Site New Answers Search Boards ILE ILM Answers New Question New Questions New Poll Blog View Register Login

Has The NME Got Good?

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
On the cover recently - Popstars, Missy Elliot, the Miami Dance Conference, and a big non-music theme issue.....isn't this pretty much what we've all been saying the NME *should* be doing (Gorillaz aside)?

The question I suppose is - has anyone actually read it?

― Tom, Wednesday, 4 April 2001 00:00 (12 years ago) Permalink

One still gets the feeling that this is the usual stage in the NME cycle when nothing much is happening in whiteboy guitar land and black music and non-music issues get reasonably good cover until the next Roses/Mondays/Oasis comes along. As an ancient relic of a human being, I remember all this happening in the mid-'80s when the likes of Stuart Cosgrove and James Brown loudly proclaimed hip-hop and house (and, ahem, "sonic theft merchants," i.e. M/A/R/R/S sampling three seconds of the Last Poets) the future, and sad C86 indie in its deserved grave. Then the ABC figures came in and the Shop Assistants replaced Schoolly-D on the cover once again. I sadly suspect that this will remain the case, as Gavin and Emma in their halls of residence will remain listening to the pelvis-dead likes of StarKloot and Turin Convenience when it all boils down. The other problem is that NME lacks the visionary writer to bolt everything together - there is certainly no Burchill, Morley or even Baker on the current payroll, and one has to rely on old rep reliables like SWells and Stubbs for insight and interest. Still, no argument that Eve's "Scorpion" is a knockout masterpiece of an album, and looking forward to the new Avalanches and Mogwai LPs as well as the forthcoming Shuggie Otis reissue. Life trundles on (P.S.: memo to Danny out of Hear'Say - lose the losers and do a cover of "Make The Woman Love Me" with Kevin Shields as producer. Guaranteed number one).

― Marcello Carlin, Wednesday, 4 April 2001 00:00 (12 years ago) Permalink

Eve's still not close to Aalyiah or Rah Digga really, though.

The patronage of Eve by a Cure-loving (for the record, behind the Smith as the 2nd worse band of the 80s for me, and I was only about seven at the time) OLD and BALD Grandad is the most patronisingly reader-chasing and insulting thing NME have ever done in my memory.

NME's crap right now. They're not taking any real risks despite (as always) proclaiming to: if they were to really devour the zeigeist, they'd swap the four page LP section with the half-page dance section.

NME's sad populism-chasing (as opposed to, say Musik and 7's populism facing) is as embarrassing as it can get for a 20 year old pop freak weaned on the UK inkies. Perhaps for some of the older readers of this forum it's different, but for me, it's a stab in the dark with a 1/2 knife.

For people really in tune with "The Kids", NME should cover: Zed Bias, DJ Dee Kline, Stanton Warriors, Life Without Buildings, Timbaland, Swizz Beats, Leaf and Strut Records, and Ty and the whole Big Dada stable in greater depth.

― Izzie, Wednesday, 4 April 2001 00:00 (12 years ago) Permalink

I meant Smiths and 1/2", sorry.

― Izzie, Wednesday, 4 April 2001 00:00 (12 years ago) Permalink

I don't know what 'kids' you know, but none I know would be interested in any of that.

― DG, Wednesday, 4 April 2001 00:00 (12 years ago) Permalink

Where do you hang out?

― Izzie, Wednesday, 4 April 2001 00:00 (12 years ago) Permalink

Not the same places as you, evidently.

― DG, Wednesday, 4 April 2001 00:00 (12 years ago) Permalink

Perhaps. But that's what people want round my way.

― Izzie, Wednesday, 4 April 2001 00:00 (12 years ago) Permalink

Well, its not Romford then.

― DG, Wednesday, 4 April 2001 00:00 (12 years ago) Permalink

Yes.

But that's your problem, not mine.

― Izzie, Wednesday, 4 April 2001 00:00 (12 years ago) Permalink

Well, obviously.

― DG, Wednesday, 4 April 2001 00:00 (12 years ago) Permalink

SO ABOUT THE NME, THEN.

*ahem*

Sounds like they're just trendchasing to me. I wouldn't worry either way.

― Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 4 April 2001 00:00 (12 years ago) Permalink

A preface: my sister has a subscription to the NME -- I don't want anyone to get the idea that I actually buy the rag. But I do browse it every now and again, and lately I've noticed that they've been namechecking a lot of the artists that get talked about on FT: the Avalanches, Missy, a lot of pro-pop talk, etc. The difference though, is that the NME doesn't really have anything interesting to say about anything. For the most part (barring Stubbs, maybe) the writing is so poor that it really doesn't matter what artists or subjects they cover. And judging by the letters page, the readers are for the most part so dull I'm sure they will be writing letters of outrage over the lack of OCS coverage and things will be back to normal in no time.

Oh, and btw the recent rap issue was laughable. Isn't this the same magazine that condemned rap for years and years for sexism and homophobia, but now is praising it to the skies because a white rapper has made it palatable? Aside from Missy, when was the last time a black artist was on the cover?

― Nicole, Thursday, 5 April 2001 00:00 (12 years ago) Permalink

My view is a pragmatic one. There's currently only one weekly paper on the market, which is the NME. Its influence is now very minor but still probably greater than the influence of anything comparable on or offline.

The NME should front-cover Life Without Buildings and Zed Bias, maybe. But to leap from a Stereophonics diet to that kind of stuff would be too much too soon, and minor artists need a context in which to be understood anyhow. The current trend - to cover exciting, young music and to not assume that said music has to be a) rock, b) unrelated to everything else people do - is a positive one. You still get the feeling that everything's being seen in a rock light - look, look, it's drugs, dance music is hedonistic like rock! But even so it's a step up.

Yes, it's cyclical. But the NME in the mid-80s was good, and it would be nice for the NME in the early-00s to be good too, for however long it lasts. The big danger as Nicole rightly suggests is that it will hardly last at all as people drop it immediately. (Sales of the NME notoriously drop when black artists get on the cover).

The other thing Nicole says which I totally agree with is the writing quality thing. I bought the Missy issue and while it was refreshing to read the interview there didn't seem to be much meat otherwise, Peter Robinson's entertaining singles column aside.

From a personal POV, though obviously FT is nothing to do with any of this it's satisfying to feel like I backed the 'right horse' as it were, though the pro-pop bit is only a bit of what we're about.

― Tom, Thursday, 5 April 2001 00:00 (12 years ago) Permalink

I don't think a Life Without Buildings feature would make the NME any better. To me thier just about as good as all that Star Sailor/Turin Breaks crap. Life Without Buildings = Turret's syndrome sufferer shouting over banal indie rock instrumentals. I find Chicks on Speed satisfy any of my needs for slighly edgy pop punk.

I think it's nice that the NME comes out weekly, and so it's got that over american music mags, but the NME (and the rest of the british media) seem only to listen when there's a loud record promoter on the other end of the phone, whereas underground buzz/excitement is enough to get a review into spin or magnet.

― marianna maclean, Thursday, 5 April 2001 00:00 (12 years ago) Permalink

Read the NME today - Swells bit on stalking was readable, good to see Ludacris + co - but next week it's 'BRITAIN'S MOST EXCITING NEW BAND - STARSAILOR'(The band that made Alfie look good on the NME tour).The Miami feature was poor but I must admit that the live and albums selections are getting better.I want a weekly music paper to concentrate more on the ephermeral one-offs, singles and stuff that monthly mags can't do. Why no regular in-depth articles on British Hip-hop outside London - we have North Starz,P-Dog,Just Us - a decent scene has grown up around local talent.I refuse to pin my hopes on the fuckin' Strokes - VU live at Max's worshippin' guitar fascists - aargh pass the sedative!

― Geordie Racer, Thursday, 5 April 2001 00:00 (12 years ago) Permalink

playlouder report Mogwai attack the NME April 5th

Mogwai's Stuart Braithwaite has hit out at UK music weekly NME, branding them "pompous, disgusting and patronising".

"No, nothing shocks me anymore and that paper's just got really bad."

― DJ Martian, Thursday, 5 April 2001 00:00 (12 years ago) Permalink

That article "2fkd 2care" was stupid, I mean the results had zero validity. They didn't talk to kids who don't go out! And they also have a feature about people and their mobile phones. It's good sometimes, they cover alot of different things. So, 6.4 out of 10.

― jel, Thursday, 5 April 2001 00:00 (12 years ago) Permalink

What was that "2fkd" article about, jel ?

― Patrick, Thursday, 5 April 2001 00:00 (12 years ago) Permalink

Glad to see you here, Marcello! Your letters in the MM were so good that you really should have actually written for them, full-time ...

Of course, the NME has *always* aimed at students, ever since about 1970 when it very nearly went under after the arrival of new magazines aiming at the pop market which it had covered in the 60s, and oriented itself towards what was then laughingly called "progressive music". Since then it has reflected the narrowest and most up-its-own-arse aspect of university common-room prejudices (all those 70s ELP fans' letters sneering at The Sweet and calling Kraftwerk obscure bollocks were echoed in the anti-dance kneejerkery of some Smiths fans, the anti-intellectualism of the Roses / Mondays worshippers, the smug cawing over the worthlessness of hip-hop integrated into Oasism, and now everything about the whole Starsailor / Alfie / Turin Brakes axis), but sporadically come into its own and run free. The last couple of months have indeed seen a minor revival - the hip-hop issue *was* pathetically "let's get with the trend", but better that than pretending that dying British indie is the only way forward. And the stuff on Missy Elliot and the Miami Dance Conference *has* been refreshing; it's good to see the NME taking a pro-pop line for once. The "state of Britain's youth" issue was mildly alarmist sensation / event-seeking, but had a few good points.

However I share Tom and Marcello's fears that commercial pressures and the vestiges of indie-kid narrow-mindedness will work against these signs of life.

― Robin Carmody, Thursday, 5 April 2001 00:00 (12 years ago) Permalink

The "2fkd" article was about Britain's Youth Today. With emphasis on the capital letters.

― Robin Carmody, Thursday, 5 April 2001 00:00 (12 years ago) Permalink

I've been reading the NME and MM since I was a boy (alright, since I was 13 then and I'm 31 now so...) and as others have said, the paper always goes through phases just like the music it covers does. Unfortunately, the writers at the moment are as cackhanded as the pretty non-descript music they are having to write about. If I see one more fawning article on friggin Starsailor I'll scream (see forthcoming article I'm writing for FT, I WILL finish it, I WILL finish it - I promised Tom...). I have to admit I've read the NME through thick and thin but over the last year I've just given up on it and I've stopped buying it altogether. I still read it avidly (the chap next to me in work buys it anyway) but nothing INSPIRES me, there's no writers there who make you want to rush out and hear something new. They don't have the wit and style of older writers (whether it be Morley or Reynolds - I know, he wrote for MM, I'm just proving my point, OK?) Music is now seen as such a peripheral thing that lazy and sloppy writing is excused because 'well, the music isn't important anyway'. It IS important, and the writing should be good and inspiring, but writing about Muse taking magic mushrooms and the Miami dance conference in such a boring way does not inspire.

Anyway, enough moaning.

― Rob M, Thursday, 5 April 2001 00:00 (12 years ago) Permalink

The NME covering pop is just stupid, like Smash Hits running articles on Belle & Sebastian.

The NME feels very pleased with having outlasted Sounds and the Maker, but a gut feeling tells me it will no longer be with us in five years time.

― Pihkalboy, Tuesday, 10 April 2001 00:00 (12 years ago) Permalink

Tom E said: 'isn't this pretty much what we've all been saying the NME *should* be doing?'.

Who is 'we' here? A very select group, perhaps. I have most certainly never, ever said that anyone or anything anywhere should have anything to do with 'Popstars', 'Missy Elliot' or 'the Miami Dance Conference'. I have a feeling that all of them are probably atrocious.

― the pinefox, Sunday, 15 April 2001 00:00 (12 years ago) Permalink

No real opinion on the first or third, but you are indescribably wrong with your suspicions about Missy Elliot.

― Robin Carmody, Sunday, 15 April 2001 00:00 (12 years ago) Permalink

pinefox makes a point. if by 'we' you mean 'this forum', it's pretty much not what 'we' think the NME should be, because all 'we' ever talk about is obscure 80s UK indie bands, much like the NME does. bleh.

― ethan, Sunday, 15 April 2001 00:00 (12 years ago) Permalink

"We" as a whole talk about far more than obscure 80s UK indie bands. It's only the Pinefox who doesn't :).

― Robin Carmody, Sunday, 15 April 2001 00:00 (12 years ago) Permalink

RC is right, in that the many people on ILM talk about all kinds of things all the time, across great swathes of musical history and geography in large part unfamiliar to me. But whatever they're discussing, they don't *agree* about most of it most of the time; and to say 'we think x' / 'we have been saying y' seems to imply a consensus which I don't think exists on ILM, though it may, for all I know, exist among some other, perhaps smaller group of people somewhere or other.

― the pinefox, Monday, 16 April 2001 00:00 (12 years ago) Permalink

Tom was using the Royal We, as well he might. (Or is that 'they' might?)

― mark s, Monday, 16 April 2001 00:00 (12 years ago) Permalink

Disregarding the absolute pre-eminence of I Love Music, I think it's clear that the NYLPM/Freaky Trigger axis has long advocated a less hidebound indie-focused sense of diversity among the inklies, along the lines of what they *apparently* used to be like in the late eighties and early nineties (I really wouldn't know). So in that sense "we" equals more than just Tom but less than ILM... and anyway check the first couple of ILM entries.

― Tim, Monday, 16 April 2001 00:00 (12 years ago) Permalink

What Tim said (ILM is an affiliate of the FT empire though it surely has its own life and topic consensus, which - Ethan's grumblings aside - shifts around. Last week it was Post-Modernism. Currently we seem to be on 70s singer-songwriters, god help us. People wanting more discussion of other things should START THREADS AND SAY INTERESTING THINGS ABOUT THEM.)

Plus! I was responding to previous threads about the NME which broadly seemed to be concluding - well the NME is crap because all it covers is indie music, where are the hip-hop and dance and indeed pop features? Or that was the - biased - impression I was left with. Clearly there are dissenters, prominently DJ Martian who is no doubt as unhappy with Missy Elliott coverage as he is with more Terris, and the Pinefox, whose vision for the NME, if he has one, eludes me.

Plus plus! It was rhetorical - I could have said "some of you" but it would have got less people involved in the thread I judged.

― Tom, Tuesday, 17 April 2001 00:00 (12 years ago) Permalink

I could write my parody of the Pinefox's vision of the NME. But I think I've been too hard on him already. I might share it privately with Tom, though.

― Robin Carmody, Tuesday, 17 April 2001 00:00 (12 years ago) Permalink

A minor point, Tom, but are we actually "on" 70s singer / songwriters? Robert Wyatt, maybe, but you like him. Simon and Garfunkel are 60s. The Joni Mitchell thread, yes, but that style from that era is hardly dominating ILM.

― Robin Carmody, Tuesday, 17 April 2001 00:00 (12 years ago) Permalink

Back to the original question. These days I only read the reviews at nme.com and I must say they can still be very good (Daft Punk, Avalanches getting good marks, Tim Finn getting a 2 out of 10 and getting called a cunt). Probably the old "we put shite indie bands on the cover but in the review section we tell where are our hearts really lie." (The reason you had to buy MM regardless of who was on the cover).

― Omar, Wednesday, 18 April 2001 00:00 (12 years ago) Permalink

The Pinefox's Vision Of The NME

Editor: Steady 'Steady' Mike Chief Feature Writer: Stevie 'Edna' T Think Pieces: Tom 'It's Elusive' Ewing Roving Reporter: Tim 'Reality' Hopkins Letters Editor: David 'Incredible' Moore

Once every five years, Steady M takes pity on me and commissions a major retrospective on Harriet Wheeler. I dig out the last retrospective and add 200 words based on HW's activities, as known to me, over the previous five years. I struggle to reach 200. No-one notices that I am repeating previous retrospective.

― the pinefox, Wednesday, 18 April 2001 00:00 (12 years ago) Permalink

Do you think, somewhere in the OMNIVERSE, there is a parallel world where people complain bitterly about Mixmag being crap because it doesn't cover enough Teenage Fanclub?

― MJ Hibbett, Thursday, 19 April 2001 00:00 (12 years ago) Permalink

Not sure if you were being serious or not, but actually I've been involved in that discussion. My take on it is that Mixmag don't pretend to be anything other than a dance magazine (although seeing as the dance mags tend to cover hip hop and post-rock as well they're probably about as diverse as the NME - doesn't mean they're doing what they do particularly well though). NME on the other hand has pretensions of universality that it just does not on the whole live up to.

― Tim, Thursday, 19 April 2001 00:00 (12 years ago) Permalink

Great - so now I know all about NYC - it's changed my life.

― tha ill presidente, Friday, 20 April 2001 00:00 (12 years ago) Permalink

NYC - it was rather pointless exercise - like some free holiday advertising for New York City /State overseas marketing department. An advertorial.

Next week its Destiny's Child - another useless front cover.

― DJ Martian, Friday, 20 April 2001 00:00 (12 years ago) Permalink

Look, DJ M, the NME are not going to put Ulver on the front cover. EVER. And what is more that is the RIGHT DECISION. A feature, maybe, but not the cover.

Destiny's Child - and the NYC issue for that matter - pretty much confirm my original qn, i.e. the NME is on the right track currently. Themed issues = good. Putting the people making exciting pop records on the cover = good. The records Destiny's Child are making at the moment are terrific - there shouldn't even be a question about them being on the NME front cover.

― Tom, Friday, 20 April 2001 00:00 (12 years ago) Permalink

As regards ABC-figures, as Marcello mentioned, the best-selling NME of the 80s (by about 300%) had CILLA BLACK on the cover.

We didn't know where to put ourselves.

― mark s, Friday, 20 April 2001 00:00 (12 years ago) Permalink

Actually I don't have any plans for Ulver - to be front cover status on my weekly weblog feature. I have mapped out in my head the next 4 weeks in advance.

However the NME should at least have a 1 page feature of Ulver.

and a significant album review - in the old MM circa late 80s- a band released a significant and exceptional album then they would be rewarded with a large review (column inches) regardless of size profile.

I will be surprised if the NME review the Ulver album - as the NME are ignorant bastards when it comes to non US/British bands.

For the curious Ulver - Perdition City

Ulver - Perdition City - is released April 23th on Jester Records through Shellshock/Pinnancle in the UK.

There are also a number of important points on the NME current music coverage - that I want to expand on. Later.

― DJ Martian, Friday, 20 April 2001 00:00 (12 years ago) Permalink

No, it still hasn't got good.

― the pinefox, Thursday, 26 April 2001 00:00 (12 years ago) Permalink

last night, on the bus home, someone was reading thee latest NME. When he got off, he left it on the seat. Despite there being another 1/2 hour to go before I got home, I didn't bother picking it up. I suppose that's my answer right there.

x0x0

― norman fay, Thursday, 26 April 2001 00:00 (12 years ago) Permalink

1 month passes...
Kids! Read the NME this week! There's this cool city called New York! It's happening like London isn't! We say you should be there! Cool bands with guitars! That's the future! The Strokes! The apex of popular culture! The most important group ever to emerge from music! We're not at all desperate! We've started slagging off Missy Elliott already! What? Still listening to hip-hop? That was two months ago! Keep up!

― Marcello Carlin, Friday, 8 June 2001 00:00 (11 years ago) Permalink

Death to the NME! The future of thinking and writing about pop should be left to us, we've totally-by-accident formed our little Leninist core of revolutionaries, now we just need to storm King's Reach Tower and dispose of all the counter-revolutionary journos, preferably by drowning them in a big vat of Marmite.

― DG, Friday, 8 June 2001 00:00 (11 years ago) Permalink

But they have this really exciting feature where they ask people what was the last text message they sent! How could I give up such insight into the human mind?

― Nicole, Friday, 8 June 2001 00:00 (11 years ago) Permalink

Shit, forgot about that. Such value for £1.20! I've said it before and I'll say it again, the future of music writing will probably be online and fan-based.

― DG, Saturday, 9 June 2001 00:00 (11 years ago) Permalink

I do believe we are standing waist-deep in the future as we speak/type.

― David Raposa, Saturday, 9 June 2001 00:00 (11 years ago) Permalink

The NME? wasn't that something to do with the 90s?

― gareth, Saturday, 9 June 2001 00:00 (11 years ago) Permalink

Skipping 449 messages at this point... Click here if you want to load them all.

X-Post: Very doubtful. Indie in the 80s subscribed to a certain low-fi thinking that made it unable to appeal to the masses. I think that was also a key element in bringing Britpop to the top of the charts, that the Britpop acts actually found production values to be important, as opposed to late 80s indie acts.

― You're Twistin' My Melody Man! (Geir Hongro), Saturday, 8 January 2011 00:08 (2 years ago) Permalink

much as I despise the brit-edition of the mag (incessant covers for oasis)

Oasis have broken up and are thus now more likely to end up on the cover of Mojo than the cover of NME.

― You're Twistin' My Melody Man! (Geir Hongro), Saturday, 8 January 2011 01:28 (2 years ago) Permalink

We'll see.

― Mark G, Saturday, 8 January 2011 22:07 (2 years ago) Permalink

Yeah, I write for NME and I don't mind confirming that Geir is unfortunately wrong on this count. Oasis were on the cover at least twice last year.

― Cracker Flocka Flame (Doran), Saturday, 8 January 2011 22:11 (2 years ago) Permalink

Surely now they're split up, they wont be anymore as Beady Eye & Noel will get their own covers? (until they inevitably reform for a massive amount of money)

― Shakey Moe Szyslak (Algerian Goalkeeper), Saturday, 8 January 2011 23:03 (2 years ago) Permalink

Brother getting a NME cover is unbelievably LOL.

Also LOL is someone using a false name to write criticism of them on The Quietus... presumably they're an NME staffer who doesn't want to get in trouble?

― Craigo Boingo, Saturday, 8 January 2011 23:09 (2 years ago) Permalink

And an ilxor because whiney g is mentioned!

― Shakey Moe Szyslak (Algerian Goalkeeper), Saturday, 8 January 2011 23:20 (2 years ago) Permalink

Noel Gallagher may end up on the cover once or twice. Liam is a has-been now that he doesn't have his brother to write those brilliant songs for him anymore.

― You're Twistin' My Melody Man! (Geir Hongro), Saturday, 8 January 2011 23:42 (2 years ago) Permalink

I didn't realise Paul wrote Liam some songs. Why did he stop?

― Chewshabadoo, Sunday, 9 January 2011 00:22 (2 years ago) Permalink

― basically just a 2/47 freak out (sic), Sunday, 9 January 2011 00:34 (2 years ago) Permalink

andy bell looks like a christmas ornament, liam looks like patsy kensit

― basically just a 2/47 freak out (sic), Sunday, 9 January 2011 00:35 (2 years ago) Permalink

xpost straw man in that Quietus piece is that the conventional establishment isn't actually going gaga for Brother. NME is, but most of the coverage I've seen so far has taken a studiedly offhand tone, as if to say, "This is what they say about themselves. You're capable of deciding for yourself that they are deluded." You might say that if they're that shit, they shouldn't be covered at all.

I've heard more people say more bad things about Brother than any other group in years. I think they're forgetting that in that "you either love us or hate us" cliche, some people need to love you, too.

― Alan Partridge Project (ithappens), Sunday, 9 January 2011 02:07 (2 years ago) Permalink

Well, he has Andy Bell. But Andy Bell wrote cirka two good songs for Ride and two good songs for Hurricane #1, so it still doesn't quite hold up.

Noel Gallagher is the one songwriting genius and the act worth following. Hopefully he will become even more Beatlesque in his songwriting now that he is rid of his screaming/punky brother.

― You're Twistin' My Melody Man! (Geir Hongro), Sunday, 9 January 2011 03:05 (2 years ago) Permalink

still find that NME top 3 albums from 86 amazing!

― piscesx, Sunday, 9 January 2011 03:49 (2 years ago) Permalink

so it still doesn't quite hold up.

..........uhh so are you saying that cover [1]doesn't[/1] exist?

― basically just a 2/47 freak out (sic), Sunday, 9 January 2011 03:52 (2 years ago) Permalink

Well... It does. Now... But Liam will be forgotten in a short time, except for his part in Oasis. Noel is the one and only genius from that band and even though Liam may have more of a rock'n'roll attitude, that isn't enough alone.

― You're Twistin' My Melody Man! (Geir Hongro), Sunday, 9 January 2011 14:36 (2 years ago) Permalink

I bet liam sells more papers though with his bullshit

― Shakey Moe Szyslak (Algerian Goalkeeper), Sunday, 9 January 2011 14:55 (2 years ago) Permalink

I actually think that is still the reason why Dodgy and Travis never quite became critics darlings. Not arrogant enough, not enough bullshit, too boring and nice personalities.

― You're Twistin' My Melody Man! (Geir Hongro), Sunday, 9 January 2011 15:00 (2 years ago) Permalink

& mostly shite

― Prince wouldn't ‘woa’ (onimo), Sunday, 9 January 2011 16:29 (2 years ago) Permalink

I guess that's why Radiohead have been getting blanket critical slatings for the past 15 years as well

― cup of tea & an orange.xls (DJ Mencap), Sunday, 9 January 2011 16:46 (2 years ago) Permalink

Thom Yorke is apparently quite high maintenance though isn't he? I mean, the guy from Travis seems like a lovely guy... worst mistake you can make I reckon. I bet him and Terrorvision are a great laugh down the pub.

― Cracker Flocka Flame (Doran), Sunday, 9 January 2011 16:52 (2 years ago) Permalink

Thom Yorke is paranoid and at times rather arrogant in his unwillingness to be a pop star. Those guys from Dodgy and Travis are just fairly cool guys, and less interesting to write about than, say, Oasis. Chris Martin has started to act a bit more like a pop star after he became one, and this may be the reason why the press hasn't tired of Coldplay to the same extent.

― You're Twistin' My Melody Man! (Geir Hongro), Monday, 10 January 2011 09:40 (2 years ago) Permalink

that nme cover is next level

― deejeuner sur l'herb (nakhchivan), Monday, 10 January 2011 09:44 (2 years ago) Permalink

Thom Yorke has, famously, wanted to be a pop star ever since he was born.

At the point where you achieve your *ambition*, you had better have some more reason or raison'detre than when you were three.

So, by then his "popstarness" is firmly established, and the ability to walk through walls is implicit, hey he can look as 'disinterested' and he knows it won't matter.

When he sang that song about "oh such a lovely garden, oh such a lovely house", i suspected he was a hypocrite as it would be fairly certain he'd have a huge house someplace, and fair enough. Eventually some article showed he did have a huge place, but it was fairly castle-crumbly and the garden hadn't been mowed for decades. Still, though.

― Mark G, Monday, 10 January 2011 09:49 (2 years ago) Permalink

^exterior life of Thom Yorke

― Prince wouldn't ‘woa’ (onimo), Monday, 10 January 2011 13:49 (2 years ago) Permalink

mark g prefers songwriters who have no idea what they're talking abt

― zvookster, Monday, 10 January 2011 15:30 (2 years ago) Permalink

blimey, I do!

― Mark G, Monday, 10 January 2011 15:31 (2 years ago) Permalink

It is so odd how Geir writes like he has stolen every line from an old copy of Q on whatever subject is bought up, like he is *schoolin'* us. No more, no less.

― "jobs" (a hoy hoy), Monday, 10 January 2011 15:46 (2 years ago) Permalink

Schooly G

― Shakey Moe Szyslak (Algerian Goalkeeper), Monday, 10 January 2011 15:50 (2 years ago) Permalink

2 months pass...

The Music 1999 - 2011: Why They'll Be Missed

It came as a cruel irony today that midway through our first listen to the godforsaken new Brother record, news landed that The Music were splitting up.

― oppet, Friday, 1 April 2011 21:07 (2 years ago) Permalink

RIP guys, heaven needed a ropey Verve knock-off.

― Neil S, Friday, 1 April 2011 21:08 (2 years ago) Permalink

Ropey Verve probably the worst era to knock off.

― death, taxes and (onimo), Saturday, 2 April 2011 00:19 (2 years ago) Permalink

11 months pass...

Has anyone read this:

Briefly skimmed through it at Waterstones to see if Mr S1nk3r late of this parish was in it and he wasn't or any mention of his U2 review being spiked. So if it's missing something as key as that, I wonder how thorough it is with the rest of the history.

― fun loving and xtremely tolrant (Billy Dods), Tuesday, 6 March 2012 17:43 (1 year ago) Permalink

That's this book btw.

― fun loving and xtremely tolrant (Billy Dods), Tuesday, 6 March 2012 17:44 (1 year ago) Permalink

Oh ffs, just click the link instead http://www.amazon.co.uk/History-NME-Worlds-Famous-Magazine/dp/1907554483/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1331055546&sr=8-1

― fun loving and xtremely tolrant (Billy Dods), Tuesday, 6 March 2012 17:45 (1 year ago) Permalink

I did suggest to mr S that there could be a fascinating book about the 'tribes' that inhabited NMEworld back in the day, and how they evolved/mutated. He seemed to srsly consider the idea, laffed even.

― Mark G, Wednesday, 7 March 2012 00:00 (1 year ago) Permalink

for those who, like me, didn't know the story:

U2/NME versus Sinker

is the full review anywhere online?

― ban this sick stunt (anagram), Wednesday, 7 March 2012 08:42 (1 year ago) Permalink

Pat Long was assistant editor at NME during the 2000s.

yyyyeeah, this doesn't sound more promising than re-reading the reminiscences in the 40th anniversary issue

― Θ ̨Θƪ (sic), Wednesday, 7 March 2012 13:51 (1 year ago) Permalink

Pat is a cool dude and a good writer iircimho

I also only skimmed it in aforementioned book chain but unless I totally missed it there was next to no coverage of the last 10-15 years

― Sylv_ebanks (DJ Mencap), Wednesday, 7 March 2012 14:16 (1 year ago) Permalink

Don't think anyone cares or wants to read anecdotes from The Killers about the Conor McNicholas era, even taking into account declining relevance of print media etc etc. My guess is it ends post-Britpop?

― Homosexual Satan Wasp (Matt DC), Wednesday, 7 March 2012 14:22 (1 year ago) Permalink

I did suggest to mr S that there could be a fascinating book about the 'tribes' that inhabited NMEworld back in the day, and how they evolved/mutated. He seemed to srsly consider the idea, laffed even

I would definitely read that book.

I don't the NME has been relevant for a long time, so it makes sense that coverage would end about 10-15 years ago.

― Respectfully, Tyrese Gibson (Nicole), Wednesday, 7 March 2012 15:30 (1 year ago) Permalink

Pat's a sound guy, a great writer and I think it's reasonable to end the book at the start of the internet age.

There are severe problems with proofing, subbing though...

― Conan The Asshander (Doran), Wednesday, 7 March 2012 19:40 (1 year ago) Permalink

1 month passes...

shame.

despite the fact i am no longer target audience, every time i have flicked through the nme recently have been impressed with the changes krissi has brought in :

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/apr/12/nme-krissi-murison-sunday-times?CMP=twt_fd

of course, if an ilm'r steps up ..

― mark e, Thursday, 12 April 2012 11:01 (1 year ago) Permalink

Yeah she made a decent job of it, it seemed a much less blinkered and, well, condescending publication over the last few years. Conor McNicholas tended to treat his readership like idiots who could only focus on three bands at once.

― Homosexual Satan Wasp (Matt DC), Thursday, 12 April 2012 11:04 (1 year ago) Permalink

Co-signed. Sadly McNicholas had already wrecked that ship by the time she took over.

― Scary Move 4 (dog latin), Thursday, 12 April 2012 11:57 (1 year ago) Permalink

I'd be perfectly happy to send in my CV but unfortunately I am at least twice the age of whoever they're looking for.

― Here he is with the classic "Poème Électronique." Good track (Marcello Carlin), Thursday, 12 April 2012 12:49 (1 year ago) Permalink

It's a decent paper once again, even if not for me thesedays, yes.

― Mark G, Friday, 13 April 2012 00:47 (1 year ago) Permalink

1 month passes...

oh well looks like marcello, didn't get the job.

from CMJ mailout :

IPC yesterday announced the promotion of NME's Deputy Editor Mike Williams to the role of Editor. Williams, of course, replaces Krissi Murrison, who announced this year that she was moving on to become Features Editor of The Sunday Times Magazine.

Williams joined NME in 2010, prior to which he founded and was editor of Kruger magazine for six years. Initially freelancing for the music weekly, he then took on the role of Features Editor before moving up to become Murison's deputy.

Upon the announcement, Williams told CMU: "I'm super excited to be the new editor of NME. As far as dream positions go, it really doesn't get any better than this. Krissi Murison has done an amazing job as my predecessor, and I'm totally honoured to pick up the baton from her. My challenge is to make NME magazine and the wider NME brand even sharper, our message more coherent and to engage even more with NME's audience of passionate music fans. With the brilliant team we've got in place, I can't wait to get started!"

Meanwhile IPC's Publishing Director Emily Hutchings added: "After an extensive recruitment process, I am absolutely thrilled to announce Mike Williams as the next editor of NME. He brings with him a wealth of editorial experience as well as knowledge in managing multiplatform brand extensions. Mike demonstrated a clear strategic vision and passion for NME that will help take the brand on to even greater success".

The NME print publication, of course, is in terminal decline despite gallant efforts by Murison to overhaul the magazine, though the wider NME brand remains as strong as ever, with future potential almost certainly locked to online and digital innovations

― mark e, Friday, 1 June 2012 10:39 (11 months ago) Permalink

I've known the dude for years - nice guy - no real idea what he'll be like editing the NME but it's cool by me

― cissémanwhore (DJ Mencap), Friday, 1 June 2012 10:45 (11 months ago) Permalink

I didn't apply.

― Here he is with the classic "Poème Électronique." Good track (Marcello Carlin), Thursday, 7 June 2012 11:29 (11 months ago) Permalink


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.