Boards

sometimes posts on here.

Shoot him an email at james_mcmahon@ipcmedia.com

and tell him to get over to Drowned In Sound for a message board argument.

this review has probably had its desired effect with many people. not with i, i might add.

on the strength of that review.

...I think 'Desperate-to-be-authentic, carbohydrate-stodgy white blues' is pretty accurate.

easy to bash NME, but those comments are hilarious

I have no veiws on the album but that review is pretty lame. It did make me laugh though that he is kinda sayin that the NME like good music...

in years.

'Review'.
Ever.

a) Music critic in "expressing an opinion on musciain he is reviewing" shocker.

b) What can you not believe? I don't think he's said anything massively unreasonable and he's entitled not to like something.

c) It's actually nice to see the NME going against the grain and expressing an individual opinion, which seems a sadly rarer thing for it to do than it used to be.

but like the review

However, I am finding it tiresome - to say the least - how people go on about this man.

He will be headlining one of the stages at Glasto before long.

John Lee Hooker and Howlin' Wolf?

BUt the phrase "an irredeemable honk of shit" is going into The Book.

in the review but I'm surprised that the NME still has the balls to print something like that as a review.

Don't agree with it myself but fair fucking play for printing it,

reading those comments on the review brightened up an otherwise crappy day at the office...!

and, for the record, i have no opinion one way or the other on mr. steve.

he sounds like a bit of a creep, so I'm with that review really.

the comments about the record being offensive to homeless people are really weird and confused, but the last bit is pretty spot on, I saw him at about three festivals over the last year, each time because all my friends were like "we HAVE to see Seasick" and each time I just wanted to shriek "WHY?". But I didn't, because I have learned to control my rage now.

If he thinks it's shit I guess he's entitled to say so. At least he justifies it anyway.

who brought The Twang to the world's attention

I'm actually impressed that NME printed that review- I'm over the ass kissing.

Now I reeaaaally need to hear Seasick Steve's music. Some of my friends have been raving about it for months and now I want to see if it lives up to their hype.

If his music acts as bridge for people to discover more classic blues then i'm all for it. His performance at Glasto this year made me smile a lot!! Haven't heard the new album so my opinion is null and void. I have an opinion on that review though and my final verdict is that its fucking poo-jab!

in as much as he says about the man, even if the review kind of fails to provide much insight into the record itself.

I dont think it does to well to focus on the hardships that real homeless people endure, as there will always be music good and bad that causes controversy like that.

However, Steve's own particular brand is quite offensive in the way that it has become such a lame false gimmick.

My real problem is that he does just play carbohydrate stodgy blues or whatever that guy said. It isnt original, refreshing, well presented, no real point or sincerity in what it says.

In short, it almost seems a mockery to many blues players that this guy can be heralded with as much praise as he gets. It isnt even like it he is returning to the 'roots' or anything.

How many blues fans of whatever particular niche actually think this guy is special? Not many I've come across. Time to give Jawbone or Son of Dave or some other more deserving one man blues band some credit if this is the fashionable thing to do.

is probably one of the most genuine NME writers, at least he's passionate and honest in what he does. Can't ask for more than a reviewer giving his honest opinion.

that a lot of people commenting on both this thread and the NME article haven't actually heard the album.

Neither have I for the record, but that NME review amused me, at least.

stop being so wet

i doubt james hates tramps. its obviously more a reaction to the music than to homeless people.

it's a lot more respectful then seasick steve's fans, who are almost totally wacky students at festivals

is horrible isn't it.
really aesthetically unpleasing.

when i read a review i expect it to tell ne what the albums like, stand out tracks, filler material, analysis of the different componants of the band (are the vocals strong, lyrical depth, musicianship etc). All i got from this review is that this twerp of a reviewer doesnt like Seacick Steve as a person (infact its the type of review you'd expect someone to rush out an hour before the deadline without even listening to the cd!).

I was particularly impressed buy the line "Because we live in an age where so many people pretend to like music, obsessed with not falling behind the hum of the blogosphere" isnt this what the NME copntributes to?

it's a great piece of writing and James proves himself as a great catalyst for debate once again.

Can't believe NME had the bollocks to allow it to be printed

to get behind this review if it backed up and expanded its statements a bit more than just burping out 'musicians lyrics arent entirely true to his life and dont think about all the poor folk, so he must be a massive cunt'.

james could have a point but he doesnt make it well enough and just looks a bit silly and knee jerk

are Klaxons naughty boys because they spoke about the joys of drug taking without thought for the millions and millions (thats accuarate to the person, i swear)of people whoose lives are torn apart by rabid drug addiction.

er..nah...they just brought about 'the new rave revolution'

klaxons, in their interviews, maybe lyrically, i havent scoured the record, certainly 'ignore the abuse, the horror and the desolation that comes with' (ill take it from here james).....drug use......some nme strapline about 'MDMAaazing'.

it may be fair to say seasick is a shitty immitation of this kind of music, a hollowed out souless facsimilie (disclaimer: i've never listened to a whole record)....but...but but but.....for james to make his point in this way, crying woolfie smith, he just looks like a frustrated lad who didnt like any of the songs much.

if this is truely what you believe james, regarding authenticity and bands ensuring that they always consider all sides of every story/issue, you have set a dangerous precident for music to live up to.

p.s. my entire argument might be a genius point or complete bollocks ready to fold like an arthritic in a thumb war, i can't quite be sure.....

Slating artists you don't like for half an hour before fucking off down the pub. That's the dream.

And most of the bile spat their way is totally justified, but that review is ABSOLUTELY on the money. Seasick Steve is a fucking farce.

i love you a little bit. x

what a honk of sh*t!

can we have some ting tings abuse please!

Check him out, especially you James!

like is there anyone here who is, like, a passionate Seasick Steve fan? The negative comments here seem to almost entirely be hatin' on the McMahon, there seem to be precious few people defending SS by expressing their excitement at the prospect of his new album...

Music journalists wish they were musicians.

Music journalists realise they have no musical talent.

Music journalists get bitter.

Music journalists insult musicians

of a 15 year old. Not surprising from someone who signs every single DiS post they submit..

Some of the people on here defending it seem to be saying that it is i.e. that SSS- "record company creation".

I'm just curious really because I'd never heard any suggestion that the guy hadn't genuinely been a 'hobo' at one point.

If its not true I'm burning all my SSS albums.

http://redpatriot.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/vince-mcmahon.jpg

glad all the nme forum people pretty much destroyed him what a twat this james mcmahon seems to be

oh.. uhmm... gotta go

the NME are still persisting with that huge over size font?

Interesting. That review really made me address my preconceptions about former hobos singing songs about being a hobo. I guess that's what happens when you have an authentic ex-street tramp write the review. Who knows how that review might have read had it been written by a blissfully comfortable middle class kid who's known no greater stress than an approaching homework deadline. Or indeed, how it might have read had it included some description of the music.

I will now buy a copy of Seasick Steve's album out of spite.

not the blues.

True music journalism right there.

I'd love to see a longer review than this, with proper space for McMahon to expand on his points. Seastick Steve seems to me like an artist who gets a lot of mileage out of his image without people paying much attention to his music, so for someone to throw up a bit of backlash seems reasonable enough.

At the moment though, this is just controversy without any meaty argument. Could do better.

For the record, I think when the NME allows itself decent space to print big reviews and engaging features, it does it well, and writers like James are generally very entertaining. But when it fills pages with "Cool gimmicky fashion shit you might want to buy now", it just kind of puts you off.

so is it wrong for him to write about his past?

and true.

The nme need more reviews like this.

my god what an over-hype, he's a sub-par blues musician by 1950's standards. Save yourself the time and don't listen to crap like Seasick steve.

whereas Seasick Steve may certainly lack in the innovative, he makes up for it in terms of the drive and the sheer quality of his songwriting and live performance.
Just seen him on Jools, and, bar his cringeworthy swaying to The Streets, he's convinced me to try and find a ticket to see him play Brighton a week from now.

And I think I preferred you when your surname was Jam as well.

there was a thread about this the other day that got about ten posts?

have been put to bed by him coming here and posting responses to criticism and signing them with a kiss. Nice work if you can get it.

is a bit of a shocker.

As someone who hadn't heard of sss until I watched him last night on Jools.

To be honest, I was impressed. I don't think anyone could deny the energy that him and his backing singers had, and regardless of whether it's classified as 'true' blues, it's still pretty solid work.

Also James, have you got any proof to suggest that this man is not genuine and just a fabrication of the record company or is this just conjecture?

I think in a day and an age where a lot of music goes on image, and I can think of about a thousand examples that NME has heralded as the 'new sound' that are generally people with their own stylists, I think perhaps that you should focus on the music?

As stated previously in this thread, this just seems like an attack on SSS.

And I think it's a sad state of affairs when a music review comes to that.

its not even a review. its just two paragraphs of denigration.

the one time iv seen seasick play (bestival last year) iv really enjoyed him. he was cool last night on jools too.

it's pretty appalling for a couple of reasons - accusing Steve of being a fake because he chooses not to write about the bad side of homelessness, accusing fans of Steve of only liking him to keep up with "the hum of the blogosphere" and ending on a note suggesting Steve makes a ton of money.

has anyone seen this guy in the charts? has anyone exposed him as being a fraud who's happily lived with a roof over his head his whole life? does anyone like music just because it's in blogs?

answer to all three questions: no. but what's even the point. McMahon laughs here because he's paid a lot of money to compose bullshit simply to enrage others. well done for keeping ahead of the blogosphere.

Royter x

"Fact is, music finds itself in a time of flux– bands break in different ways and rarely unify people in the same way they used to – and that’s not necessarily a bad thing. But is this the best we can do?"

I think the honk of shit appeared about the time I read that sentence

"sexiest man in rock" with a picture of dave grohl. hilarity.

basically, nme is smash hits with snobbier writers.

that it's reviews like this that are necessary these days...LOOK AT THE SIZE OF THE FOOKIN DEBATE!!! had the review been 'beautifully' constructed and hyper-factual, nobody would have given a shit about the album...as it is lovers have defended Steve to the the hilt and haters agreed he is shit...what's the problem?

And don't whinge about it, seasoned DiSers NEED this (not me im teh n00bz)...you NEED this.

NME are calling that a review now? It's basically just referring how much he smells. It's pretty clear that people seemed have latched on to Seasick steve because of his appearance at Glasto. He's quite talented. No bonnie prince billy but still talented...more so than that razorlight twodle NME have raved about!

Re: The Twang;

"Last year, features editor James McMahon compared 'the spirit and flair' of the Birmingham band to that of the Stone Roses, Public Enemy, Oasis, the Pistols, Joy Division, the Verve and Happy Mondays."

He won't respond to this, and nowadays, he'll try and forget it ever happened.

My point is - I dunno about you guys, but anyone comparing The Twang to Joy Division deserves very little to none of my attention and respect.

One man doesn't like Seasick Steve, loads more don't like NME. It's all inconsequential surely. Can't we talk about some good music instead?

Seasick Steve is a bit crap. I saw him live once. I've seen loads better.