Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
isn't it a big strange, then, that in the same week NME.com starts posting movie-related news for no apparent reason?
I mean if you're trying to kiss a tall person or something
of that Drew Barrymore rollerball film. I suppose it was only a wee thing, but yeah, it does further arouse suspicions about them going down a slightly more 'lifestyle' route... The lamest thing about the relaunch is that they kind of semi-undermined any breaking with the past by having a two page live review of Noel Gallagher playing some Oasis songs. I MEAN REALLY.
on and off for years but it seems it's time has really gone.
I'm not sure what age range it's aiming for now, but I used to buy it back in 1995 when I was 15. But you had no internet then plus you had a Britpop explosion that seemed exciting (to 15 year old anyway) where, ahem, "great" new bands popped up every week.
There is nothing really for it to exist for. Unless there is an upcoming musical scene that sweeps the country, like Britpop did, there is nothing for it to latch onto.
I have a quick flick through when I can be bothered and every week its pages are rammed to the hilt with the latest newer-than-new acts and 'songs you must hear NOW'... I don't know who has time to chase up all these hundreds of new leads every week. You'd have to spend all day on the internet skip-listening... Where do they all go? 90% of them I've never heard of and never will again. It obviously has a role to play in introducing new music but it might as well just be a booklet of 300 myspace links every week. I think it thinks it's got it's finger on the pulse but for a casual observer it's just pretty confusing. At the same time, it panders to the Oasis/Strokes/Libertines/Arctic Monkeys/Kasabian (it's only ever those 5 bands...) fan-crowd by running updates on their every move/comment/rumour. It's not a good read. I don't know why I bother looking anymore but the old 15-yr old fan in me goes "Go on, just a quick look..." and 2 minutes later I've chucked it back on the shelf in disgust.
i used to buy it religiously every wednesday when i was 16 and that wasn't even that long ago. To be fair my taste in music wasn't great then but it did cover new stuff much more often and more extensively than it does now. The covers from the last few years could be mixed up and i'd have no idea which year they were from because they mostly have noel gallagher on the cover.
We still have kerrang though \m/
so i still had to get through a florence interview and a noel gallagher review and a piece by mark beaumont.
the writing still isn't always great, but its certainly getting better so at least it's a step in the right direction. the layout is really nicely done and it pisses all over what they'd been doing with it in recent years....
the problem is...the NME is always going to have to ram certain bands down the throats of its readers because it's what it's core demographic wants.
i chucked out all my old nme's in the loft last night from about 2002-2006 and it was obscene the amount of times that they had the killers and oasis on the front cover.
i'm sure they don't really do it because they feel they have something new to say, it's because it will sell....and they need to sell to survive.
i think when judging it you have to acknowledge that it has to play a difficult balancing act with the sort of demographics it has to juggle to in order to still exist and appear relevant and interesting.
it's sort of silly when people who have cast aside most print media in favour of blogs and websites moan about a weekly magazine trying to keep up without seeing any positives in what they've tried to do.
but the new cover(s) made it look a hell of a lot like Q.
Remember when the NME was about indie music and Kerrang was about metal and Q was for dads and Empire was for movies? I miss those days. The ones when not everyone tried to cover everything. Oh well. If it's to be the final nail in print media's coffin, then so be it.
It always used to back in the early 90s, as did Melody Maker, along with sections on TV, fanzines and books. Are you that desperate to ONLY read about music and nothing else?
As an NME sceptic, I thought the new look was a definite improvement in that it no longer looks like Nuts or Zoo for music fans and has more of an air of quality about it. I don't think the actual content itself (writing, bands covered etc) has moved forward much, however. The choice of cover stars alone seems to have baffled many people...
I'll admit that I only flicked through without really reading anything and that I've not looked at a copy since about 2006, but it seems there's quite a lot more actual content than there was back then. Can't vouch for the quality of it at all. Was mildly impressed on first glance really.
When I started reading the NME, it always used to have film reviews.
I wasn't anti the film section, I just think that the focus should be clear. It is now a confusing customer proposition, was my point.
Just like the mongs on other forums are almost certainly lamenting it pandering to the chinscratch-chimps.
This is almost certain because I can't be bothered to find examples to back up my argument.
It's a fragmented scene. The internet has thrown it all wide open. Many bands don't last a career. Many that do, shouldn't be the ones that ended up getting a career out of it. There are so many bands of every style of music now that they (the NME) have to try to cover all angles whilst still selling copies by putting 'the big 5' (see my earlier post above) on the cover as much as they can get away with. I don't do blogging or twittering but I do read websites for reviews and info on upcoming releases. Maybe I just don't need NME anymore? I offer no solution as to how it should improve. I didn't really notice much about the new layouts etc. I was only interested in content/coverage.
Sterile, uninteresting and entirely inconsequential. I give them two years at the most.
and just launch into a tirade
I didn't stop to actually read it though.