Has The NME Got Good?

Geir's history of indie:
In 1977 punk gave us The Police and the Boomtown Rats. The Police were new wave until Every Breath You Take. After the Police split up, all the indies fled underground, never showing their faces again. Although the Smiths and many other indie bands were very popular, that didn't count, because none of them had No 1 singles. And then Blur and Oasis found all the indies underground and led them back to the light in 1995.

Is that right, Geir?

Indie existed in the meantime as well, but it was a very narrow genre with a somewhat narrow following, so the NME had to have a broader musical scope if they were to survive.

Point being, Indie singles sold loads, they didn't chart highly because a lot of the sales weren't in chart return shops.

Anyway, basically, the main reason why the likes of The Smiths, R.E.M. and Waterboys got popular in the 80s, not with the masses but with a certain kind of audience, is they were guitar fundamentalists. They were known as "guitar bands", and were popular with people who hated how the synth had become the most important instrument in pop music.

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.

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.

We'll see.

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.

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)

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?

And an ilxor because whiney g is mentioned!

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.

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

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_TGaFUPJleS4/TQeIsZDpkLI/AAAAAAAAV3U/226Gb0tZNy0/s1600/NME%252BBeadyEye.jpg

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

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.

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.

still find that NME top 3 albums from 86 amazing!

so it still doesn't quite hold up.

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

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.

I bet liam sells more papers though with his bullshit

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.

& mostly shite

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

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.

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.

that nme cover is next level

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.

^exterior life of Thom Yorke

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

blimey, I do!

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.

Schooly G

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.

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

Ropey Verve probably the worst era to knock off.

Has anyone read this:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/images/1907554483/ref=dp_image_z_0?ie=UTF8&n=266239&s=books

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.

That's this book btw.

http://images.amazon.com/images/G/01/richmedia/images/cover.gif

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

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.

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

U2/NME versus Sinker

is the full review anywhere online?

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

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

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?

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.

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...

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 ..

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.

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

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.

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