NME Awards 2004 - vote now if you really think it's any less pointless than stabbing your knee with a spanner.

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Well go on then, if you must - the nominations are risibly blinkered as per.

― CharlieNo4 (Charlie), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 10:49 (twenty-two years ago)

'best solo artist - pink'

oh, my sides...

― hobart paving (hobart paving), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 10:55 (twenty-two years ago)

i tried to vote - i even got as far as Best New Band - but have opted for the spanner instead

― stevem (blueski), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 10:55 (twenty-two years ago)

I got even further before despair overtook me. Who needs a knee anyway?

― Tico Tico (Tico Tico), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 10:57 (twenty-two years ago)

There's not actually anything to vote for?! They're all the same?! My knee's fucked already!

― Llahtuos Kcin (Nick Southall), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 10:57 (twenty-two years ago)

Muse's most ambitious album yet!

― Dom Passantino (Dom Passantino), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 10:58 (twenty-two years ago)

Best Solo Artist - Har Har Superstar.

Hey, just for the advert...

― mark grout (mark grout), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 10:59 (twenty-two years ago)

Umm I did mean to type Har Mar there.

― mark grout (mark grout), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 11:00 (twenty-two years ago)

has anyone told NME that they are national embarrassment to Britain?

― DJ Martian (djmartian), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 11:06 (twenty-two years ago)

Radiohead get five nominations including best single for "There There" - up against "Hey Ya" and "Seven Nattion Army"? I beg your fucking pardon?

― CharlieNo4 (Charlie), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 11:06 (twenty-two years ago)

I think you might have a few times DJM.

― Tico Tico (Tico Tico), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 11:06 (twenty-two years ago)

Umm, possibly Radiohead may not win that one. If they do, it's not the newspaper that's the embarrassment...

― mark grout (mark grout), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 11:10 (twenty-two years ago)

I still don't buy their logic about shunning the likes of Dizzee (who has probably sold more than Damien Rice in the UK) presumably because they think 'our readers don't care about him' (or is it just 'we don't care about him?') - chicken/egg thing but even though i pretty much ignore the NME these days i still get annoyed by their apparent cave-in regarding broader music coverage over the last few years (even in the Britpop era they seemed much more open) - sorry it's another NME rant.

― stevem (blueski), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 11:10 (twenty-two years ago)

They tried the broader music thing a few years ago - there's even a thread somewhere called "Is the NME getting good again?" - I can only assume the sales figures were so horrendous that the whole episode was swept under the carpet sharpish.

I'm not fussed anymore - they have their demographic and they stick to it and that's fine. I preferred it when it was my demographic but I'm not going to get all Grumpy Old Men about it anymore - actually looking back I started at 16 and stopped at 24, I am marketing heaven!

― Tico Tico (Tico Tico), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 11:15 (twenty-two years ago)

I get the impression the shortlist was taken from votes already received, not the NME 'judges'. Or A Meringue?

― mark grout (mark grout), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 11:21 (twenty-two years ago)

I started 14, ended 19 JUST LIKE JULIE BURCHILL (okay, I wasn't writing for 'em) but honestly, this is what they do! '7 Nation Army' is a good song! You wouldn't hate on Angler's World for going on about fishing.

― Enrique (Enrique), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 11:23 (twenty-two years ago)

Sorry Charlie (cough) I don't see what the problem is with that...

― Kate Jane Connolly (fixitgirl), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 11:24 (twenty-two years ago)

Yes Kate, but that's because you have shit for ears.

*cough*

― CharlieNo4 (Charlie), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 11:33 (twenty-two years ago)

"Leading the nominations are Radiohead with a staggering five nominations, while Muse, The White Stripes and The Darkness each get four. Just behind are Queens Of The Stone Age, The Libertines and Kings Of Leon with three nominations apiece."

i stopped reading at this point.

― searchanddelete, Tuesday, 27 January 2004 11:35 (twenty-two years ago)

I *beg* your pardon? OK, so you're saying that Radiohead shouldn't be in there cos it's a shit song, is that it?

No need for such insulting behaviour...

― Kate Jane Connolly (fixitgirl), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 11:41 (twenty-two years ago)

I think it might be worth voting in the Best New Band category just to ensure that Jet don't win. Y'know, a bit like the 'Anyone But Bush' theory.

― Flyboy (Flyboy), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 11:44 (twenty-two years ago)

No, "There There" is by no means a "shit" song, it's quite a good song, but it's a totally obvious contractual obligation non-single and is so obviously dwarfed by the aforementioned Outkast and White Stripes monsters that I get the feeling NME just put it in so they could splash "Radiohead 5 nominattions shockahzzz" everywhere.

Trouble is, with these things people just vote for their favourite band no matter how actully inappropriate that choice might be in comparison to whatever else is up for nomination. I'm with steve, I get het up about this shit even though it's got fuck-all to do with me - I've not heard a single one of their album nominations all the way through!

― CharlieNo4 (Charlie), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 11:47 (twenty-two years ago)

i love 'There There' more than 'Hey Ya' fwiw

They tried the broader music thing a few years ago

this was their original mandate surely, if not then certainly in the 80s and early 90s (general snubbing of rave culture accepted) - but i guess sales figures are scrutinised more than ever now out of desperation (even tho it seems the NME has never held such a strong influence in the media)

― stevem (blueski), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 11:53 (twenty-two years ago)

i think we get annoyed because we recognise the strength of the NME's influence and how they're effectively defining the times as they choose to see them, prompting many others to see them that same way. domination of retro-rock in their pages and award nominations suggests retro-rock is all that matters in music today to a lot of people which just seems nonsensical.

― stevem (blueski), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 11:56 (twenty-two years ago)

So you wouldn't just vote for the song you liked best then? How simple minded of me not to think in "contractual obligation non-single" terms. Wtf?!

Maybe I'm thick enough to work for the NME.

― Kate Jane Connolly (fixitgirl), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 11:57 (twenty-two years ago)

mark grout may have a point tho - 'Crazy In Love' was their best single of last year but it's not among the nominations for best single (Charlie alludes to this with the 'default Radiohead' thing too)

― stevem (blueski), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 11:57 (twenty-two years ago)

But i) retro-rock is all that matters to the NME's audience; the market for a generalist paper just isn't there any more. ii) 3 years ago there is NO WAY that Franz Ferdinand and the Zutons would have been in the top 20, it does matter more at the moment.

― Tico Tico (Tico Tico), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 11:58 (twenty-two years ago)

but how much have points i) and ii) been down to a self-fulfilling prophecy on the NME's part? a fair bit ti I'd say

― stevem (blueski), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 12:00 (twenty-two years ago)

i love retro-rock and the nme.

― doomified, Tuesday, 27 January 2004 12:01 (twenty-two years ago)

the market for a generalist paper just isn't there any more

and why is this? i mean i think you're right but i'm not sure this is really the view of a record buying/mp3 downloading music-loving general public. more likely it seems no actual view can really be discerned from said public.

― stevem (blueski), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 12:02 (twenty-two years ago)

nme is there for the indie market. nowt wrong with that. magazines and newspapers shouldnt be broad or generalist anyway. time for more parochialism and tight demographics

― Stringent Stepper (Stringent), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 12:03 (twenty-two years ago)

i) not at all - like I say they TRIED to put out a generalist paper, Missy on the cover, Jaxx on the cover etc., obviously that didn't work sales-wise and then the Strokes came along and they saw a chance to shore up their core market (which was defecting to Kerrang!).

ii) well Campag Velocet never went Top 20 did they?

― Tico Tico (Tico Tico), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 12:03 (twenty-two years ago)

a) dance music is the dead elephant in the corner here -- it doesn't have the audience it had in 1988-98, so yeah retro-rock is on the agenda. if rnb (etc) is the actual dominant music genre in the UK, that doesn't change the fact that most of te artists involved operate differently from the nme's faves -- ie they don't tour, it's harder to make a big noise about, say, kelis doing a promo tour, than like the flamisg lips doing some gigs.
b) nme is only read by about 50,00 students!

― Enrique (Enrique), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 12:06 (twenty-two years ago)

The irony being that the guitar bands that actually have chart success in this country seem to have chart success irrelevant of whether or not the NME are "onto them" or not.

As I stated previously, the NME's current stance on why they don't like The Darkness is that The Darkness "are for people who think there's such a thing as "real music" and who hate pop music". This is a really bizzare stance, because the NME, and its readers to a fair extent, are of that "I love pop me! Like that Beyonce song! It's really good, and uses this sample of some obscure band from the 80s called The Highlights".

Robinson is as much as a horseman of the NME's downfall as Beaumont and Sutherland to be honest.

― Dom Passantino (Dom Passantino), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 12:16 (twenty-two years ago)

I found a Bivouac single in my wardrobe.

― jel -- (jel), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 12:29 (twenty-two years ago)

That's nothing - I found a Wardrobe single in my...oh forget it.

― CharlieNo4 (Charlie), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 12:47 (twenty-two years ago)

...and so he kills another thread stone dead.

sorry kate, didn't mean to be, y'know, rude.

― CharlieNo4 (Charlie), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:15 (twenty-two years ago)

*wonder what he's like when he's trying to be .. *

― mark grout (mark grout), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:25 (twenty-two years ago)

i thought NME's Darkness hate just boiled down to the Hawkins/McNicholas beef (former refused latter an interview despite latter having got on his knees and begged at former's request)?

they TRIED to put out a generalist paper, Missy on the cover, Jaxx on the cover etc., obviously that didn't work sales-wise

why obviously? why is it that putting those people on the cover results in poor sales? they're both very popular acts all in all and sell more than The Yeah Yeah Yeahs and their ilk. I think NME fucked itself up by originally alienating the people who liked to read it alongside more specialist dance mags (i.e. me) somewhere along the line. i guess i am just at odds with the majority in preferring the dilettant approach.

Franz Ferdinand only got into the top 10 because of the following factors:

1) it's Janurary

2) NME shepherding

3) it's January. oh wait. maybe it was 99p first week?

4) cool video getting lots of time on The Box and similar outlets

(i do think the song is alright btw)

― stevem (blueski), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:28 (twenty-two years ago)

I think Oasis turned up in the mid-90s being very self-confident about liking rock, thinking rock was best, not bothering with anything else and it encouraged an "I know what I like" attitude among the listeners, it was refreshing after the paper had spent the 80s 'educating' its readers about stuff that was 'good for them'. Now you have the paper pushing Jet and the White Stripes who have a similar blinkers-on attitude to music.

Sort-of related question - did soul boys in the 80s actually read the NME? I bet they didn't. I'd guess the whole 80s approach was chalked up as a big mistake sales-wise.

― Tico Tico (Tico Tico), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:32 (twenty-two years ago)

i was thinking that actually but wasn't sure - it seemed to go on for most of that decade tho - maybe they just didn't have a clue or just didn't care and enjoyed the freedom. many corners of the music industry worked with a similar attitude at that time it seemed.

― stevem (blueski), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:34 (twenty-two years ago)

I think they've always been sales-conscious, maybe not marketing-conscious in the way they are now. My guess is that the 80s approach was chasing the Face in the way the 00s approach was chasing Kerrang.

― Tico Tico (Tico Tico), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:36 (twenty-two years ago)

thing about Oasis - Liam was the rock n' roll Luddite but Noel had been into rave to some extent and was always bigging up Howlett, the Chems, Goldie and DJ Shadow around the time of 'be Here Now' interviews

― stevem (blueski), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:36 (twenty-two years ago)

Yeah and which one did 'the kids' think was cooler? :)

― Tico Tico (Tico Tico), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:37 (twenty-two years ago)

for me, Noel ;)

were people more daring in the 80s? were more/bigger risks taken? (Frankie, PWL, M/A/R/R/S and unlicensed sample chaos, acid in the charts, even soul-diva electropop?)

― stevem (blueski), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:39 (twenty-two years ago)

not so much more/bigger risks, more that they seemed greater in the context (esp Frankie, obvjously)

― robin carmody (robin carmody), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:41 (twenty-two years ago)

or obviously even

― robin carmody (robin carmody), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:41 (twenty-two years ago)

yeah i'd agree, it's an illusion convexed by the novelty of the ideas at the time, although campness and homosexuality in pop has taken an odd turn in recent years (homogenised and stifled? or just accepted and met with general indifference because it's not actually that big a deal?) - saying 'you couldn't have an act like Frankie nowadays' is not remotely worthwhile i guess, but then again those songs will stand up forever...

― stevem (blueski), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:45 (twenty-two years ago)

Um who's at No.10 again?

― Tico Tico (Tico Tico), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:47 (twenty-two years ago)

personally, i don't want homosexuality to be shocking to people, so bands like frankie, the communards, culture club etc did their job, as far as i can see.

― Dave Stelfox (Dave Stelfox), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:50 (twenty-two years ago)

true enough. and have any current Radio 1 DJs set Betjeman to music? those bands *worked*, that's the thing.

― robin carmody (robin carmody), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:53 (twenty-two years ago)

in re: putting jaxx and missy on cover and 'obviously' not selling copies

why obviously? why is it that putting those people on the cover results in poor sales? they're both very popular acts all in all and sell more than The Yeah Yeah Yeahs and their ilk

it's interesting, but it comes down to why people read about music in the first place. the yyys may not be sonically interesting, but in a sense they have a more interesting image than [recent] missy elliot -- well let's be honest, to a certain type of teenage boy they do. when people talk about oasis these days what they remember is entertaining interviews -- and the same goes for manics, kenickie, and other bands i liked (can't have played either of them since about 1998). missy isn't quite such a hit, interview-wise.

― Enrique (Enrique), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:58 (twenty-two years ago)

ha ha, Scissor Sisters in top ten seems inexplicable to me - again the song is okay tho - i think i quite fancy the girl (looked great on Popworld)

― stevem (blueski), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 14:10 (twenty-two years ago)

interviews > music in memory - a telling statement indeed (i don't mean on you Enrique)

― stevem (blueski), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 14:12 (twenty-two years ago)

What I have learned today: NME is doing exactly what it should be doing and the pop charts are better/as good as they have ever been. Whew.

― stevem (blueski), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 14:14 (twenty-two years ago)

Possibly Kenickie shd have been given a tv show instead of musical instruments.

― Enrique (Enrique), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 14:16 (twenty-two years ago)

true enough. and have any current Radio 1 DJs set Betjeman to music? those bands *worked*, that's the thing.

what? i am totally confused here

― Dave Stelfox (Dave Stelfox), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 14:17 (twenty-two years ago)

Possibly Kenickie shd have been given a tv show instead of musical instruments.

very true that Lauren Laverne went into TV far too late and has been wasted in having to constantly play second-fiddle to more boring male counterpart. her first appearance on NMTB remains her most entertaining on screen ('In Your Car' on TOTP runner-up)

― stevem (blueski), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 14:19 (twenty-two years ago)

Dave - Mike Read, who contrived the moral outrage re. Frankie, set Betjeman poems to music. the point i was making was that, compared to the 80s, pop music is now presented in the media totally on its own terms - pre-pop cultural criteria are no longer applied to it to anything like the extent they once were, so what may have seemed startling may now seem less so not because of what it is itself, but because the context has changed.

― robin carmody (robin carmody), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 15:47 (twenty-two years ago)

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