Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
Tee hee hee.
before it's deleted:
"Conor McNicholas is a revolting, spoilt, middle-class dullard, who is editor of IPC-run music magazine The New Musical Express, better known as the NME. He sold the magazine down the river in the early 2000s by focusing on inconsequential tabloid rubbish and loads of boring identikit, indie-schmindley, pseudo-rebellious bands.
"His first professional post on a magazine was on a fledgling Manchester publication called Sub where he wrote a spoof horoscope under the pen name of Snufkin, which was not all funny. McNicholas went on to write for the dance press holding senior positions at both Ministry and Mixmag magazines before going on to edit Muzik.
"In recent years he has turned the NME into a maintstream pop-magazine, with Lily Allen and The Mighty Boosh appearing on the front cover.
"During his editorship Conor has won several industry awards including Consumer Magazine Editor of the Year (Periodical Publishers Association Editorial and Publishing Excellence Awards, May 2005), Entertainment Magazine Editor of the Year (British Society of Magazine Editors, November 2005), Tour of the Year for the NME Awards Tour 2006 (Vodafone Live Music Awards, October 2006), Editor of the Year and Music Magazine of the Year (Record of the Day Music Journalism and PR Awards, November 2006 ) and Brand Building Initiative of the Year for Club NME (British Society of Magazine Editors, November 2006). In October 2007 Conor was listed as one of the 1000 most influential people in London by the Evening Standard.
"In 2007 Conor was one of the judges for the Mercury Music Prize. The winning album was Myths Of The Near Future by Klaxons.
However, there has been some criticism over McNicholas's reign as editor, especially over claims that the quality of writing had slipped, the genres of music covered have become less broad and that the magazine now contains less content than in previous years. He's a cunt."
there, now future generations can enjoy it.
detract from the fact that McNicholas is a twat?
picking a pointless argument on the internet!
is he 'technically' a successful editor? As in, will IPC be happy with the circulation under him?
There's no denying that as a read the NME is barely worth wiping your arse with, but is it still making good money?
as a print magazine its sales are way way down. but as a brand it's doing well cos of t'internet and sponsorship and advertising and shit like that.
I doubt the poor circulation is down to McPrickholes it's probably 'the world we live in'.
Doesn't mean he should be forgiven for making music stupid.
despite kerrang outselling nme for about 3 years or whatever, nme is still a bigger brand. safer innit.
With increasing rental prices in city centres AND the huge rise in online fantasy gaming, I don't understand why they haven't gone under.
i hope not. as enemies go you're no BobbyGrindrod or Stealthy.
be ANYONE's enemy? He's ace.
it's been ages since there was a good fight on here.
Go back 3 spaces.
Your revenue streams will be affected!
'stupid bullshit idea that undermines any notion of actual value in a given product/work of art'
will those do?
Enjoy your life!
brand = 'stupid bullshit idea that undermines any notion of actual value in a given product/work of art'
as in 'we want people to buy this because we've made it, regardless of whether it's any good'.
and I think that was the point to begin with, no? people have a problem with these words because of how they're used. they perceive them as dishonest and slightly sinister. Shorthand for manipulative marketing practices which some people shouldn't have a place in the sale of music.
a magazine about music. specifically the NME. we at once narrowed and then broadened the topic under discussion. amazing really how the human mind works.
We don't like those words on account of associations we perceive them to have which I've briefly explained.
Mr Hatfood chose to highlight his dislike for those terms with a flippant comment. Hilarity ensued.
which some people [think] shouldn't have a place in the sale of music."
Those people being who, exactly? Presumably people who've never tried to get anyone down to a gig.
Still, it makes me chuckle.
between promoting a gig and a manipulative marketing scheme which gets something sub-par in people's faces and swamps less well marketed things that people might otherwise get to hear about and enjoy.
Ever lost money on a gig night because the place next door are doing a drinks promotion?
Then you know exactly what I'm talking about.
that's what it's there for.
What you're talking about is inequality of resources*, which unfortunately is a fact of life.
*Oopps... I said resources - is that nasty marketing speak, or is that a word in common circulation that we're allowed to use?
'Marketing' in a broad sense is necessary - ie if you're playing a gig, you need to be able to tell people about it. However, this doesn't need to be manipulative, merely informative. Now piss off to Speak Your Branes.
I knew WTF Speak Your Branes was. But you seem to be in a better position than me to know.
So marketing is just informative. I'll bear that in mind when when printing out my next flyer of unformatted text.
And being 'manipulative'. You may find this website helpful:
mr musky was making a pretty stupid point and then retorting with 'idiot'.
if he can't see that there's a gradual scale of cuntiness in marketing rather than an on/off state then he deserves all the charm he gets.
Sorry, that's just common sense.
There are plenty of ways to make flyers look nice (or posters, myspace, whatever), but hopefully everyone's making them to fit their purpose. I can't image too many death metal clubs with pretty pastel flowers on their flyers. That would be just stupid, wouldn't it.
Yes I can see there's a sliding scale of 'cuntiness' to marketing (or rather I can appreciate that view), but it's not really reduced to simply the resources or professionalism involved. Was Craine's jag any the less bad for it's apthetic attempt at manipulation?
I'll stand by what I said: all marketing is manipulative - it's intended to get a positive response.
I'll leave others to argue over the semantics of 'manipulation'.
there's 'persuasive' which it's fine for marketing to be.
i.e. 'this gig is good:
'quote from magazine about band'
'information about band comparing them to other similar acts'
'promotional photo of band'
'this band will change your life'
'if you don't know about this band then you are not 'cool'
'be the first to know about this band because they're going to be famous then you can say you saw them first'
'this band have a lifestyle which could be yours if you were to form a similar band'
by association with the sorts of people who use them.
caused by drug use.
miss! vikram swore!
you started it. etc.
there's been loads of rumours recently that ipc are going to shelve the magazine, leaving only nme.com. my sister went to a seminar recently to do with the guardian and they mentioned it was happening there and i'm SURE i read it somewhere too.
i have read this on popbitch. therefore it must be true.
the website is even worse than the paper
my girlfriends laptop is making me doublepost
"barefoot and wearing just a bra on her top half."
bad grammar. Does it mean 'wearing nothing other than a bra on her top half' or 'on her top half she was only wearing a bra'?
the public has a right to know!
like that one of the Killers that no one cares about.
the new nu-rave?
'If destroyed still true.'
at the bottom.
to Dominic Masters in there now.
It's such a weird insult these days. Especially given the NME's entire readership is probably middle-class.
Not my words, the words of Shakin' Stevens.
I think a lot of people just laughably fail to recognise their own middle-classness.
If, for instance, you were born rather poor, and then your Mum married quite a well-off man when you were 15 - are you then immediately promoted to the middle classes?
I've been assured by a raving lunatic SWP-type that the above situation makes my Mum a class traitor, and that come the revolution I'll be first against the wall.
Which was nice.
'Look, I'm sorry that your parents were thick and lazy, but, don't take it out on me'.
Oooooh, they love that!
Perhaps now I might.
Incidentally, said SWP chap ran for MP in Ipswich.
Sometimes I like to imagine him going door-to-door, asking well-heeled people to vote for him so he could shoot them.
He got 3 votes.
No war, but, class war comrade!
with my own,
set of teeth..
revenue steams and branding indeed.
websites with adverts where a stupidsmugface appears and make you want to punch it every time you go to a new page.
i didnt think it was possible.
if he did, it's probably because somebody saw his face and wanted to punch him.
but i still spend about half of them wanting to punch him.
I saw him in the darjeeling limited last week - he cant be dead!
.........'If Destroyed Still True'.
and to reply all in one place
NME isn't shutting the mag: popbitch published an apology
My opinion of Conor is that he is pretty good in terms of making the magazine's brand and name successful, and has done a good job presiding over NME awards, tours and the US stuff. However, the question is whether that is the editor's job or whether that is the corporate suits' jobs. In terms of content, I think NME is far worse than it was 10 years ago and I rarely read it. It has gone more poppy and mainstream - whether that is a bad thing is a matter of opinion (personally, i think it is a bad thing)
don't mind them covering the likes of Klaxons, CSS, Horrors and so on at great length. It's the fact that they give so much paper to The Enemy and The Pigeon Detectives that irks me.
if they actually covered the full and glorious range of alternative music that this fine World has to offer, rather than concentrating on such a narrow band of mostly looky-likey minus-marks, surely they'd sell more copies?
They could still put Borrell on the cover to shift units, but then the people who buy it would be exposed to the delights of, for instance, Popular Workshop and Untitled Musical Project and William.
A strong "brand" means fuck-all in the long run if the magazine's shite. Less and less people will buy it over time. It will die.
I didn't stop reading it cos I got too old I stopped reading it cos it went shit in terms of writing quality and subject matter.
At the moment they're running entirely on selling copies to people whilst they're still young. there's not gonna be any lifelong NME readers anymore...
A music press equivalent to Cosmo Girl.
NME Lite or something.
When I was 12/13 you'd routinely see people into their mid twenties with it and the core readership were most likely sixth form college/university age.
These days it seems that whilst the early teens still read it you won't find many over 18s who still bother.
the young and braindead.
Regardless of branding and shifting units, the NME should exist as a music magazine that is written by and for people who care about alternative music. Obviously it needs to stay afloat, but it did in the past so why not now? It seems to spend most of it's time trying to create buzz around certain bands etc in order to justify writing about them. Is it too idealistic to think that making money should be something that doesn't even cross the NME's mind(s). IT USED TO BE IMPORTANT TO LOSER INDIE KID TEENAGERS LIKE WHAT I WAS!
Anyway, who cares, DiS > NME.
then why has a new magazine like Plan B - which started after 'the internet changed everything - managed to start up and be so succesful that it's doubled its number of issues and gone monthly after only a couple of years in print? All the while putting things like Afrirampo on the cover?
I don't think NME would've gone down the toilet if they'd continued to cover genuinely alternative music alongside established/mainstream stuff as they'd always done. They've chosen the easy route.
I don't read Plan B or the NME so it makes no odds to me.
The NME's role may be changing but simply stating that fact doesn't mean it's a positive or neutral thing. NME used to be a bridge, if you like, for kids (like me, sob) who started out enjoying the mainstream indie music and became interested - through reading the magazine - in all the other stuff that was out there.
It also used to contain intelligent, thought provoking writing and be genuinely quite funny and inspirational.
The last time I read it it made me want to hurt people. I don't think kids reading it now are getting anything nearly as good as what I got. I don't think that's just a difference in perspective it's there in the wordcount and the glossiness and the paucity of different stuff they actually cover.
Money isn't and shouldn't be the driving force behind everything. It;s not nostalgia, it's a concern that if commercialisation can get to what used to be an indie holy cow then maybe nothing is safe.
use that argument 'i'm running a business' to justify just about everything 'wrong' they're accused of doing. Rather than actually offereing a justification which answers the point being made.
'You don't write intelligently about good music anymore'
'I'm running a business'
'You should give your workers protective clothing so they don't get poisoned'
'I'm running a business'
magazines have to balance both. Our point is that NME has sold out what we considered to be one of it's better aspects in the name of playing safe and making money. I don't think it had to do that to survive.
I'm not saying they should throw caution to the wind, drop the cover price to 1p, print on solid gold paper, and only write about avant-jazz. I'm saying if they were a truly succesful business they could balance profitability with good journalism.
we wrote the same thing with different words at the same time...
you bring everything back to business.
Good journalism/good business > bad journalism/good business?
Good journalism > bad journalism
this debate did begin because he answered a question specifically about the NME's performance as a business. At no point has he said that he personally thinks profit > integrity
he'd like to clarify his position. because 'profit > integrity' is thus far implicit in what he's been saying.
our point was that quality shouldn't be a casualty of the need to make money.
And I don't think NME is scraping a living from issue to issue. I think it's making some people lots of money - which means it's not a pragmatic business consideration dragging it into the shit it's greed.
it makes money, but makes slightly less money in the interests of preserving the quality for which it became succesful in the first place.
So maybe the owners only make six million billion pounds a year instead of ten million billion.
is that okay?
there is particular resentment towards the NME's business model because at one point they were very much music and integrity orientated?
Of course media has changed since the magazines inception but its not really like they've made a few changes to survive and make some level of profit. The only real similarity the NME of today has with that of the 70's/80's is its name; the commitment to discovering new, innovative music and espousing liberal politics has been completely abandoned in favour of sensationalist, salicious trash, circle-jerking music 'journalism' and ultimately much higher profits
but the man is obsessed with business and money and demographics etc. And he's acting like a bit of knob.
So quite possibly you are right, I don't know. Its all been quite interesting to read though...
when I said 'those terms become associated by association with the kinds of people who use them' I wasn't solely having a go at you - I was making a value judgement about the attitude of people who tend to talk in terms of those things.
It's the difference between someone who looks at the market and says 'what can we create to get money out of these people?' and someone who says 'this is what I want to make, how can I get people to like it?'.
now than it was in the 90s when i read it.
back then on the cover they had (amongst the usual charty types)
godspeed you black emperor
to name but a few. it's unthinkable that anyone similar would get on the cover or get a 10/10 review from them now.
and they sold more copies back then, and didn't get the revenue stream from branding the internet or whatever.
A least GayGuevara had some charisma.
when i said 'rather than actually offereing a justification which answers the point being made'.
You have to explain WHY it's better to value money over a quality product. Other than the flimsy, obvious point that a magazine which is financially succesful will go out of business - given that a magazine can be quality and financially succesful. A point which is, in any case, not a value judgement but an expression of pessimism/cynicism.
Written for a reading age of 9, reduces all news to simple soundbites and employs the lowest common denominators in attracting readers? And yet the largest circulation of any newspaper in the UK.
Actually The Sun employs good journalist, some of whom have one awards. But it's not aimed at people who want 'good' journalism - it's aimed at people who don't.
The NME is no different - it's no longer aimed at people like us.
it's a business!
but Sean hasn't lost sight of the fact that for the business to survive, the product has to be shit hot and kickass.
NME's an effective pamphlet for the haircare industry, but it's not a good music magazine. In the long term, that can't be good for business.
The NME seems to have stuck all of its eggs in one musical basket, with said basket containing only tabloidesque headlines concerning Winehouse/Doherty and the indie-lite trash is popular generally (rather than what is 'it' among more committed music fans) right now. The popularity of these things can only be sustained for a while
in much less measurable terms the tabloidism of NME and other 'youth' magazines have a knock-on effect culturally. By teaching kids that people who get rich and fuck themselves up on drugs are interesting.
When I read NME it used to talk to people about their music and their opinions on the world and where their writing fit into that. I read a klaxons interview the other week which was pretty much entirely about how much gak they did and what a fun time the journalist had hanging out with them.
is that I remember reading some article in the NME a while ago which somehow linked this liberalism towards drugs with the magazine's left-wing, politically liberal heritage.
here is a quote from the pitchfork review of the new best of the libertines
No, the Libertines' strength lay less in music than in their sense of the possibilities for self-mythology. Particularly in the gossipy village of the UK, pop has been been knitted ever tighter into a modern entertainment-media complex, and the Libertines worked this like grandmasters. The daily sordid soap opera of the group-- as broadcast and narrowcast, downloaded and dreamed up through newspapers and message boards-- is much more compelling than any of the music they made. Eventually, in songs like "What Became of the Likely Lads?", it devolved into their only subject. Doherty and Kate Moss became the couple for a moment when indie and pop, glamor and squalor, NME and Heat magazines finally merged in the echo chamber of modern celebrity.
"To save me having to think for myself, I'll read Pitchfork"
i stick to dis to tell me what to think.
It hit the nail on the head without once saying 'I fucking hate The Libertines' like what I would have done.
i don't think having 'personality' journalists is an inherently bad thing. hunter s thompson? lester bangs?
who is there like that now? Conor McNicholls - personality free posh boy chancer having a jolly ride on the gak train with all his fave bands that will CHANGE YOUR LIFE!!!!
is nothing but those things outlined above. he's a chancer with no vision and no integrity who has done more to harm music in the UK than probably anyone else alive - including phil collins.
and it's possible to promote a band without making farcical hyperbolic statements about them. just cos something's 'always' happened doesn't mean it wasn't 'always' stupid.
Remember Three Colours Red?
John Robb got there first, and he wrote for Sounds.
non-commercial band, who played endless gigs because they enjoyed doing it. However, their revenue streams ran out because they misjudged their demographic, which is the important thing.
wasn't in nirvana.
you thought everett true was in nirvana. that means you're stupid.
appealed to a different demographic though.
to buy shoes.
is disconcertingly pertinent to my work place
it's a fact. NME is owned by Time Warner and it's their business to make money. If they make more money publishing drivel, the they'll do it. End of.
Of course there's a market for the likes of Plan B, Artrocker, etc. - just not a weekly one.
I didn't read Smash Hits because it wrote drivel about acts I didn't care for - it's the same now for the NME. I didn't mourn Smash Hits for that reason, and I certainlt won't mourn the NME.
its all about the money!!! bwa ha ha. seriously. dont look at me funny like that.
this is quite open to interpretation it is actually bike. But feel free to substitute!
but said entry's been mentioned on Stereogum, with "if destroyed" and American-confusing Dominic Masters reference in place.
"Conor has a long-standing friendship with former Smiths frontman and men behaving badly actor Neil Morrissey."
but ultimately nme is a business and a brand. it has a publisher and an editor and a branding team to decide where best to move it. or they will pack fuckloads for someone to tell them what to do
nme as a brand may have some nostalgic charm going for it, but ultimately, if it moves too far mainstream for some, there will (or there should) be alternatives. whether it is plan b or pitchfork or dis, there is a popular, if not populist, market captive and available for the audience that would have read nme 20 years ago
no big shakes, things move on. smash hits and mm folded, nme has changed. c'est la vie