The Sun and the NME

OK, so they tried to convince people The Strokes were awesome and sold Pink as "the best voice for young America since Kurt Cobain", but so much hatred.

Now they do this self-serving all the time, who knows maybe its more honest.

It really kinda bugs me when in interviews and/or reviews, they pretend to be the whole paper (e.g. "the NME asked julian if he'd like another pint and he said etc")

But when its "The NME booked into a hotel" its like "oy, you in the pub, how big was that hotel room?" and they say "It wasn't me"

(Note: I'd still write for NME if given the chance. Aim hate mail here).

Damn straight. There was a woman who posted from a mental institution to Melody Maker every single week that she was being held against her will, and that Berry Gordy owed her some cash from the 1960s, and could we please get in touch with him so he could break her out of there.

I used to love doing the Melody Maker letters pages; NME's wasn't nearly so much fun, the readers seemed a hell of a lot duller.

Writing as 'The NME' always sucks; s'funny, both The Times and The Evening Standard encouraged me to explore a more personal voice than NME allowed me, and I always feel happier writing in the knowledge that I'm presenting my own interpretation of matters, and not some false objectified truth. That said, of the CTCL/Loose Lips/Plan B axis I'm probably least comfortable using the first person in my pieces, or getting overly confessional/personal.

nah dave, there's nothing more amateur and arrogant in journalism than writers using the first person (except during comment). readers (y'know real people... ie non-journos) dont pick up magazines to find out what you think, they want to know what the artists they like are saying. using the publication's name as a blanket first person is a decent compromise.

See also: ILM

(not that I talk about it with my friends, as a rule)

still dont like the use of "I" though. there's no excuse.

No, but then they by implication do want to find out what the NME thinks. and yet, in the end, they only get what the writer thinks anyway.

OTM, Dave. I think its only when a poor writer wields the first-person that it becomes grating. A great writer will be able to work their POV in with that of their subject in a way that illuminates rather than obfuscates.

stylistically it's just completely self indulgent to use the first person.

Explain.

I have been asked about this by relevant folks before and I think the practice of marketing that way actually diminishes them as a brand. People who've thrown their lot in with marketing tend to be stymied by this.

In any case the use of the first person should be done *connectively* ie. to make the microcosmic macrocosmic or vice versa, rather than be about hanging out with band X or whatever.

I mean, would a writer actually say "I use the NME" ?

xpost

"Kirk Brandon started the band around the same time as I started writing. A year ago, we were both unknown"

You gotta laugh.

>>stylistically it's just completely self indulgent to use the first person.

>Explain.

>-- stevie (looselippedstevi...), June 24th, 2004.

you just explained it yourself. "A great writer will be able to work their POV in with that of their subject in a way..." that doesnt specifically use the first person.

furthermore using the first person disrupts. it reminds readers they are reading a magazine which 1. they already know and 2. has therefore now taken you out of the fabric of the feature you were trying to weave.

Totally. Of course, none of the big publishing companies will realise this until their 'precious', callously over-farmed brands are utterly barren. But it seems like the magazines themselves are the least important (at least to the publishers) part of any brand, because they certainly generate much less cash than, say, radio stations or TV stations or websites, etc. But of course, when the source of that brand falls fallow through neglect or misuse and the whole thing rots from within, it will come as a shocking surprise.

And any way, people in market research will tell you anything they think you want to hear for a cup of tea and a digestive biscuit. and companies only seem to listen to the most brain-dead sources for advice ('oh, some of our market research proves people don't actually want to read words in magazines, they want ringtones etc etc etc' - so why is it that these magazines lose readers every dumbing-down redesign, if you're 'giving' 'them' what they 'want'?) ('''')

This subject frustrates me greatly!!!

Because it assumes that the reader cares abt the writer as an individual, which is very rarely the case -- and you don't find top-rank writers whom people *do* want to read using 'I' all that much, as against music press scribes, OTW.

Martin:

furthermore using the first person disrupts. it reminds readers they are reading a magazine which 1. they already know and 2. has therefore now taken you out of the fabric of the feature you were trying to weave.

Its obviously a question of degrees, and changes from writer to writer, but I'd still say there are many non-indulgent and, in fact, beneficial uses of First Person in journalism, and to banish them from a writer's arsenal seems dumb to me. And I'm not sure how switching 'I think' or 'I did this...' from 'NME thinks' or 'NME does this...' is particularly an improvement.

Moving to Kerrang!, the first thing (the great) Dave Everley told me was to ditch all that 'Kerrang! is on the road with...' guff and treat it like I, me, mine was personally there. Being able to use first-person and eyewitness-style writing was such a boon, especially given the better access I had with Kerrang! (artists trusted us more; the minute I joined NME from MM, bands began to view me with instant suspision, which was a little unsettling).

Of course, working on Careless Talk and Loose Lips, I have read First Person-abusing samples from hopeful writers that would make you want to ban the written word.

I meant 'switching to', not 'switching from'...

Also: PR-speak has very much adopted the boosterish music press tone! Would that it were less personal.

Again, it depends on who is wielding it, but often, I find attempts to assert some objective judgement within the review format (and beyond) to be wholly false, to the point of distraction. 'This is a good record' always, always, always < 'I love this record, let me count the ways'... These aren't absolute truths, your mileage may vary etc.

I think any review that asserts :this is a good record: needs spiking! I mean, you need to explain what something is, what it expresses... and that stuff permits some objectivity.

i totally support your feelings on the function of writing dave (hence why enjoy writing about grime so much: you get to say so much, in this case about modern urban britain), it's the form ie the specific use of the first person and how it affects the reader i dont agree with. but anyway, i think i've made my point...

I just like read good writers write about their response to music, which is all I ask of a review. I've paid to read good writing, foremost (though that's obviously a nebulous and subjective thing), and am reading to find out about new things, to be intoxicated by the writer's opinions (positive and negative, i'm not attacking critical reviews here at all, just dull ones) and they're writing. I don't want *everyone* to be writing from First Person, but I don't think it should instantly disqualify one from being able to write pertinent, non-self-indulgent and affecting writing.

How am I meant to know if I'm going to like it if all you can do is talk about how much you like it (and rarely do people manage to distill 'why')?

Surely exploring the 'why' is indicated in 'let me count the ways'.

Or - let's say that the reviews in Heat are the most 'objective'/'impersonal' on the market right now. Do they ever tackle the 'why' you want to read an exploration of?

No - I wrote to the NME once, in about 1997. Just one sentence: 'I bet you don't print this'. They did, under the heading 'Timewaster'. It was the proudest moment of my life.

Oh how I used to love Daniel Booth....

Actually he is still at IPC, writing for Web User magazine.

Now then, to the debate about the use of the first person. For many years it's been NME's not to allow it, because it comes across as self-aggrandising and was seen to be a very MM thing to do. However, these days the position has been relaxed to allow their "name" writers to throw in a few unique personal insights. Unfortunately, since these are frequently half-cocked sensationalists like Pete Cashmore and Andy Capper, it's still not working particuarly well.

Speaking personally, I like the mag to have a house style - "We at NME Towers" and all of that. It's good that music mags should come across like a fairly exclusive club that you'd like to be a part of. The relationship between NME its readers, the way it talks to them, and they bombard it with emails all the time is refreshing compared to pnderous rags like OMM and Rolling Stone where the writers are deliberately put on a pedestal and encouraged not to be down with the likes of us.

I always used to find it frustrating that I had to pare back any personal stuff in my pieces, but Gavin from Vice was allowed to get egomanic every time he wanted to let NME readers know that 'cool' New Yorkers detested 'dirty' Puerto Ricans...

In terms of wider editorial policy, the only really positive thing is that they don't instantly slag new bands becasue that would be pointless. Better to just ignore them and give the publicity to those who deserve it.

Cashmore is indeed the guy from Nuts/Loaded. *Heart sinks*

*googles "imran ahmed" + wrestling*

A feature for something called Vanguard has him writing "white is hte new black" in the first paragraph and "WWF is the jewel in the crown of redneck culture" in the last. That's not too impressive right there

http://boingboing.net/2015/07/17/the-sun-publishes-1933-film-of.html

http://i0.wp.com/media.boingboing.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/CKJUUj6W8AAmU0L.jpg?resize=600%2C764

damn this is on ilm