Has The NME Got Good?

I love that even in 2010 the NME cover still features both the Stone Roses and Liam Gallagher

Don't forget the Beatles!

Geir will never let you forget, don't worry ilxor!

Was going to be snarky and post this in the worst NME cover ever, but I'm feeling charitable and think that on balance it's a good thing that NME are looking at acts that try to push the envelope rather than the usual Oasis/Pete Doherty/Arctic Monkeys stuff.

http://www.nme.com/images/1068_105439_kelenmecover070610.jpg

KELE

BOLDLY GOING WHERE BLOC PARTY NEVER DARED

Cover still features Oasis = yep, it's still the NME.

Baby steps.

On first glance, I thought that the cover above listing the American bands said "Warrant" instead of "Warpaint."

I dunno if it's a good thing or not that a 50+ Paul Weller is making more risky and interesting music than most NME approved "indie bands" have been doing in recent years. Hopefully things will improve in UK indie though. I did think his days of NME coverage was gone though.

j3ff I thought the exact same as you when I first saw it!

what a weird cover

KELE

BEATING BLOC PARTY AT A GAME THEY WEREN'T EVEN BOLD ENOUGH TO PLAY

lol

it looks terrific, which is a huge step up from the past couple years. all they need to do now is... cover decent acts?

terrific is not etc.

That Kele single would be pretty good if it wasn't for his direction-free vocal.

for a second i thought it was Lethal Bizzle on the cover

Grindie Revival

oh for the halcyon days of grindie

Today I saw the NME with a whole issue on THE 100 BEST ALBUMS YOU'VE NEVER HEARD.

I looked through it. I had heard some of them, heard of others, didn't want to hear of some.

But the whole exercise seems to be admirable. Yes, I really think that the NME has improved. In a virtually impossible media climate, they are trying, in their way, to be more serious about pop and its history, than they have been in the past decade, even though probably none of what's left of their demographic cares much about it.

They even had a para on The Bodines and 'Therese'!

NME aiming for the "not old enough to read Mojo, not rockist enough to read Q" demographic?

xpost I agree. For the first time since 2002, I have found the NME to be worth reading again, if only from time to time. Broader scope, sharper reviews, noticeably higher number of female writers (perhaps not surprisingly), more sincere in its enthusiasms, less desperate in its flogging of worthless dead horses, and generally more trustworthy. Although I'm not in its intended demographic, I no longer feel alienated by its ethos.

I've not picked up a physical copy yet since the new editor took over, but everything I've seen suggests I will agree with Mike when I eventually do.

some discussion of that nme list on this thread — I agree that it's p.cool (reminds me of the sort of weird eclectic lists pitchfork used to do, like, a decade ago), but maybe a bit too... easy? hard to explain exactly what I mean, but it sorta feels like tokenism stretched out over an entire list — like, yeah okay, you guys are professional music critics, I certainly hope there are 2 or 3 obscure cool jazz/psychrock/country/whatever albums that you know and love! but that doesn't mean you should slap them all on a list and pretend it means something!!
(related concern: who exactly is the audience for this piece?)

(I am basing this assessment totally on that one piece — and not even the actual writing, just the list of albums — so grain of salt, of course)

I actually bought this issue today. I bought the Albums Of Year issue (the only one I buy each year)and I was disappointed with it. But I figured this issue looked interesting enough to pick up and read. I just hope it is worth reading.

Most of the list was chosen by 'celebs', Mark Ronson chose 5 hiphop albums, Friendly Fires picked some electronica, James Dean Bradfield picked Thomas Dolby and ABC! Hence the rather ramshackle nature of it, but in spite of that it looked more interesting than I expected.

I bet paul weller chose the zombies. He's been banging on about it for a good few years now every chance he gets.

Yes he did. And even I heard most of that LP 10 years ago.

My take on this list etc would be: yes it's daft, flawed, shallow etc from all kinds of angles. But attacking a worthy NME piece for that would be breaking a butterfly on a wheel. It's just remarkable that they've done it at all - for the kids, not seasoned pop listeners like ILM; after the drastic, radical decline of the magazine; and in a world where it must be nigh impossible to make a quality print magazine, or maybe any print magazine, anymore. It's in that very limited context that I find it such an admirable swim against the tide.

But the whole exercise seems to be admirable. Yes, I really think that the NME has improved. In a virtually impossible media climate, they are trying, in their way, to be more serious about pop and its history, than they have been in the past decade, even though probably none of what's left of their demographic cares much about it.

NME doesn't need to write about pop as long as its demographic isn't interested. Or, if it does, it should write about pop that its demographic may be interested in hearing about. That is, male guitar pop from the UK.

No geir, the NME should write about good music.

Which it did not do under connor mac.

I'd really like to know who picked the Corea then: Jamie Callum?

Someone called Joe Mount of Metronomy

No geir, the NME should write about good music.

The NME should help their readers discover some new stuff that they may like.

And, you know, they don't need to discover mainstream pop. They already know it, regardless of whether they like or not. Everyone knows mainstream pop.

I don't.

I don't know contemporary mainstream pop. I know a lot of old mainstream pop.

But pop is a big little word, and the NME is a pop music magazine and I am a pop music fan.

You know, some people think it isn't pop if it's by a band, if that band plays guitars, if they are all male, and if their skin colour appears to be white.

"appears"

geir you give bands the while paper bag test?

er white paper bag test

What does it matter anyway? If they are white, they are white, if they are black, they are black. What matters is what the music sound like. And if it sounds anything like Beatles or Beach Boys, then pop it is.

I looked at the cover, since I can get NME at home now (I don't feel like going downtown to get it)...looking at an NME would be just a nostalgia thing for me. Until their covers are more appealing, I'm not actually going to buy it.

In any case, I'm wondering what the 100 albums are?

Sorry, I missed the link to the list that was posted upthread. It is interesting, could still be more global. I mean, I understand young consumers' need to catch up. But do they really need the Electric Prunes?

http://sickmouthy.wordpress.com/2011/01/01/top-ten-records-you’ve-never-heard-if-you’re-a-15-year-old-boy-who-reads-nme/

Milton Nascimento / Lo Borges – Club De Esquina Vol. 1
Brazil isn’t just about samba and Tropicalia; it can be about awesome, awesome, classic pop too. The melodies, tunes, and arrangements here are something else – even if the words are Brazilian Portuguese.

this is great yeah

the hiphop picks are what finally make me hate mark ronson. seriously, this guy needs to die. mecca and the soul brother! smif n wesson! etc. sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo obscure you guys.

infamous!!! lmao

Isn't the idea to recommend some records that yr average 17yr old NME reader hasn't heard? perfectly possible that someone of that age wouldn't have heard records recorded at about the time they were born.

not sure if a hoy hoy is being a sarcastic dick or not. smif n wessun are, to most people, pretty obscure. and as neil says, to nme readers, so is a mobb deep album from 15 years ago.

yeah but whatever bullshit is on the typical nme list is, to most people, 'pretty obscure'

i dunno seems silly to me to play dumb w/ your audience about given subgenres