
There are indeed other good mags; however, your last remark isn’t quite so accurate.—Editor.
I enjoy your magazine very much, but I do have one complaint. It seems to me that you hold quite a grudge against my favorite pop group, the Rolling Stones. I realize that, having met and talked with them, you are certainly in a better position than I to comment on their personalities and behavior. Your editorial (Dec., 1966) was very kind and perceptive. However, of your two “grumpies” awarded (Jan., 1966) one was certainly undeserved: “To Keith Richard and Mick Jagger for their inspirational compositions.”
They do write, arrange and sing their music well. So don’t knock them, please. Well, thank you for listening to my howls of protest. I never would have wasted my time writing to any other magazine.
No one appreciates Stones music more than I; I’ve already printed that I think “Aftermath” is a masterpiece, and their early albums are Blues knockouts. I awarded them a grumpie because I didn’t think songs like “Have You Seen Your Mother, etc.” came up to Stone standards.—Editor.
Brace yourself! You are about to get the third degree! Your mag is class A, except for a few faults. Like Sue Cameron; you’d think she was Suzy Perfect the way she cuts people up. And your “cool” a Go Go column, that’s too far advanced for us. Chung!
I don’t know what you’re trying to prove, but I’d advise you to smarten up on those two. Otherwise, I’m with you all the way. (I think.)
Shadows, Shilos and Shades
I think that the Beatles and Beatle fans deserve an apology for what Mike Nesmith did on the Monkees television show on November 14, 1966, when he threw a dart at a Beatle picture and hit Ringo, because it was uncalled for, unnecessary, in bad taste, and just plain stupid and idiotic, because I’m sure the Beatles wouldn’t do such a thing, because they’re not foolish, idiotic, and stupid enough to do a thing like Mike Nesmith did.
I’m sorry to hear that fun and humor are now classed as foolish, idiotic, and stupid.—Editor.
About the letter from Gayle Kapena, Kailua, Hawaii: Find yourself a new mind, girl, ’cause you’re out of it, baby.
The Peppermint Lounge
Georgetown, Washington, D.C.
I want to take time to thank you for your article “20 Reasons for Mitch Ryder” (Nov., 1966). I was lucky enough to meet him and the Detroit Wheels this past summer. Please print more on him!
We did—see p. 53 of this issue.—Editor.
I’ve just got to start out with a very grateful thank you for your beautiful material on the Beatles. There are only a few mags that really have adequate and sincere coverage on the best collection of people in the world, as far as I’m concerned… the Beatles. Maybe I shouldn’t, but I’m going to mention the other mags, even if you have to stick cuckoos in. They are TeenSet, Datebook, and Teen Screen. 16, though a bit moronic to the sharpness of fans’ minds, does happen to have good pix, but only because they get them from the Beatles’ own monthly mag published in England. But I think I love your stories on them the best because everyone on your staff appears to adore the Beatles, even though the editor doesn’t seem to think too much of teen “reporters.” Well, gee! We aren’t professionals! But that’s all right, it’s just your opinion. And in the article of Beatlemania, 1966, Part II, your editor said that the Beatles didn’t seem to be “their usual sparkling wry and witty selves” at the L.A. press conference. I watched this press conference and I thought they were hilarious and answered funnily but also intelligently. Either you’re mistaken or they were playing a fantastic game of pretend! But I just loved them and that’s all that matters, really.
San Diego, Calif.
P.S. Tell Gayle Kapena of Hawaii that she is fanatically and hilariously out of her gourd! (heh, heh)
Thank you—and about that press conference, they were funny and witty, but not so much as in previous situations. They were relatively “down” in LA, but that doesn’t mean they put anyone to sleep.—Editor.
Editor: Judith Sims
Publisher: Capitol Records Distributing Corp.
Pages: 5, 60–61