Hello, I am off the NME, \ --- / when did you get off the NMEBus?

Same age as you, and remember that Faces' flexi (selections from Ooh La La, right?) - stopped getting it in the late 80s though, although my then partner bough it for a while longer, so I had the luxury of scoffing into the 90s; now my Daughter buys it occasionally.

I think it's about four years ago, now? Maybe a bit longer. I picked up - maybe - two copies last year, possibly one. That (or them) was due to reading something about some article on ILM and wanting to check it out.

Last few times I've looked at it, it's just been...boring. Annoying I can put up with, I put up with plenty of annoying at NME in the '80's, and kept on reading. Boring is a killer though.

i got off the week my eldest son was born - 1st week of December 1996.
Louise Sleeper was on the cover, and it just felt right.
but yeah, i cant stop the weekly visit to WH Smiths for a 5 minute glimpse into what i'm missing out on.

Over 10 years ago, but I think I bought the Melody Maker in the early 90s anyway

... Mr. Agreeable and all that stuff

got off the NME bus in about 2002, when I was buying tons of records and going to several gigs a week, none of which were ever covered.

"hmmm...perhaps this magazine isn't for me."

then came the endless parade of strokes covers, repeatedly beating me around the head with the supposed greatness of this most drab of bands.

"this DEFINITELY isn't for me."

since then, I've occasionally glanced at it by the supermarket fag counter, and been astonished to discover the live reviews section covers two, maybe three gigs. wow. finger on the pulse there...

I still read it in WHSmith occasionally as late as about 2004 I guess. I don't think I've read one since then.

Cypress Hill issue with really creepy racist overtones, 2000 I think?

Early 2002, having read it just about every week since late 1973/early 1974. I think it was the weekly "what's on your ringtone?" vox-pop that finally pushed me over the edge, plus the ever-shrinking reviews, the narrowing of focus, and the easy availability on the web for news and gig listings. Also the sense that they were now aiming at a very tight demographic, and assuming a remarkable level of short-attention-span cluelessness from it. They had finally stopped even pretending to be "definitive", and were happy to fill a "Smash Hits for indie kids" brief. Oh, and I'd already seen how C.Mc.N had wrecked the once-essential Muzik using similar dumbing-down tactics, and I couldn't bear to see him do it again.

I bought my first copy in well over a year recently - the one with the Coldplay 7" (also unplayed!) - as there was supposed to be a re-design/re-think and I was curious. To be honest, it was a better read than I was expecting, but then my expectations were set at rock bottom.

The ringtone pushing is gone, or at least much reduced. The smaller reviews mean more albums get covered, and two or three get more extensive reviews, which is alright. The horribly chirpy "hey kids" style is still there though. "Wow, how fantastic, it sounds like early strokes". Because Oasis is year zero, because no-one can remember anything before then..

Commenced 1974 with free Python flexidisc.

Ended 1988 following the mark s/Rattle And Hum affair.

Melody Maker my dad used to get anyway because of the jazz and I carried on with that until Mark Sutherland took over and wrecked it.

Last one I bought was the albums of the year one. I've pretty much only bought that in the last 5 years apart from the one with the free white stripes 7".
Rarely read it in Smiths either.
I'll probably keep buying the albums of year issue til im marks age though :) if it's around in 2020

Melody Maker I bought til the end even though it was unbearably crap the last few years.

2001ish, I think, sometime before the Strokes album came out. This coincided with me graduating from university and, separately, finding ILM and I just realised I had no real use for it any more.

Never been a permanent NME reader, and I think they have improved again in later years. Their all-time-lows were during their Nu Metal hype around 2001 and around the late 80/early 90s "grebo" hype.

Oh, yeah, caveat: The Christmas double issue. Not that they're much cop, now they do them 'annuals' which are also not good...

Commenced 1974 with free Python flexidisc.

"... right next to Alf's Cafe in Russell Street..."

I can't remember the exact moment I jumped, but it was definitely the PWEI/Grebo hype era.

Never on the bus (Xmas double issues and a few dozen others in the 80s notwithstanding). I was faithful to Sounds/Record Mirror and later MM.

I used to covet the christmas double issues. Started in late 70s when my mum constantly frowned on my copy of Sounds (too much swearing). Didn't want to buy the NME because it was the one my dad used to buy therefore OLD. But after a couple of weeks of MM (and articles on Wishbone Ash probably) I swapped to NME. Gave up in the early 90s when I could afford magazines like The Wire and could actually read about the music I was buying much like m the g.

How I loved all the Penman/Morley/Derrida stuff though!

How I loved all the Penman/Morley/Derrida stuff though!

Yeah, ol' Jacques' review of Dumpy's Rusty Nuts at the 'undred club was a corker!

the last copy i bought would have been '03, but by that point i had six months' worth unread

Just passed one this lunchtime. The Ting's are number one. Are they celebrating? Um, sort of. With a large (admittedly nice) pic of Scarlett Johanssen. and a very large interview about her album.

(Just sayin'. This is not going to be a lol at NME ongoing thread now I'm "above it all" no.)

todays nme said on the cover "ting tings save the top ten"
I didnt even pick it up to read.
x-post

I used to have a subscription in the 90's, which was pretty expensive to America, but somewhere about '97-ish the music world seemed to have changed to the point that it didn't seem worth it anymore. The following year I moved across the country and never looked back, although when I saw an issue about 5 years ago I was shocked there were no longer any indie charts and there seemed to be a lot less pages in it than what I remembered. I felt really fucking old, then.

Too many adverts, not enough reviews. Reviews are too short. Hell theres lots of things you could list about why NME is crap before you even get to the actual bands it covers!

bought a copy once at heathrow airport (or was it waterloo station? can't quite remember) as i was desparate to either a) get rid of some pounds or b) find some reading fodder, however light and unsatisfying. think i ended up giving it to a friend in paris when i noticed the jet poster on his wall.

How is the "revamp". Not any different to before?

I followed them through the deification of The Strokes, who seemed to merit some of the hype and the rest could be written off as the usual case of "Oh silly NME, always overstating your case by several miles." But then a year or so down the road it was like "hold up, the Strokes were just a palate cleanser for the real saviors du jour, The Vines." And then I heard The Vines, and finally realized how far up its own ass the NME had ventured.

One interesting thing about that brief interstice when they were going all ga-ga for the "The" bands was, being from Ann Arbor, it seemed that every week or month the NME would be touting the local band from down my street as next on the roster for a White Stripes-style breakthrough. None of that actually panned out, of course -- minor exceptions being The Electric Six and The Von Bondies (who? exactly).

I read recently on one of the new band pages, forget who, where the closing remark from the band was "well, we're not breaking new ground musically, but..." and DID NOT GET IMMEDIATELY taken to task over their lameness.

well ok, but doesn't 99% of music nowadays fall into the non-groundbreaking category? there's just subtle little twists on existing genres. even newish genres like dubstep and "minimal" wouldn't have blown people away ten years ago. i like hearing futuristicy stuff, but if someone does something retro and does it well, where's the problem?

These days, groundbreaking music would be unlistenable, so it's better not to break any ground anymore at all.

shut up

Yeah re: that breaking ground comment, the only dumb thing there is that it made it into the piece as a quote at all. I've no idea what band is being talked about there but it's not exactly 'lame' to be inexperienced in the art of interviews and not make every single thing you say a pullquote-to-be

Quitting NME was my new millennium resolution! So my last issue was Dec 99, about 3 weeks after my 25th birthday.

If someone does retro and does it well, fine and good.

More the "not breaking new ground" was meant to represent "we sound not much different from anyone else going round right now"

It was more as you say: why did the quote make it into the piece? I don't blame the band at all, in fact I salute them in a way because if what they do sounds "ordinary" to them, but different to the rest of us, they are doing it right and not forcing it. It was more "Hey, this paper is celebrating their mediocrity" rather than what distinguishes them from the next bunch.

DJ Mencap: I agree that not all bands should be captain pullaquote, but where are the ones that can do this? Someone should be able to do this!

Why celebrate the bands that have the mission statement of "We make the music that the audience likes, and if we like it it's a bonus"...?

I think I last bought a copy of NME in 1987.

I buy it if a band I like is being covered in it. That works out about 4 a year.

Actually I think Geir is right re: groundbreaking. That Battles thing everyone was so nuts about last year is a good example.

I think the idea of "breaking new ground" (which in music press terms is a megacorny phrase) in relation to quality is sort of problematic anyway - a. it's a really vague notion and b. of all the hundreds of ppl who did their top 15 or whatever for the 07 polls on here I doubt there was a single one who entirely chose stuff that "broke new ground" or that they considered as such.

As for 'why celebrate the bands...?' - it's probably a mix of underestimating the intelligence of the readership, not being confident enough in current climate to be brave and go out on a limb, keeping PR co's sweet by featuring their smaller acts and a bit of honest backing of the wrong horses. I was always kind of bothered by the snarky 'lol they said the Von Bondies would be big and they weren't at all' thing that people do, because it's not a science and I tend to give writers the benefit of the doubt that when they express excitement about something in print, they mean it. Of course this is at least 50% down to the dickwaving thing of mags wanting to say WE WERE HERE FIRST about anything, just so they can crow about it

Actually I think Geir is right re: groundbreaking. That Battles thing everyone was so nuts about last year is a good example.

are you suggesting battles are unlistenable...?

Or, at least, the factors that might lead people to call them unlistenable are fairly distinct from the factors that might lead people to call them groundbreaking - argh this is it, it really quickly calls narcissisms of small differences into play and you hate yrself for even trying to think about it

Was my bible, along with MM and Sounds, from about 1977-1978 till the advent of Britpop. I fell off the wagon when it dawned on me Oasis wasn't all that. Looking back, Oasis look like fricking geniuses next to some of the drivel they cover now.

Oh, yeah, caveat: The Christmas double issue.

Last one I bought was, I think, the 2002 Christmas issue. But I hadn't bought another for two or three years before that, and it was out of faint hope that the old joys of the Chrimbo bumper would still be seen as an opportunity for the writers to have fun and take the piss more than in the by-then-neutered regular issues - I was unsurprisingly disappointed.

My first issue was in 1991 - the Kelly/Maconie/Collins/Swells/Quantick era is still a warm nostalgic glow for me, the "my Dr Who" of indie music press.

Have read (or flipped through, rather) looooots of issues between 2004 and 2007 thanks to the library at work having a subscription, so am familiar with Conor's appalling destruction. At many of the paper's peaks (Morley/Burchill, pre-Hip-Hop-Wars-fallout, Kelly), it didn't matter who or what was being covered, because it was substantial reading and above all entertaining writing. Even when I jumped off around '99, there were still multi-page features being written that gave you a sense of the band as a personality and musicians; these days there is perishingly close to no content at all in the rag. Every band is described in breathless terms of why you have to get into them right now, in the equivalent of one column's text from an old issue for the entire feature, and an enormous photo. And it's not like they have a Kevin Cummins or a Derek Ridgers taking the photos, you know?

^^ah fuck it, everyone knows all this already

yeah, but you have it in a nutshell.

I think I got it every week from 1994 or so (when I was 15) to 2001 or maybe 2002. I think I've bought it once since then.

it's actually a lot less bad these days than i remember it being

true, but.

The idea that the NME is solely deathless praise is way off as well, they still do the Shed Seven routine on a number of bands (The Wombats, most recently, and they're still a bit "lol emo" on certain acts as well).

I think part of the reason I haven't bought it in ages is that I don't imagine I can learn anything from it these days; it's not going to open my eyes to something equivalent to what DJ Shadow was in 1996, I suspect.

It does beg the question of whether or not the NME's role _is_ to introduce guys in their 30s to new thing, though.

You also have to remember how quicker the exchange of information has become in the past ten hears. I remember being 16 and the NME being all "THERE'S THIS GUY CALLED MOS DEF AND HE'S GONNA SAVE HIP-HOP", and waiting eagerly at my local Chain With No Name to listen to a CD by this exciting young recording artist. Nowadays you'd just go on his myspace as soon as you heard and make a decision then. It's not really a valid way for the NME to spend its time, exciting people to new bands.

I still think the NME should have taken the Pitchfork dollar in 2004 and pushed bands like The Shins, Decemberists, Feist, Animal Collective, all that bollocks. I think they'd be weaker as a brand but stronger in sales now as a result.

I'M 29 YOU MOTHERFUCKER

But yeah, for the most part I agree.

Re; the educating "blokes in their LATE TWENTIES" thing, though; the reason I don't really read any music press is because I don't think there's anything that does that out there. Admittedly I'm an odd and peculiar target market, as are most other posters here.

Re; the educating "blokes in their LATE TWENTIES" thing, though; the reason I don't really read any music press is because I don't think there's anything that does that out there.
-- Scik Mouthy, Thursday, 22 May 2008 09:26 (5 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

last.fm?

he's 'only' 29... (got a lot to learn.....)

(soz)

Last.fm has big credibility problems as far as I'm concerned.

IPC policy when I was involved was: 15-24 yr olds read the NME, 25+ go straight to Uncut.

That would explain why "the NME" rang me and asked if I'd like a subscription to Uncut!

Last.fm has big credibility problems as far as I'm concerned.

In what way?

http://www.last.fm/music/?q=sufjan

^^^still not enough

Last.fm has big credibility problems as far as I'm concerned.

In what way?

You have to listen to (the vast majority of) music (you listen to) via a computer. It relies on matching you with people of similar taste i.e. staying broadly inside comfort zones the vast majority of the time, rather than genuinely introducing new styles, areas, etc and stretching your taste / knowledge base. It offers no critique or context. Social network sites in general proffer unregulated user-generated content which almost always results in... well, Myspace-esque levels of critical discourse. Last.fm is a replacement for radio, at a push, not for music journalism / criticism /news / reviews / etc.

I don't think it in any way intends to replace music criticism but I've still found a few new artists that appeal to me via "sounds like" type links. It may well be in a "comfort zone" where I know what kind of stuff I like and just want to hear similar artists to artists I already hear - but if one has a fairly broad range of genres within that zone there is still a lot of room to broaden ones horizons.

Calling it social networking makes it seem a bit clinical and formulaic but much of what I hear is from friends/contacts/group members saying "you should give this a listen" and is no different from my mate playing me his new favourite record in 1983.

Using "music journalism / criticism /news / reviews / etc." is still comfort zone thinking given that people tend to buy magazines/read websites, etc. that cover genres they know they like.

I like to get out of the comfort zone as often as possible. I always try to hear stuff I never knew I would like. Keeps you alive, and all that.

Certainly the radio is totally useless now for this type of thing and I think the effects of Peel's absence are only really now kicking in.

last.fm radio is of _some_ use in this context, but it depends on you finding a tag or "similar artist" that actually introduces you to new stuff.

"Spade Cooley similar artists" radio station is amazing.

Using "music journalism / criticism /news / reviews / etc." is still comfort zone thinking given that people tend to buy magazines/read websites, etc. that cover genres they know they like

Exactly, which is why i don't buy / read any of them! I'm after... the kind of experience I got when I was a 16 year old indie kid and all of a sudden 4 boys with guitars as a platonic essence of 'good music' in my head was blown to kingdom come by stuff that... I would say "the periphery of NME etc" introduced me too, but actually back then Orbital got massive reviews for In Sides, and that's a pretty fundamental moment for me. It wasn't just tiny references to CAN or whatever, but also big, 9/10 reviews for DJ Shadow or whatever.

Is there an equivalent DJ Shadow figure in 2008 to give that kind of mark/coverage to though? How much press did the NME give Burial?

I must say I applaud The Wire's continued bravery in giving their covers to people even I've never heard of, or people they may possibly have made up.

I'm not sure. I think... the culture has widened to a point perhaps where that potential for crossover doens't exist anymore - things (like NME) have (as we know) become more niche in order to survive, so figures like that CAN'T exist, almost. Not for the likes of NME.

I must say I applaud The WireKerrang's continued bravery in giving their covers to people even I've never heard of, or people they may possibly have made up.

-- Dingbod Kesterson, Thursday, 22 May 2008 12:08 (38 seconds ago) Bookmark Link

It's what their readership expect (xxp)

Both The Wire and Kerrang! are probably in a better economical situation pro rata than the NME since their circulation figures are currently quite healthy; therefore they can get away with putting X, Y or Obscure Z on their covers because readers are buying the magazine as a brand rather than necessarily because of what's in it. Whereas NME has probably painted itself into a Zane Lowe-type corner.

Why is the NME subject to such fluctuations of sales based on the cover though? Why are Godspeed You Black Emperor/Destiny's Child/Gallows commercial death to their readers, while, say, Kerrang can get away with whoeverthefuck "Cancer Bats" are, or even putting Bon Jovi on the front.

As I said, I think Kerrang! has a better understanding of its readership and also, because of its DELIBERATELY generic narrowcasting it's more secure about its ability to sell regardless of cover star. I doubt that DC or Gallows (or GYBE! for that matter in 2008) on the cover of either Kerrang! or The Wire would do much for their circulation figures but that's not a problem they really need to deal with.

Whereas the NME basically doesn't know WTF it wants to be; indiekid bible, Zane Lowe/Colin Murray but with pictures, thus it falls between all possible stools and entirely depends on whom it decides to place on the cover in any given week. It hasn't quite got the internal courage to say right we will do indie rock and only indie rock and possibly it's crippled by its own history and previous reputation.

I think Cancer Bats would probably be a throw-yr-hat-in-the-ring early-adopter type cover in this instance, which to be honest I think Kerrang do just as often

Are they liable to be big then? Googling just suggests that they're music for guys whose girlfriends never shut the fuck up about Alexisonfire.

Ha. Well if that's a tangible demographic that might tell its own story...

Why is the NME subject to such fluctuations of sales based on the cover though?

i don't believe it was until:

- horlicks rock (coldplay, snow patrol etc.) replaced britpop/pubrockers as 'most bankable white guitarists' and the quandary this posed for UK rock crit
- McBraff

Why is there still no Braffian UK publication?

Other than DiS, obv.

As a long term kerrang reader from the same time as I read MM/NME, can I just point out that Kerrang is just as shit the past few years and I no longer by it. I stopped getting it the same time as NME.
Only articles i read in it in Smiths are those by Stevie Chick and sometimes Morat as that guy introduced me to so many great bands in the early 90s.

NME writers you would trust now? NONE.

I hated Steven Wells and co but at least they were worth reading just to get pissed off at how wrong they were!

starting this thread while DJMartian appears to be on hiatus = MEGA FAIL btw

What does NME have to say about the Scooter phenomenon?

sosume. (xpost)

Scooter is for the Mojo Of Rave Magazine that will surely start up in Glasgow sometime.
M8 Classics?

I'm applying for the Editor's job!

You always say that. You mean it this time?

- horlicks rock (coldplay, snow patrol etc.) replaced britpop/pubrockers as 'most bankable white guitarists' and the quandary this posed for UK rock crit

The GYBE and Destiny's covers both predate either of these being big bands though

Travis then

wtf is McBraff?

To answer the question 2003, though I did buy the one with the Morrissey compiled CD in I think 2005.

Does anybody here still buy it every week or are they too embarassed to admit it?

McBraff = Conor M

OIC

Started reading in the early 90s, but not every week, I'd pick up Select or Vox or one of the rock/metal mags sometimes instead.

Bought it every week as a student in the late 90s, even though I already thought it had gone downhill, but the release news and occasional token post-rock/electronic guys in the new bands bit kept me going. All the little references to older bands were mostly no longer a mystery to me but I was pining for the recently-scrapped dance section where every mention of "needle-fine breaks" or "deep 808 drops" or whatever had still seemed like a whole new world to discover.

2000: realised I was buying it every week, flicking through the live reviews for Ronan Munro (local gigs) or Stevie C (sorry if this seems sycophantic, but honestly struck me at the time as about the only writer who covered bands I liked), looking at the paid-for live ads at the back, having a half-arsed scratch at the crossword, and then never reading the rest. Finally stopped in 2001 when those writers had left and I was too ill to go to any advertised gigs.

2001-2002: bought it occasionally but was disgusted by its increasing resemblance to a very tacky birthday card (£2 price tag for hardly any pages, lurid design, not much text), never bought it since

You know NME is bad when you don't even read it in Smiths!

My first issue was in 1991 - the Kelly/Maconie/Collins/Swells/Quantick era is still a warm nostalgic glow for me, the "my Dr Who" of indie music press

hah: and on the other side of the world, i was doing and thinking and feeling exactly the same thing :)

started reading in 1991: first issue was the shamen interview they did just before will sinnott died. the reason i bought it, though, was that my much-cooler mate rang me up and said: "hey, the NME's got an OMD discography in it this week." funny to think i'd go into town and buy a bloody magazine just for a fucking discography. lol pre-internet.

anyway: subscribed almost immediately. i really did adore it: wednesdays were the high point of my week. the thrills piece called something like "seminal moments in music: this week, kraftwerk invent techno" remains one of the funniest fucking 300 words i've ever read. i even had a couple of letters published. ah, happy days.

i've still got a couple of subscription copies in their unopened plastic bags -- ones that arrived when i wasn't at home, and i bought elsewhere. i'll have a look for them tomorrow, maybe; find out which ones they are. i'm 99% sure one of them's got morrissey on the cover. i've also kept some of the (opened, well-thumbed) copies i really liked: a christmas special with EMF and carter; the 40th anniversary one (hang on: that's the one with morrissey, isn't it? not that they were necessarily short of morrissey covers.)

anyway. i left home and went to university in 1993; cancelled my subscription because i (rightly) figured i'd be too busy drinking/trying to get laid to read the thing regularly. still kept an eye on it, and the (on its last legs) melody maker, but not with any great enthusiasm. it was a short but intense affair.

then britpop happened, and everything went completely to shit. that was the point at which i lost interest completely. i do remember trying to flog them a review in 1997 -- can't remember what it was -- but the guy i spoke to (honestly can't remember his name) struck me as having little understanding of either music or journalism, so i didn't bother. i genuinely can't remember the time i opened a printed copy.

that said: i do subscribe to the news RSS feed from nme.com. it's really for old times' sake -- the stories are invariably old or uninteresting. but i guess there's still a tiny flame of loyalty burning in there somewhere. just about. perhaps i should get the reviews feed, too. then again ... no.

dom OTM, i think, about the direction it could and should have gone in -- but it's a moot point. i don't see a future for the printed product at all now: i'll be astonished if it exists in five years. and that's not because it failed in some dreadful way; it's simply that an inky music weekly is now about as revelant as a music-library subscription. the stuff of life in 1991; a historical curiosity in 2008. as i say: lol pre-internet.

... Mr. Agreeable and all that stuff

still not funny, even in the digital age.

Britpop saved music, but couldn't save NME. Q is ace though.

Why are Godspeed You Black Emperor/Destiny's Child/Gallows commercial death to their readers, while, say, Kerrang can get away with whoeverthefuck "Cancer Bats" are, or even putting Bon Jovi on the front.

If Kerrang put Celine Dion - or Destiny's Child for that matter - on their cover, I doubt the readers would be too impressed....

NME has a relatively wide approach, but it's a "everything-that-most-current-12-year-old-girls-don't-happen-to-like" approach nevertheless

Britpop saved killed British music, Nothing couldn't save NME.

hermann is on the munny.

How? If he's not just trying to zing Geir I don't understand how you'd back that up at all

OK, Britpop killed it because up till then the climate was generally one of experimentation and/or expression, whether in words or musical styles. As long as costs were covered, this could continue.

Britpop's overriding concern was making things commercial enough to make the charts and making more headway.

I don't regard Britpop as a bad thing in itself, I liked the music fine, for the most part. But when it crashed/burned/assimilated into the mainstream, that 'below the radar' musical climate had gone, and it took a long time to rebuild.

The NME was going down as there were too many other ways of getting the news and views. More cable/TV coverage, the internet, etcet. The NME could have gone under and closed down, but the powers that be decided it had to survive, so became the big sell out to mobile/ringtones/web internet presence and specific market target it is now.

will that do?

of course that's massive generalisation, but the general gist is just so.

I think Britpop killed or at least severly wounded British indie music, rather than British music per se.

I fell off the wagon when it dawned on me Oasis wasn't all that. Looking back, Oasis look like fricking geniuses next to some of the drivel they cover now.

-- leavethecapital, Thursday, May 22, 2008 2:07 AM (Yesterday) Bookmark Link

I can't even begin to express how OTM this is.

i don't know if that's true. isn't it just that new stuff of that ilk sounds worse the older you get? i'm pretty sure if i heard oasis for the first time now i'd change the station.

Wow, I'm beginning to remember the first issue or so of NME I bought ever. It had an article on Paul Weller and I remember a picture of him shirtless in indian paint in the woods. I know you think I'm joking...must have been...late '84? '85? No I swear, I'm not imagining this.

I remember the Ted Chippington album (bear with me, plz), and the opening track was taped of the TV some local announcer rapping an intro to the Royal Variety show, and part of it mentioned "a nostalgic look at british pop" and I couldn;t help reflecting that as far as the general population was concerned, british pop was something filed away in 'nostalgia'. Of course, Britpop changed that, and became very visible, and hurray for that.

But Noel said at the time, 'one week at number 22 and then straight out' was no longer good enough. But it was more than good enough, really. Both should have co-existed, but no everyone ran to the beach and suddenly the town was gone.

Well, anyway.

(xpost yes we remember that Weller pic / issue)

OK, Britpop killed it because up till then the climate was generally one of experimentation and/or expression, whether in words or musical styles.

Experimentation is a bad thing because you shouldn't change something that works. Britpop saved music because it made sure the songwriting formula of classic 60s/70s/80s pop was saved and also applied to 90s music. With Britpop, classic popsongwriting was again brought to the fore. You had classic songs, written by the performers, in a traditional formula that had proved to work better than any other formula - with verse - bridge - chorus. Britpop thus secured that what used to be so great about pop in the 60s, 70s and 80s was applied to at least some 90s pop too. And you even had such wonderful old-fashioned songs as "Country House", "Wonderwall", "Don't Look Back In Anger", "They Day We Caught The Train", "Slight Return", "The Drugs Don't Work" etc. dominating the charts again.

Before that, there was way too much hip-hop and way too much dance. There still is, to some extent, but now there is an alternative, made up of new and young acts who haven't already written their best songs 30 years ago.

Which is exactly why Britpop saved music.

DIE, DIE, DIE YOU POINTLESS BOT BASTARD

NO ONE CARES

I think Britpop killed or at least severly wounded British indie music, rather than British music per se.

Britpop saved pop, first and foremost. I don't really see Britpop as "indie" in the traditional sense, which isn't needed either as pre-Britpop indie was usually rubbish anyway. Before the mid 80s, it was in chartpop that the best music was found.

YOU JUST REPEAT THIS SHIT OVER AND OVER AGAIN IN SUCH DIDACTIC TERMS AND NO ONE CARES, YOU';RE INSANE, GO AWAY

YOU'RE A NASTY QUASI-RACIST TORY TROLL, PLEASE GO AWAY

AAAAARRRRRGGGGGHHHHHHH

I WAS HAVING SUCH A NICE MORNING ON ILX TOO

I will repeat it again and again until you guys stop repeating that Britpop was a bad thing. Britpop was deeply needed to give people like me back the music we loved and make sure it stayed forever and never diappeared.

Music has never ever been as terrible as it was in the early 90s, and Britpop helped rectify that. Today, there is still a lot of R&B and hip-hop crap, but thanks to the legacy of Britpop, it doesn't dominate totally like it did in the early 90s, when sad old wankers like Elton John was all those of us who insist on listening to melodic music only had back then.

C'mon, don't rise to this. It's pointless.

Every so often i just have to spaz out at him. I can't take it.

Experimentation is a bad thing because you shouldn't change something that works. WRONG.

Britpop saved music because it made sure the songwriting formula of classic 60s/70s/80s pop was saved and also applied to 90s music. IT WASN'T IN DANGER!

the rest I can't be bothered with.

Surely it was in danger. By the early 90s, all those of us who love melodic self-composed songs with male singers had was stuff like "Sacrifice" and "(Everything I Do) I Do It For You". Hardly satisfactory when compared to all the great stuff previously done by great acts from the 60s, 70s and early 80s. Surely there were some exceptions like Crowded House but they were very rare and didn't peform too well in the singles charts either.

Melodic music is at its best when done by young people who haven't already used all of their best song ideas, and it was only with Britpop that you had a new generation of young songwriters using the good old formulas again. Which is why Britpop was so very needed.

YOU CANNOT BE REAL

Geir why do you care what we think?

http://www.hulgerisation.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/06/wind-up-lamp01.jpg

I care when you make sort of an objective fact out of it, like with this thread that sort of has the pre-decided notion that "current indie is rubbish". No, it isn't. Current indie is very good, and in fact much better than 80s indie. Because it is POP at its best.

If you don't like Coldplay and Keane, fine, but there are lots of us who do, and we don't because Coldplay and Keane are white but because they write great songs that you can sing along to. Songs that you cannot dance to, but who needs to dance anyway?

Paul Weller had a spear on the cover, too, of this NME I bought where he looked like a painted savage in the woods, shirtless. I swear.

I think most of us have heard of The Style Council yeah

KILLFILE, Scik, for your sanity!

I DON'T UNDERSTAND KILLFILE

Oh I'm sorry, Mark G! You said you remembered that issue and I hadn't had a chance to read it yet. Thank you. Thank you very much.

Also my new girlfriend played me the first Paul Weller solo album and it wasn't half bad.

EVERYBODY needs to dance

This is not the place for objective truths and you know it. (xpost to Geir's last post)

This is not Wikipedia.

If you ran a poll saying Britpop Classic/Dud, the winner would be "somewhere in between"

There were good and bad things about it. OK, it rejuvinated the mainstream and made those bands you like. My belief is that they would have happened along anyway, yr Coldplays and yr Keanes. It reduced the 'indie' market, but actually the reason why the 'underground' indie market is better now is that technology means I can have a 24 track recording studio right now as opposed to only being able to afford a duff mono cassette recorded in the 1981's. For example.

That's it.

duff mono cassette recorder, I mean. OK, I did record a duff cassette in 1981, but that's not the point right now.

*applause*

xpost

XXP The last thing I agree with. In fact, demos recorded like home usually sound way better than stuff that was actually recorded in studios by 80s indie acts.

Then you will have those people who claim that it was a matter of idelogy, that 80s indie sounded muddy and shit with the vocals mixed way too low in the mix because it was supposed to sound like that. It probably had more to do with low budgets though. Britpop had higher budgets, and thus sounded different.

Memo to Southall and Grout: STOP FALLING FOR IT.

EVERYBODY needs to dance

Absolutely not. Rather the opposite. Those who dance need to sit down and listen to discover more important artistic aspects of music.

LEAN BACK, UHHH
LEAN BACK, UHHH
LEAN BACK, UHHH

Those who dance need to sit down and listen to discover more important artistic aspects of music, and do the rockaway.

LEAN BACK, UHHH
LEAN BACK, UHHH
LEAN BACK, UHHH

ARRRRRRRGHHHHHHHH!!!!!

OUT WITH YOU TO THE SOUND OF BLUE MONDAY AT 80 BILLION DECIBELS~!!!!
xpost to Geir

my first issue was the blur vs oasis one, august 1995. last one must have been late 90s/early 00s. a little after they started that weird 'melody maker in the back pages' stuff.

i was 11 for blur vs oasis, and about 16 when i gave up on it.

What else was in that Blur Vs Oasis issue? I think i still have that issue up in the loft somewhere along with the xmas specials.

Shed Seven probably.

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y28/SleepingSoul/oasis/blurvsoasis.jpg

Well I was at that T In The Park in Hamilton so i was probably far more interested in reading about that even though I did like oasis and blur then.

Oh god, I thank Mr Neuname to point the ROFFLiciousness of this thread. Geir, I think you just made my day. I have faith in humanity again. Nick, dude, you gotta laugh at the ridiculousness of it all! Mr Geir just needs a good wank. Which is clear from this post:

EVERYBODY needs to dance

Absolutely not. Rather the opposite.

I never bought NME on a regular basis. Did buy Q a lot though. And Uncute. And Mojo. Now I just blindly where Geir doesn't go. hah

I don't think Britpop was bad for music so much as Oasis' success over Blur was bad for music.

Also, great pop IS experimental. Heard of The Beatles?

xp to stevie

Was "Uncute" deliberate, or the most brilliant mistake ever?

http://z.about.com/d/oldies/1/0/L/G/ihjtdwyussleeve.jpg

^ the opposite of dancing = crying?

Mr Geir just needs a good wank. Mr Geir just needs a good wank. Mr Geir just needs a good wank. Mr Geir just needs a good wank. Mr Geir just needs a good wank. Mr Geir just needs a good wank. Mr Geir just needs a good wank.

(have we banned rote responses yet?)

Well Geir's not been here for a couple of hours

Rob, no, not deliberate. Sleep deprivation is not only fucking with my head, but also my "schpelling." ;-)

Best typo ever

Also, great pop IS experimental. Heard of The Beatles?

Most of what The Beatles did sounded great. It still does today, but today it isn't experimental anymore. Everything that sounds good has already been done, which means you cannot experiment much these days without not sounding good anymore.

That being said, it is probably still possible to experiment within the boundaries of melody and harmony, which is what The Beatles almost always did. It is just that even in "popular" music people have got this stupid Schönberg-like idea that going away from melody and harmony, or from the song form-itself, is the only acceptable way to experiment, and that no other kind of experimentation is radical enough.

ahem..

Melodic music is at its best when done by young people who haven't already used all of their best song ideas, and it was only with Britpop PUNK that you had a new generation of young songwriters using the good old formulas again. Which is why Britpop PUNK was so very needed.

-- Geir Hongro, Friday, 23 May 2008 09:56 (2 hours ago) Bookmark Link

I thank you.

Punk replaced a lot of melodic music that was actually better than punk. So, no thank you. Punk is partly to blame for hip-hop and dance (possibly even boybands) because it gave people the ill-advised idea that you don't need to have musical skills above average to become a star.

rofl

Most of what The Beatles did sounded great. It still does today, but today it isn't experimental anymore. Everything that sounds good has already been done, which means you cannot experiment much these days without not sounding good anymore.

That being said, it is probably still possible to experiment within the boundaries of melody and harmony, which is what The Beatles almost always did. It is just that even in "popular" music people have got this stupid Schönberg-like idea that going away from melody and harmony, or from the song form-itself, is the only acceptable way to experiment, and that no other kind of experimentation is radical enough.

The bold bit is insane and I cannot accept it. You empirically CANNOT KNOW whether "everything that sounds good has already been done", you just cannot, it is a logical impossibility. The way you present statements such as this, which are essentially nonsensical, as being objective truths, and do so in an unaltering, repetitive manner, is why I swear at you you all the time.

The italic bit I can agree with to an extent. That does not mean I think it's entirely correct, though, or that any degree of correctness in it negates the possibility of value in its opposite.

- I'd just like to interrupt this thread to apologise. I'm at work at the moment, so I haven't got Geirbot.jpg handy. Thanks, carry on -

Argh it's all italic. The bit about Schönberg was meant to be italicised.

I present you, Geir:

http://www.cellphonebeat.com/images/sdrgh.jpg

(He's playing some GROUNDBREAKING NOISY STUFF)

It looks nice like that, Nick.

Um, yeah was going to raise the same point.

Geir, it's a young planet. Not everything has been played out. To say all developments in music have been created and finished, and that that music was created between 1961 and 1999 is just silly.

You empirically CANNOT KNOW whether "everything that sounds good has already been done", you just cannot, it is a logical impossibility

Well, obviously not, and a lot of nice experimentation is still being done without melodic and harmonic boundaries. An example of that is the stuff that was done by Beck and Eels in the 90s, which was in a lot of ways very new and exciting, and still obviously always very melodic.

And note that I don't see Britpop as the definite development that music should never go away from, but I feel it was a very much needed correction as experimentation had brought music away in the wrong direction, and it was important to rectify things to make sure melody and harmony sat there at the bottom of it all again - to be able to go further from there and experiment within the boundaries of traditional melodic/harmonic songwriting.

a lot of nice experimentation is still being done without melodic and harmonic boundaries.

Within, I mean

I don't know who's annoying me more here - Geir or the mugs who waste time and unnecessarily detour this thread by attempting to "argue" with him.

Any chance that people here can ignore Geir and get back to talking about the NME? Thanks.

I know what you mean, MC. There's things I'd like to say or ask, but I really can't be bothered to divert the thread any more than it has been already. Nobody's going to win this argument.

Well, I have made the points I was making, so I'm done anyway.

Only this left:

The Beatles: Listening to Stockhause, so you don't have to.

n

i think this assumption that the boundaries of harmony are set in stone forever is wrong. they've developed and changed a lot over the years

http://pagesperso-orange.fr/titanic/images/futility.jpg

ts: futilely arguing with geir vs futilely complaining about nme having gone down the pan

Moving back to the NME....

As each generation outgrows the NME, they claim that their era was the best and that it's not as good as it used to be. In fact they probably say that about music, television, the price of petrol and movie stars. I think it's just a generational thing.

But fuck me, the NME has been shite for years.

It is just that even in "popular" music people have got this stupid Schönberg-like idea that going away from melody and harmony, or from the song form-itself, is the only acceptable way to experiment, and that no other kind of experimentation is radical enough.

http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/posters/entartete.jpg

http://germanhistorydocs.ghi-dc.org/images/highres_00014214%20copy.jpg

Great thread.

Current NME vs latter day Melody Maker, which is the worst?

Latter day MM was all Stereophonics and Catatonia, concentrated on the populist stuff, totally dull and oh NO NO NO MARCELLO'S GONNA KILL ME!!!!

Moving back to the NME....

As each generation outgrows the NME, they claim that their era was the best and that it's not as good as it used to be. In fact they probably say that about music, television, the price of petrol and movie stars. I think it's just a generational thing.

But fuck me, the NME has been shite for years.

This is totally true, and probably the source of much of the ire in here (other then Geirbot). However, if we take NME's target audience since... 1977, as being predominantly males under 21, what counts as pandering to the demographic has surely dumbed down massively in that time...

Re. latter day MM: you missed out the word "racist."

It was?

there's also the fact that nme sacrificed a significant degree of editorial independence for the sake of pleasing advertisers a while ago ('we'll give you a glowing review if you give us exclusive interview' etc). once you go down this road it's impossible to turn back.

That Craig David "tribute" cover - some of us haven't forgotten.

I have. Was it Bo Selecta on the cover or something?

ppl taking schoenberg's name in vain makes me sad.

Melody Maker's problems towards the end were several. They mostly stemmed from its ridiculously over-zealous campaign to destroy all pop music and replace it with eighty shades of grey indie wank (ie: promoting worthy guitar bollocks like Toploader and Embrace over genuinely thrilling pop music).
The problem was compounded by an inflammatory cover based on a parody of a Craig David album sleeve which featured a lookalike sitting on a toilet with a constipated facial expression, next to the words "UK garage? My arse!". The cover was rightfully attacked for its borderline racism and probably helped alienate a sizable proportion of its readership.
Thirdly, MM editor Mark Sutherland's sinister re-invention as a kind of indie fascist proved to be the final straw for many, with his policing of the letters page every week by putting down all dissenters, praising those who slated chart pop and generally saying suspect things about "our music" and "the struggle" continuing as if his readership was some kind of Hitler Youth he was trying to motivate. Towards the end it only appealed to people whose idea of "alternative" music was a Jamie Oliver compilation, anyway. It was good for so long, but just before the end, it really deserved to die.

From here

Well, there you go. Sad, as it was the oldest music mag (in the world? possibly).

"Punk is partly to blame for boybands" . Wow. That's a leap of faith even for you, Geir.

Well, yeah. Moving on...

I loved Melody Maker but I was glad it went under as it really was shit. The start of the decline for me personally was making Catatonia album of the year.
The only thing that kept me buying it from then was the coverage Afghan Whigs,Pavement and Screaming Trees got.

Occasionally I've bought the NME recently to read on the train but ended up reading it cover-to-cover in 10 minutes on the station platform before the train has even arrived. Yes the NME's rub now, but like skinny jeans, Kate Nash, Radio 1 and "the Sesh at the Linnet and Lark" more than anything it just reminds me I'm not 17 any more.

Odd thing about M Sutherland was that before becoming Melody Maker ed he wrote concurrently for NME, where he was more or less the token cheerleader for chart pop, and Smash Hits where he did the same thing but for Britpop

suspect things about "our music"

Ultimately it's all down to Steve Sutherland, the Simon Cowell of the music press.

As each generation outgrows the NME, they claim that their era was the best

I think a lot of people here, myself included, count the mid-late-90s as 'their' era, and I certainly wouldn't make that claim. Has it been getting worse steadily since about 1997 (maybe longer) though? Sure.

late91/92 onwards is my era really

That's about when I first started reading it as well. I don't think I ever bought more than 5 issues a year even then though. I'm a bit of a tight-arse though, it didn't seem worth spending money on, ever, so I used to just read it in the shop.

I actually bought MM 1st, it was far superior in my eyes. it was probably 1992 when I bought NME come to think of it.

Thought i'd do a poll since I keep mentioning MM on Mark's NME thread.
NME vs Melody Maker

i think the first music paper i bought was the suede 'best new band in britain' issue

(of melody maker - sorry mark)

s'alright. What else can we talk about then?

Has there been a favourite editor of NME poll? You could do that.

My vote goes to Nick Logan.

yeah.

Right, next: Favourite writer of ol.

For a minute I thought that said favourite writer of Oi.

So much competition in that field.

Favorite writer of lol

Brian Case did some nice pieces about Lol Coxhill in the NME.

It was way upthread, I know, but I wanted to echo Mouthy's criticisms of last.fm. I really wanted that site to work for me and there were just too many things about it that bugged me. One of them was the fact that you have to listen to everything by computer as he said and another was when it started sending me exclusively Pogues-ripoff Irish-sounding band recommendations simply because I happened to have a few tracks by one of said bands that a friend sent me. I don't mind that kind of music but it's hard to imagine listening to it all the time and I didn't even ask for these tracks my friend sent.

Anyway, please continue...I love this thread even if something in me doesn't quite want to read the whole thing.

Sad, as it was the oldest music mag (in the world? possibly).

S'true. I can remember being home from college one Easter, laid up in bed ill and my mum picking up that week's MM for me. "It's nothing like when I used to get it." I was stunned! She's 81 this year. (I don't think she was talking about the prog years).

great thread!

other than the britpop nonsense, yes.

It was a phase we had to go through.

There was nothing racist about that MM cover. It was anti-UK garage and nothing but that. Has nothing to do with skin colour or ethnic origin at all. Only music and nothing but music. Craig David was making crap music, not because he was black, but because he made R&B and R&B is crap music. Black people who make R&B make crap music, white people who make R&B make crap music. Simple as that. The best way to make good music is to pretend funk never happened and that The Beatles remains the most important thing ever in music forever and ever. Regardless of being black or white. White people should focus on melody and harmony only, black people should focus on melody and harmony only. White people should forget about rhythm and dancing, black people should forget about rhythm and dancing. Black and white people are the same and should make the same (melodic and harmonic) music.

fuckin ell.

i thought i couldn't sleep.

i'm obviously wrong: i'm actually trapped in a nightmare from which i cannot awake.

great thread.

I'm trying hard to remember when I stopped buying and can't, which surprises me because there was a time when I'd be at Menzies with a bag of 2p coins I'd dredged together from couches and god knows where to buy the damn thing. Probably about 1998, when all my cash was going on film and newspapers.

Dom v otm upthread about what it's for/DJ Shadow as well.

The best way to make good music is to pretend funk never happened
The best way to make good music is to pretend funk never happened
The best way to make good music is to pretend funk never happened
The best way to make good music is to pretend funk never happened
The best way to make good music is to pretend funk never happened
The best way to make good music is to pretend funk never happened

Wow. I know he's a troll. I know he's insane. But surely people can see why I (and a few others) get so wound up by that? I know it's a silly trope, but that actually IS how Nazi Germany started! (Sort of... maybe not... but the potential's there.) It's completely and utterly insane. Is it not time to ban Geir?

No, no, no, dude. This is the thing I wanted to make clear earlier: Geir is ENTERTAINMENT. Without him, this thread would be a hell of a lot less interesting.

Put your coins in, hear him spit out insane shit. He's cornered the market on it. The entertainment value is quite high.

Maybe... but... I just find his nonsense so offensive and sinister.

Moving back to the NME....

As each generation outgrows the NME, they claim that their era was the best and that it's not as good as it used to be. In fact they probably say that about music, television, the price of petrol and movie stars. I think it's just a generational thing.

But fuck me, the NME has been shite for years.

-- Rob M v2, Friday, 23 May 2008 13:07 (Yesterday) Link

Are you really saying the NME hasn't got worse? Look at an NME from 2000. You'll find a couple of dozen live reviews maybe. We're in 'a boom time for live music'. They do an average of 4/5 gig reviews an issue now. It's appalling.

There was nothing racist about that MM cover. It was anti-UK garage and nothing but that. Has nothing to do with skin colour or ethnic origin at all. Only music and nothing but music. Craig David was making crap music, not because he was black, but because he made R&B and R&B is crap music. Black people who make R&B make crap music, white people who make R&B make crap music. Simple as that. The best way to make good music is to pretend funk never happened and that The Beatles remains the most important thing ever in music forever and ever. Regardless of being black or white. White people should focus on melody and harmony only, black people should focus on melody and harmony only. White people should forget about rhythm and dancing, black people should forget about rhythm and dancing. Black and white people are the same and should make the same (melodic and harmonic) music.

-- Geir Hongro, Saturday, 24 May 2008 01:12 (8 hours ago) Bookmark Link

LOLZ

I should really have clarified my grand statement back there, so you're right to pull me up on it.

I stopped reading / buying the NME around 2000, 2001 because I wasn't interested in what they were writing about any longer. Also I noticed the quality of the writing was getting worse, I didn't like who they were recommending me to listen to. I think perhaps Terris may have been the last straw because I vaguely knew the guitarist, I'd seen the band, thought they were dreadful and couldn't see them as the future of music.

But you're right, at least in those days the gig reviews were comprehensive and you'd spot bands rising up the musical stream - now every band is the most important band in the world, there's this veneration of Pete D as the saviour of modern music and we must bow to his every bowel movement, and I just don't care about anything they write about. Even when they do articles on 'classic' albums or bands there's no information I didn't know before. OK, I'm not the target audience - I'm way past that now - but I do feel those who treat it as their bible, because they don't know how good it could and has been.

Now I really do sound like an old fogie.

Er, I do feel FOR those who treat it etc...

lol Terris as the future of music.

Who remembers the Good Ole Days of " so and so " Are The New Smiths!

Every six months minimum someone was proclaimed as the new smiths. Gene, Marion (who i liked the 1st album by actually) and god knows who else.

So, if everyone's the new Smiths, who were the Smiths the new...?

(That's not a well put question but you know what I mean)

According to google:

The Smiths are the new Beatles
The Smiths are the new Strokes
The Smiths are the new black

NME's live reviews and gig lists were often the best part of the magazine. Where else could you find out who was playing in exotic places (to me anyway, I'm a yank) like Manchester, Glasgow, Bristol, and Swindon. Also the reviewers could often be quite nasty and nasty reviews are always more fun. I remember an early scathing review of U2 that even then nailed everything odious about them. Just reading the band names was entertaining...Dumpy's Rusty Nuts, Those Sexy Firemen, Crawling Chaos. Sorry, just an old fart getting nostalgic.

I completely understand why the NME has slashed the live section/gig lists. Blogs etc, have really made them redundant.

Every six months minimum someone was proclaimed as the new smiths. Gene, Marion (who i liked the 1st album by actually) and god knows who else.

-- Herman G. Neuname, Saturday, 24 May 2008 12:32 (3 hours ago) Bookmark Link

Back when the smiths were actually still going, MM used to get around this by making sure the smiths' name was featured on the cover of every single issue.

I think the original "new smiths" was bourgie bourgie? This, again, when the smiths themselves were still going. The amount of sub-smiths local support groups you'd see at newcastle riverside when they were current was ridiculous. I wish I had tapes of some of them, some of the sub-mobbo lyrics I heard were choice.

I went to two Gene gigs. Two.

Gene >>>>>> The Smiths

Blimey, Geir. Wow.

That's a pretty hard one to understand, given that I can remember and like loads of Smiths songs, but despite having heard Gene a lot of times (singer in a band I was in was a big fan of them, he used to play them in his car on the way to gigs a lot) I can't remember a single one of their tunes!

Now I know Geir's insane.

Let's dance to Gene
and appreciate the irony
on this thread.

It's all about the melodies. The Smiths' melodies were way too cyclic and obviously built around Morrissey's words. Gene's melodies had a more traditional build and worked better as actual songs with actual catchy choruses you could sing along to.

I must've missed that Gene. I don't remember anything of theirs that was catchy. Infact I don't think I can remember any of their songs at all.

I think he means Gene Hackman.

http://outsidetheboxuk.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/gene-hunt.jpg

Makes more sense.

Right, my final word(s) on this, from a personal perspective...

I'm not going to whine about "oh the NME is not as good as it was in my day" because my "day" was a very long time. Yep, I will signal that the greatness of times was between 1978 and 1999 or thereabouts, but that's how it is. As I say, I haven't stopped because it's now unredeemingly shite, it's not and right now it's better than it has been for a while.

The loss of faith can be centered on one "jumpshark" moment, when their reporter asked LAllen how she was going to celebrate her first number one, and she comically replied "lots of Gak". And the article appeared in the tabloids before the NME version was printed. Years before, the paper would rightly slag bands for taking the tabloid route (JStrummer was gently upbraided for having a Sun logo on his shirt when he did the London Marathon), and now their editor (presumably) is farming out their article for shock/horror misquote time. (this was before the Beth Ditto 'coolest artist' bump for Muse issue. Of course, history has rewritten itself to be "when she won Coolest article, she celebrated by appearing nude on the front cover)...

And as I say, in the end it was none of this. Just that basically it wasn't telling me anythin I needed to know anymore.

Thank you and Goodnight Vienna.

I have just spent a whole hour listening to stupid Schönberg - wonderful stuff, thanks to this thread and especially Geir for reminding me of it.

Whats on the cover this week?

http://germanhistorydocs.ghi-dc.org/images/highres_00014214%20copy.jpg

nah oasis were the kuntz on it last week i think

Next week: Rusty Goffe centrespread.

People still care about Oasis?

Massively so; bizarre, isn't it?

Next week: Rusty Goffe centrespread.

God, The Cure should really just give up

You mean they haven't?

unfortunately not

NME sales circulation at a low point of 56,284

http://tinyurl.com/5zgmwp

Kerrang! registered the biggest drop in the music magazine sector as its circulation fell 27.9% year on year, recording monthly figures of 60,290 for the first half for 2008, according to latest Audit Bureau of Circulation figures released today.

IPC's weekly music title NME also declined sharply, falling 17.4% year on year to 56,284.

How much money is the website making these days?

Now onder Kerrangs circulation drops as it has only been covering emo and no metal at all the past year or so.
Maybe this new issue will improve things lol
http://images.kerrang.com/content/ksite/spreads/1223_244x325.jpg

i expect both NME and Kerrang will remain as websites after the publications fold (6 months? 12 months? 2 years?)

Neither will fold, they need the magazines keep everything else (websites, radio, club nights, TV, whatever) orbiting around. I imagine the NME will just get cheaper and thinner - it's almost as flimsy as a Shortlist or a Sport these days, possibly more so.

I think Matt DC is right

the websites can become the new brand centres relatively easily surely

do magazines ever get cheaper?

http://www.nme.com/images/84_magalbumsspreadL120808.jpg

that '8' stays there every week - they just change everything around it

Now onder Kerrangs circulation drops as it has only been covering emo and no metal at all the past year or so.

Noted emo bands Trivium, Opeth, Nightwish, Machine Head, Slipknot, Dragonforce, Evanescence, Blink 182, Iron Maiden, Avenged Sevenfold, Cancer Bats, Blackstone Cherry, Clutch

the website has never looked better, they need their shitty interview/features on there tho (i want to lol at Noel)

It's a good website, not too sure about the font though.

do magazines ever get cheaper?

I meant cheaper as in cheaper to produce, shittier quality paper, less money spent on writers and other staff, etc.

And yeah the site *could* become the centre but it just doesn't encapsulate the brand like a magazine does.

BEHIND NME LINES
Once the best–selling music magazine in Britain, NME recently recorded its lowest ever sale, and the critic’s knives are out. OMM goes behind the scenes at NME’s offices to see what really goes on, and finds out how the world’s leading weekly music magazine is made.

Which critic are they talking about there?

Cameron Carr

Marcello Carlin, probably.

Must be plastic knives then

NME should never have let marcello and nick be joint editors

"the critic's knives are out"

And the sub-editors are out of a job.

Maybe they are already.

But then again, who actually "reads" the NME these days as opposed to just looking at the pictures?

People who read the guardian

haha

many people do, you just won't find them around here, mostly thankfully

Did anyone ever get back on the bus? Mark?

me ?

nope.

december 96 was the end of the road for me.

got the edition with the simian mobile disco nu-rave mix cd on the cover mount, but thats been it ..

no, Mr G who started the thread

I cant even remember when I stopped buying it regularly. Before Mark G did anyway. I still buy the one with AOY list though for old times sake. Same with Kerrang.

ahh I posted earlier in the thread

Last one I bought was the albums of the year one. I've pretty much only bought that in the last 5 years apart from the one with the free white stripes 7".
Rarely read it in Smiths either.
I'll probably keep buying the albums of year issue til im marks age though :) if it's around in 2020

Melody Maker I bought til the end even though it was unbearably crap the last few years.

― Herman G. Neuname,

so thats about 10 years since I bought it regularly. I still dont read it in smiths.

Oh, hai.

Occasionally, that first year, but not for about 4 yrs. I did get the one with the Vaccines demo cd tho.

Be Quiet.

Even the Christmas double issue thesedays is more "add ten pages and double the price'

i dont buy that one since they brought forward the eoy list to the beginning of the month.

do A&A not buy it and you read it?

nope.