THE WORST NME COVER OF ALL TIME

really hate this font they are using for the cover.

oh man enough with this stuff already

http://www.nme.com/images/NMECover101Albums_CMA3_130514.jpg

Doherty almost ruined the only ones for me im not letting him ruin Love.

its going to the pete doherty weekly now that he and carl are back together isn't it ..

LOST CLASSICS and FORGOTTEN GEMS from underappreciated artists neglected by history like Michael Jackson, the Smiths and Neil Young.

look who is on the cover again
http://i.imgur.com/m4OXLhU.jpg

Band name mentioned 3 times

+Pete Doherty

No Oasis tho'

23 page article inside though

the quotes are especially vile

I love the AM and am going to see that show, but good grief, NME needs to shut up about them for a bit.

This thread should be renamed "This weeks NME Cover, you guys"

pls stop with the speech bubbles

Blast from the "noughties"
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-t_LotRcb01c/T5UY9cXdyMI/AAAAAAAAANA/vNmQAEJd_Vk/s400/nme11.jpg

xxxxxxxpost:

I mis-read that band name as 'The Amazing Smackheads' for a second there!

By his cellmate

http://www.lesinrocks.com/wp-content/thumbnails/uploads/2014/08/capture-tt-width-324-height-489-bgcolor-FFFFFF.png

http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view/53500/nuke-o.gif

Gun Club at 7 seems random and Breeders a bit too. I love both those bands though but had not realised they were more 'influential' than say Joy Division. Thankfully the NME has put me right.

if you read the blurbs it appears to be "most influential on bands that the NME has covered in the last six months"

Yeah I love the Gun Club and wouldn't have put them that high. Not sure where they've directly influenced people. Other than expansion of accepted influences or possibly loud quiet loud.
I have a Jeffrey lee Pierce tshirt on as I type.

I don't know what the context for that list could be because I don't understand it at all. Influential is not subjective enough a concept to leave much wiggle room. You sort of have to lead with the people who changed the game to a measurable degree like Dylan, Bowie, Beatles, Velvets, Stooges, Kraftwerk, Stevie, Kate, Run-DMC, etc or go down the contrarian FACT magazine route and say Arthur Russell and ESG. This is just baffling.

Found the explanation:

"When the idea was first floated of an issue celebrating the most influential acts in music today, one question was paramount: where do you put The Beatles? Obviously modern music wouldn’t exist in its current form without them, virtually every facet of NME’s world can be traced back to ‘The White Album’, they’re clearly the most influential act in rock history. End of argument, right?

But how many bands today turn up to a rehearsal room plastered with posters of Ringo, neck a load of brown acid and plug in planning to write a 21st Century ‘Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds’? Far fewer, we reasoned, than want to write their own ‘Seven Nation Army’ or ‘Crystalised’. Ditto Dylan, The Stones and The Who, et al. These are acts whose influence is written in stone, the very bedrock of the form, but who aren’t necessarily directly informing the music being made today any more than Chaucer is influencing Buzzfeed. Influence is a fluid concept, so rather than simply tipping our caps to the legends (again), we set out to quantify which are the biggest influences on today’s music scene. "

I mean

6. The Flaming Lips. Whether full of light and colour on 'Yoshimi Battles The Pink Robots' and 'The Soft Bulletin' or dark and tormented with 'The Terror', The Flaming Lips were the band that made psychedelia look like an undated, still-potent musical force, and from which all modern psych sprang. Without them, there'd be no Tame Impala, Pond, Temples, Toy or Jagwar Ma.

5. The Strokes. The Strokes remain one of the major touchstones for modern indie. Were it not for them, there would be no Arctic Monkeys, no Franz Ferdinand, no Killers, no Libertines and no Cribs; and their ardent pace, Julian’s no-fi yowls and Albert Hammond’s high-end twangs can still be heard in Palma Violets, The Orwells, Parquet Courts and Twin Peaks.

It's just embarrassing.

I think those two examples above are fine, though I'd imagine Parquet Floors would vomit at the thought that they were influenced by The Strokes.

Like, there's direct lineage from Lips to Tame Impala, or from Strokes to Libertines. Whether these are good things or not is up for discussion, but the line of influence is there.

Libertines and Strokes were practically contemporaries, weren't they? In my head, at least.

Yeah, those examples are fine imo. Flaming Lips did inspire a new wave of psych-pop and the Strokes absolutely kicked off an onslaught of skinny guys with guitars, Libertines included.

Now that I realise they're narrowing the scope to what's influenced bands in the last few years it makes more sense. You could say that a lot of the minimalist leftfield R&B is Aaliyah + xx and countless female singers sound somewhat like Kate Bush. If we're talking recent I'd throw in James Blake - I constantly hear him cited by people like Lorde and FKA twigs. And Daft Punk should be in there because Alive 2007 basically triggered EDM and Discovery rehabilitated plenty of 70s/80s influences that are now de rigeur. I seem to hear Four Tet's influence everywhere as well. But electronic music doesn't appear to interest whoever put the list together.

de rigueur

Libertines and Strokes were practically contemporaries, weren't they? In my head, at least.

I first saw Libs when they were touring UK with The Strokes in 2002, so its very close - but let's say that the Strokes definitely had an effect on the Libs and where they were going, or how they presented what they were doing.

It's just amazing to me, how 14 years into ILM, people are still discussing "influence" as if it is a real thing.

Because Band X "sounds like" or even "looks like" Band Y, that does not mean that Band X were "influenced by" Band Y.

Influence is this thing that was just invented by record companies or music journalists, to explain how they create and dismantle, and more importantly *sell* bands - 'The' bands with skinny ties are selling well right now, therefore we will say they are all influenced by The Strokes. Did The Strokes invent suit bands? No, they fucking didn't. But after The Strokes had some success, every record company decided they wanted a Strokes, so that's what they go and look for, so that's what they find.

It's almost never artists citing other artists as "influence", it's music journalists saying "X sounds like Y" and then suddenly people remember that as being attributed to the artist, not the marketing mechanism. Music journalists decide what your influences are, and then tell you.

I mean, maybe the NME did go into a bunch of stinky studios around the country and polled the assholes with gig bands they found sitting waiting for rehearsal. Maybe they just asked their readership, who are all in shitty indie bands. If you asked the readership of Guitar Player Magazine, who would they decide were the most "influential" bands? How about the readership of Future Music? Or Resident Advisor? Or Sound On Sound? What fucking "game" are we even talking about? God this is so fucking dumb.

If The Strokes did not exist, it would have been necessary for the British Music Press to have invented them.

It's almost never artists citing other artists as "influence"

I don't think this is true. It's normal to name artists who inspired you, even if you don't directly sound like them (eg Disclosure and Burial). Then you get the journalist-suggested ones, which are sometimes artists that the bands supposedly influenced haven't actually heard, but there's usually overlap between what the artists say and what journalists assume. So The xx hadn't heard Young Marble Giants, true, but they were open about being influenced by Aaliyah.

It's almost never artists citing other artists as "influence"

this is not my experience of interviewing artists. they often are open and happy to name influences, and more often than not those who aren't are trying to cover their tracks.

Well, I have had the experience from the other side - and so have many, many other artists that I've talked to about it.

That you can go into an interview, saying "my influences are X and Y" and the interviewer will ignore you, and tell you that your influences are Z. Yes, people are willing to name their influences. And after experience, you will learn that your stated influences will be ignored in favour of what the journalist feels like saying you sound like. It's an immensely frustrating situation.

I've been in that seat, of saying "our influences are Spacemen 3, Kenickie and Stereolab" and having journalists tell me to my face, "no, your influences are Sleater-Kinney" when, at that point, I had honestly never heard a Sleater-Kinney record. I'm sure you would have said that was us "trying to cover our tracks."

The "we're influenced by Aaliyah" but "music press insists they're influenced by Young Marble Giants" is pretty textbook in this.

No, it's overlap, not contradiction. The music press also mentioned Aaliyah. It's a Venn diagram. But I'm sure it's frustrating if a journalist flatly ignores your stated influences and insists on a band you haven't heard. Although you did name some influences so the idea of influence isn't a fallacy.

For me, the job of a critic is to say which artists sound like they could be influences, even if they're off-target, and the job of an interviewer to listen to what they're being told.

When we say "influence is a fallacy" what that means is that influence does not work in the way that that irritating NME thing claims that it does. You cannot tell what a band is "influenced" by, by what they sound like or look like to *you*.

I wish they would invent a new word - or call it what it is; marketing. The Strokes being successful means that for the next five years there will be a glut of bands that<s>sound like</s> dress like The Stokes.

As far as the NME is concerned, the job of a critic is to tell you "if you like B(r)and X, you will like B(r)and Y". Like a marketing guide. Which is fine and there's a place for that, consumer guides are helpful for buying fridges and haircut bands. But don't try to pretend that what that is, is "influence".

Conversations like this really, really make me miss Mark S.

I can only speak from my experiences of interviewing artists over the years, and i believe influence is a think. sorry you were interviewed by a dick that time.

a *thing. not a think. but maybe a think.

That's right! It was just that "one bad apple" that "one time" and not at all a pattern that happened to me, or any other bands, and there is nothing wrong with that NME list and music journalism has got so much better over the past 15 years, yes*!

*are you kidding me

influence is a thing but rly it's neither a list of names the artist will reel off in interviews nor is it whatever points of comparison first pop into the reviewer's head, though it's probably more the former than it is the latter. dropping a few names sure doesn't work as an easy shorthand for summing up the various social, individual, and collective forces that come together when people make music.

i had to look up what 'Crystalized' was.

i guess i'm just suggesting that just because you yourself were not influenced by other artists, and that artists you've spoken to weren't influenced by other artists, that it doesn't mean no artists are ever influenced by other artists. Like I said, I've discussed influence as a thing and influences in general and specificity with artists a lot over the years, and many artists have been willing and open to discuss those influences. I don't mean its always as simple as "I liked this band so I tried to sound like this band", although occasionally it has. Jack White, for instance, has always made it explicit the extent to which he was influenced by specific blues artists, in part to establish his persona, in part to doff a cap to his heroes, and in part out of honesty. I don't doubt there aren't artists whose ideas spark into their head with no external influence - but that's not been, from my experience, the totality, or even the majority.

And as for the person who interviewed you, they sound like they were being a dick. Some of them are dicks. There are also lots of journalists who I respect as interviewers and writers, and its a shame for you that you weren't interviewed by one of them.

Also, re: influence, its a thing to talk about, isn't it, to help a reader know where an artist is coming from? If you want to call that marketing as opposed to criticism then knock yourself out, but I'm sure as heck being paid critics' rates and not marketeers' rates.

I don't know. I mean, part of why I write about music is I'm genuinely fascinated by the creative process, where the ideas come from, what feeds them, what shapes them, and so on. So influence is a part of that. I'm curious about this stuff. I don't do this so I can write about blow and groupies and lurid nonsense, the creative process is often the meatiest part.

i agree with merdeyeux, influence is probably a thing but closer to "everything" than "specific things" and the laundry list of bands-in-our-field with a couple of curveballs (one of whom is usually aaliyah) is a boring thing indeed, and THAT is definitely more about marketing than the creative process

whatever the mechanisms of influence might be, i think when an artist is described as "influential" then it is mostly external factors that are being described and trying to trace influence in that direction is a critical rather than artistic pursuit

I was going to ask what the Gun club thing said, then went and looked on the site to find this
'7. The Gun Club. : "They play very intense blues punk and I don't think anybody's really done it like that since then. It's incredible. People talk about how The Velvet Underground and how they weren't popular but they influenced a bunch of bands. The Gun Club are the same way."

Read more at http://www.nme.com/photos/nme-s-100-most-influential-artists-50-1/346061/1/1#KIIXvxvdweKVDHXD.99'

which sounds contradictory. & at best some kind of distant hearsay. I'm not sure who was being quoted there anyway.
I was wondering what the story was on bands influenced by them given the qualification I read elsewhere. & I'd really like to know who they are. They might be something I'd like to be listening to.
But then again I'd probably have the same feeling as I do with the MC5, if there was another band as outstanding as the MC5 in a later era they couldn't really sound the same since their originality was a strong factor and a later clone would be pretty different. ( That is if you don't just think of MC5 as being the Who with another guitarist and a possibly harder hitting sound)
I'm not sure you 'd arrive at a decent approximation of The Gun Club without the internal chemistry of the band both positive and negative. & that's probably down to the personalities involved.
Same is probably true with The Birthday Party, Swans, Sonic youth and a number of others.

But that is probably a different thing to what influence one would take from any of those bands.