Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
Just curious. I think it's a good read.
and thinks its to cool for school and hypes a load of crap every single week. It's the beano for scene kids... or heat for 'indie' kids...
there's no consistency in bands/artists they will favour and are constantly trying to create scenes or 'exciting periods in music' when there isn't the substance to sustain such a thing, which would bring them the money and sales they so desperately want.
two sentence reviews
'NME bands' change every week. Read something like The Wire and you'll see they've been backing some artists from their very first issue.
I'm saying now it's the fact that to make money and sell magazines they need to create some form of hype around their target audience. Everyone knows generally magazine sales are going down because of the internet or whatever. And because of this their output is being altered because of this, much like the hyperbole you would see in a tabloid paper.
Talking about Gallows as being revolutionary in making a new punk scene since the Sex Pistols is ridiculous, and it wasn't just one or two journalists, but the vast majority. Much the same as nu-rave, they were just fostering a generation of kids who had never experienced indie dance before.
trying to unite the kids though? The music scene's very splintered at the moment - surely things would be a bit more exciting if we had a Britpop-style banner to unite under...
that's a fair point. But that's not why the NME would want a scene. They just desperately need money.
most DiSers aren't kids, and feel as if their music taste has evolved into something they like more now then when they were kids. I would imagine at one point in their life many DiSers frequently bought and loved the NME.
And surely if they were in the record companies' pockets they wouldn't continue to slag off bands with a lot of commercial clout - Razorlight, Snow Patrol, etc.
Rose-tinted specs maybe?
and i dont see how trying desperatly to be funny about a mainstream pop act is counter-argument to dissers reasons for disliking it
I dislike the NME because, in general, the journalism is poor. And they hype bands who are obviously shit (The Others / Joe Lean etc), and that makes me deeply suspicious about management interests. And the review to advertising ratio is about 1/5. I don't pay money to read adverts, I pay money to read reviews, and the NME doesn't deliver on that front any more.
we hate everyone.
I haven't read it for ages and perhaps they've changed, but they also had a bunch of idiot writers who'd write stuff like 'all Lightning Bolt songs sound the same' but are actually trying to give the band some credit. They also seem to praise bands one week and don't bother with them the next.
to, say, a film critic giving a movie a great review and it flopping, though? It's just opinions at the end of the day.
My first point is that they wrote a shockingly bad review that came across as almost insulting, yet it was supposed to be positive. My second point was that they don't seem to back particular artists that they like for a long period of time.
...and slate it then next. Plus they write about mostly bands I don't care for.
Heat Magazine for teh indie kid.
Poor journalism and a poor editor too.
I think the last one I actually bought was the issue that came with the 7" White Stripes vinyl, but nowadays its not even worth flicking through
It's basically a magazine for people into "commercial indie" which mostly focuses on bigger indie bands. Most people on DiS seem to be into "non-commercial indie" and small, more obscure bands that they feel the NME largely ignores instread focusing on the more commercial stuff.
Basically it's not written for a DiS audience so it's not surprisingly DiSers don't like it.
In the mid 90s they tried desperately to create a scene called 'romo' - a revival of the new romantic shit. Despite the fact that there were only 5 'romo' bands and each had only 5 fans (almost all of whom were nme journalists) they tried issue after issue to tell us that this was the future.
and from the men to the pigs and failed to see the difference betweeen the two"
can i have your romo tape? i lost mine.
It's time for a nu-romo revolution, that's what fucking time it is. Bring it on, i say.
I can tell
there's a lot of love on here for
Lolcats (from some)
etc etc etc
We know what we like, we know what we don't.
You're probably the sort of person who has only focused on the negativity on these boards. There's plenty of positivity here.
the last hate thread about oasis was made by some random who hasnt posted since cos he was saying noel getting pushed off the stage was a good thing.
its not hate,its not liking the good damn music.if you cant tell the differnce,maybe you shouldnt be on a music site
of music journalism.
Everything has to be a scandal, or next big thing, or something "AMAZING"
Was the issue with Ashcroft on the cover when the Verve split after Urban Hymns. I don't even know when that would be. It was great then: lengthy features, intelligent reviews. And, yes, there was a lot of gossip and the letters pages were full of whiney indie types that I could identify with.
Obviously there has been a down-turn in the general quality of the magazine, but really, complaining about it is a completely pointless exercise. I also don't understand the common practice of posting a link to an NME article on one of the DiS community pages with some condescending comment attached. Someone explain this...
i imagine a large portion of DiSers has had some positive relationship with the NME, but they started to grow apart, the NME started hanging around with the wrong crowd, cheated on them. Now when they look into each other's eyes they only see the tragic possibilities of what could have been
I once e-mailed NME about the new music section on its website, saying how poor it was and that it was never updated.
In an age where the internet dominates magazines, i would thought they would have their fingers on the pulse with new music, on their website.
No response. And still, their New Music section is crap. No upcoming bands, no unsigned acts. Poor display.
It would have been cancelled years ago if they hadnt managed to get their fingers into so many pies outside of the paper.
read it week in, week out religiously. But the world changes, whereas you would hear no music news all week now we can check the internet whenever we like. Or hear new music every minute of every day. The NME is no longer relevant as it's main purpose is filled elsewhere.
Same with Q. I subscribe (almost out of sheer force of habit). This months copy arrives, all the news at the front I've already heard or even watched unfold. Two of it's biggest reviews were Metallica and Bloc Party. I had owned those albums for weeks already and read no end of reviews about them. Where Q still pulls it out of the bag is with it's interviews.
The NME though has tried to appeal to a younger audience in a patronising gossipy way. I can't see a print version of it lasting much longer.
The last issue I bought was a few years back and was a special on the "London's Burning" scene as they called it. basically they gathered a load of shit bands together (only ones i can remember are baby shambles, the others and selfish cunt) to get in photos outside the palace and talk about how important what they were doing was. The wanker from Selfish Cunt threw horse shit at someone, this of course was deemed very cool.
They have an annual Cool List. Seriously, fuck off
Is better than Drowned In Sound.
Do you like every band Dis covers? I don't, I like enough to read the site every day though. Off the top of my head I know NME have given positive press to Jonny Foreigner, Dananana, Los Camps album got 9/10, Fucked Up were on the cover and Les Savy Fav and TV On The Radio regularly have been featured as well. They are all 'Dis' bands. The fact that they also write about Oasis, Glasvegas and The Killers is simply the opposite side of the coin. Kids might buy the mag for a 'The Foals' interview but if they then check out one of the other bands featured then surely a nice cycle is created? Many Dis writers write for NME too you know.
even though I do agree with much of what has been written above, i.e it is annoyingly commericial and commercially minded at times, i do think they concentrate on obscure music more than ony other big music magazine.
what other massive corporate magazine would put fucked up on the their cover?
A lot of hate on DIS for the NME is undeserved, and propergated (sp?) by many people who, by their own admission, haven't read the mag in ages because they deem it to be 'shit'.