>I It's not usual practice.

... although you might not think so after reading their recent issues, etc etc.
Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By 'jayne' on Tue Jun 19 13:32:13 BST 2001:

> Anyone have any myths they want to shatter?

That the staff really believe their magazine will still exist this time next year.

They always thought that IPC would never close Melody maker because it was THE magazine that musicians looked in if they were looking to join a band and look what happened.

If NME falls below the sales and ad revenue levels that are expected it will close - really doesn't matter what the quality of the journalism is.

When I was there you always felt that the management suffered the music titles and thought the true quality titles in the stable were New Scientist and Womens Own Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By 'Jack Welsby' on Tue Jun 19 14:47:03 BST 2001:

>> Anyone have any myths they want to shatter?
>
>That the staff really believe their magazine will still exist this time next year.

Well, I think it'll hold on (but what do I know, eh?). You're right about the sales and ad revenue though. NME's last six-month ABC circulation figure is 70,003, down from 76,000-ish in the six months before that. I have no idea how much further it would have to fall before it's closed - Melody Maker flirted with the 30,000 mark before closure.

Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By Bent Halo on Wed Jun 20 10:54:06 BST 2001:

>Do they still do the fire drills at Kings Reach where you have to run down all the stairs ? Happy Days

And what should happen within ONE HOUR of my being in the building? Karen Walters, the editor's secretary, assured me that walking down 25 floors did not endanger anyone's life because it would take at least 40 minutes for the fire to reach us. Which is some ray of hope, I suppose... Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By Peter on Wed Jun 20 12:43:42 BST 2001:

Fun day out was it? Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By Mogwai on Wed Jun 20 13:45:39 BST 2001:

>Fun day out was it?

Bring the kids! And have them do some interviews. Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By 'James M' on Wed Jun 20 14:07:03 BST 2001:

Am I the only one left on the forum actually buying the NME? It's not a classic issue this week, I have to say. Yet more overdone eulogising for the The Strokes, but also the news snippet that the new Stereolab album will features "lyrics taken from Chris Morris' controversial TV comedy show Jam".

Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By 'Morally Wrong' on Wed Jun 20 14:37:27 BST 2001:

>Am I the only one left on the forum actually buying the NME?

I packed it in a couple of weeks ago after the Thom Yorke interview. It was the way more space was given to the fact that Yorke was speaking to the NME again, as if this was a significant cultural event, than was given to any kind of interview. A shame, because Sylvia Patterson is quite capable of good journalism.

Is the air of apathy and resignation as palpable in the NME's offices as it is in its pages? I like the idea that there are 25 flights of stairs to kick Steve Sutherland down.

>It's not a classic issue this week, I have to say. Yet more overdone eulogising for the The Strokes

I think I must have missed something on that front myself, they just seem like a bunch of middle class kids wanking themselves red raw over Lou Reed's sunglasses to me. Oddly overproduced records for a bunch of supposed punks, too. Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By Bent Halo on Wed Jun 20 14:53:09 BST 2001:

>Fun day out was it?

Fascinating. I will have to disappoint you on a few counts, though – the NME is not a Bosch landscape, peppered with terrified freelancers forced to like Eminem in order to eek a wage… some of them are okay.

With regards to Mogwai’s myth-shattering request, I get the sense that at the exact moment nme.com can find a way of making serious money (subscriptions, percentages on record sales, whatever) the print version will be put to sleep forever.

The NME stereo is controlled by Andy Capper, current live editor, who in Angst recently dismissed a 40-year-old’s complaint as to the insubstantial writing staff by claiming that their ring tones feature was popular with “YOUNG people”(Justin mentioned this many posts back). He’s intense with his views and turns out to be a massive Whitehouse fan, which gave us plenty to talk about, largely revolving around an article he offered to the NME about the group, only to have it refused. In case you don’t know Whitehouse are an extreme electronic group whose lyrics largely concern sexual violence, serial killers, sodomy and such like. I was glad that he saw the humour in their work, although the features editor didn’t.

Piers Martin comes across as a genuine music lover, not short on opinions, and never more than a foot away from an Oval promo. Kitty Empire was pleasing too. John Robinson seems to think he’s still in the NME office of the Eighties, whilst James Oldham is a quiet bloke, and a marginally more photogenic version of Lamacq at that.

Steve Sutherland, however, is a tosser, eager to be everyone’s friend when he doesn’t realise quite what he’s done to the paper over the past ten years – he has no idea how much he has fucked it up. The above freelancers are okay people (I went nowhere near the subs), who do actually debate stuff in the office and seem to think things through, although what disease has been bred in order to hear conversations like the following I do not know:

ROBINSON: You shouldn’t have any problems with ‘Angst’ this week – there were a lot of intelligent e-mails, I thought.
OLDHAM: I know, but I haven’t got a star letter… so I made one up about homophobia in rap.

Another fave:

CAPPER: Are you at the ‘On’ Show tomorrow night?
EMPIRE: Not if I can help it!
(they laugh)

Okay, so some of this is regular old office cynicism, but it is in direct contrast to the new-music-luvvin mood that the paper attempts to convey. I don’t expect them to all dutifully descend on the venue with Dictaphones in hand but I do expect them to have a spine on the matter of bands they actually want to support. If the reason for the above is that they don’t like the audience then they can fuck off backstage, surely?

To be honest this is all quite hard to rationalise when I spent the day off work to visit IPC, was grateful for it, but more pertinently I was sat amidst the freelancers as I dived through the complete 1983-85 issues for my research. When I giggled at something I read, I could feel their scowls on me which set a strange mood. From working through back issues of NME solidly from 1977-92 (anyone remember ‘c.r.e.e.p.show’?) and laughing out loud all too regularly, these visits I've been taking to NME passims have gathered overpowering evidence that the paper has no real character left, let alone substance. Yesterday I was provided with a worrying amount of perspective.

Oh, and speaking of substances the new Spiritualized album is complete drivel.
That’s something else I learnt.

Bent
Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By 'Jack Welsby' on Wed Jun 20 15:44:33 BST 2001:

>James Oldham is a quiet bloke

Hmm!

Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By Unruly Butler on Wed Jun 20 16:03:55 BST 2001:

I'm glad this thread is still going. The fact that people are still concerned enough about the NME to keep the thread alive is reassuring in a way. I'm not sure it deserves it, though.

I put an album out last year, and remember the excitement of reading the press reviews, fervently chasing the delivery van to get the first hot-off-the-press edition of the NME. Reading the whole magazine seemed terribly important. Its judgement seemed serious and vital to any success we might have.

I'm about to release a second album now, and am having initial discussions with the PR bods about getting press. One of them said, after hearing the record, "It's a good broadsheets album, but I'm not sure what the NME will think..."

And, to my horror, I found myself replying, "You know, if I gave a shit what the NME thought, I'd buy it."

I used buy the NME every week, and digest every word. I haven't seen a copy in about a year now. It's covering a subject in which I am hugely interested, and a year ago, its opinion would have mattered the world to me. Now, with the demise of Select and Melody Maker fresh in the mind, it seems that its grip on power has slipped to an all time low.

I feel sad about that. Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By TJ on Wed Jun 20 16:27:34 BST 2001:

Flicked through a copy at lunch - even worse than last week, if you can believe that. The main story is about the likelihood of Britney Spears and some toss from N'Sync collaborating, and what fantastic benefits this may provide for the history of pop music. Further on in the issue, they have a go at Sophie Ellis-Bextor for having the temerity to promote her forthcoming album by going out in public.

Fuck that. Whatever your opinion of her current music (or indeed of her old music), Sophie's done her fair share of lugging a guitar round dismal venues and having her singles ignored by Radio 1, and so if she's having a bit of success with a different direction (and personally I thought 'Groovejet' was fantastic) then I say good luck to her, and I'm certainly far more interested in hearing her new material than daydreaming about some mythical collaboration between two dull glampolished pop stars who don't write their own songs and which may not even happen anyway.

What _is_ going on??? Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By 'Ted Kunterblast' on Wed Jun 20 18:01:04 BST 2001:

nme.com is currently claiming an "exclusive" to do with Radiohead. It turns out that this amounts to a few poor clips from the Later TV show from the week before last. So if you like Radiohead, you've already got them on tape, much higher quality video with NICAM sound.

To make this seem even more ridiculous, if you go to http://www.bbc.co.uk/later, you can actually download two tracks that weren't included in the TV show.

That Britney story is also available online for your enlightenment, though be warned - you may find this teaser irresistable:

To read how he told Britney "you need to listen to some cool stuff if you want to be the next Madonna", see this week's NME, on sale in London today (June 19) and the rest of the UK from tomorrow. Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By Peter on Wed Jun 20 18:05:08 BST 2001:

I still get the nme every week - i think i mentioned somewhere above that i live in a newsagents a lot of the time so it's free(ish). This week, i could barely find anything to read, and none of the features, mostly on Hiphop/rap artist, grabbed me (particularily 5 pages about Travis).
Re: The Strokes - after hearing them on the free CD, i realy can't see why the NME are going so mad about them - they're like the new Terris (or Campag Velocet etc..) Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By 'Jack Welsby' on Wed Jun 20 18:44:42 BST 2001:

>Re: The Strokes - after hearing them on the free CD, i realy can't see why the NME are going so mad about them - they're like the new Terris (or Campag Velocet etc..)

Those bands got promoted in NME because NME people liked them and, presumably, thought they deserved to be better known. Isn't this what people want? Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By Bent Halo on Wed Jun 20 19:09:36 BST 2001:

Campag Velocet were promoted because one of the writing staff owned their label, Rabid Badger. The gushing was so absurd that even Private Eye felt the need to report it.

Compare that to, say, Sean O'Hagan writing for the paper when Microdisney first appeared, aided with no gushing, just carefully worded articles Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By 'Anonymous' on Wed Jun 20 19:40:02 BST 2001:

>Campag Velocet were promoted because one of the writing staff owned their label, Rabid Badger. The gushing was so absurd that even Private Eye felt the need to report it.

That'd be Simon Williams, Rabid Badger being an offshoot of Fierce Panda, whose records NME often reviews evenly and without hyperbole. I think they genuinely did like Campag Velocet, wrongly or not. They carried on hyping them when they left that label. Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By Andrew Collins on Thu Jun 21 08:01:37 BST 2001:

>Compare that to, say, Sean O'Hagan writing for the paper when Microdisney first appeared, aided with no gushing, just carefully worded articles

Different Sean O'Hagan. Confusing, I know.

Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By Bent Halo on Thu Jun 21 09:46:39 BST 2001:

Eh? He never seems to question it when I bring it up. Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By Bent Halo on Thu Jun 21 09:48:43 BST 2001:

Oh, and Campag Velocet were deeply bollocks at the time of the initial hype. I saw them live once too often, not only existing as support band cattle but also looking the part. A case equally applicable to the baffling fuss over Terris and The Strokes. Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By 'Jack Welsby' on Thu Jun 21 10:48:06 BST 2001:

>Oh, and Campag Velocet were deeply bollocks at the time of the initial hype. I saw them live once too often, not only existing as support band cattle but also looking the part. A case equally applicable to the baffling fuss over Terris and The Strokes.

Do you want NME to reflect your opinions precisely at all times, though? Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By Bent Halo on Thu Jun 21 11:48:01 BST 2001:

That’s not really my point, but in deference to your question, no, I don’t find it necessary for me to find agreeable articles about music in NME. The great appeal of the paper from time immemorial is a healthy element of dissent and contention. The current incarnation is typified by flippancy, bombastic language (largely Swells imitations) and the kind of amnesia that makes their backing of favoured artists resemble hasty scrawls on a pencil case, rather than sincere opines. Of course much of this was the case ten or fifteen years ago, but my worry is that the current writing staff are desperately trying to keep with the times rather than concentrating on what the NME has always done best, which is insightful comment and a healthy dose of humour in what they do. Nowadays the humour is poor (cf: Justin Timberlake/Britney news story, the ever-more-desperate annual Student Guide) whereas the insightful comment, if any, has to battle against a slimming word count. In the late-Seventies you had virtual dissertations in each issue – in word count and often in gravity – which I by no means expect to see the rebirth of, but you do start to ponder at which point Sutherland decided that text was unprofitable. The shift in the media climate over the past ten years seems to have encouraged this descent.

Where this malaise extends to in terms of band coverage is a general ‘pinch of salt’ factor, which unrelentingly encourages the reader to see/hear the latest On artist (eg.Terris, Campag Velocet, The Strokes), only for them to be totally let down by those high expectations when they actually do. This comes round frequently – some white kids slapping guitars are given a huge pedestal every few months and the readership is taught to give a huge sigh of relief, only to be crushingly disappointed once they get past the initial piece of gushing text and actually sample the sod. This seems to apply to the groups who are ‘discovered’ by the paper, rather than those who creep up without any expectation (eg.Mogwai, GYBE!, V/VM) or have had a fair amount of time before stepping into the limelight. Perhaps it is unfair on the likes of Campag Velocet, perhaps they deserved better, and they did develop a small following, but in those examples I myself couldn’t see the fuss in the first place.

My crucial point, and a rather obvious one I’ll admit, is that music is the first thing you discover for yourself. It’s not prescribed to you by parents or issued on a plate by the government, with carefully coded legislation on what you will get into at each stage of your life. The radio is useful, as is the music press, but the mass appeal that the NME strives to place in the hands of Terris et al is not achieved, and their approach is lacking. Better to let it happen naturally with each new release: a cogent argument here, a dissenting one there. The NMEs true failure is in being unable to offer these arguments, to encourage debate or ossify one’s own opinions in a way that would make it the flagship journal of new music.
Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By Jon on Thu Jun 21 13:05:00 BST 2001:

I find it heartening that other people agree in not being able to see what the fuss is about The Strokes. To be fair, NME did print a dissenting letter, but other than that it's been ludicrous bollocks all the way.

It's hard to understand why, other than that they desparately needed a "proper" (ie. guitar-based) new group to bang on about, and so The Strokes had to do.

They are OK as a reasonable pastiche of old bands, but nothing more than that.

Incidentally Bent, did you witness the hilarious meeting in which "Thrills" got written, with unforgettable scenes of the writer's sides splitting at their own comic invention? Just wondered. Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By Jon on Thu Jun 21 13:05:37 BST 2001:

Unruly: your version of "Stay Another Day" was really good, I thought. Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By TJ on Thu Jun 21 13:25:23 BST 2001:

Once again, I step up to provide the dissenting voice...

I make no great claims for The Strokes. They are not going to resolve middle-east conflict, feed the starving or produce the next "Pet Sounds". However, I have liked both of the singles so far, and need no greater justification for liking them than that.

'Hype' is irrelevant to me. I listen to the music and decide for myself whether I like it or not. If didn't adopt that approach, I wouldn't like half the artists that I *do* like.

And anyway, as suggested by my above posts, I'm far more comfortable with the NME overhyping a halfway decent guitar band than I am with them printing wank about Ibiza, Craig David, or what Britney Spears might possibly do in someone's wildest dreams. Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By 'Jessica' on Thu Jun 21 16:17:03 BST 2001:

Laudable sentiments about music, TJ....

>And anyway, as suggested by my above posts, I'm far more comfortable with the NME overhyping a halfway decent guitar band than I am with them printing wank about Ibiza, Craig David, or what Britney Spears might possibly do in someone's wildest dreams.

I completely agree with you about the latter, but just out of interest (and *not* to provoke an argument), why do you think NME shouldn't cover Ibiza or Craig David? Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By 'Stuart O' on Thu Jun 21 16:27:50 BST 2001:

If they covered his music, that'd be fine, but they spend more column inches talking about his stubble than anything else. it's the attitude that stopped me buying it, not just the artists it covers. Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By TJ on Thu Jun 21 16:29:10 BST 2001:

>I completely agree with you about the latter, but just out of interest (and *not* to provoke an argument), why do you think NME shouldn't cover Ibiza or Craig David?

Well, I didn't actually mean that they shouldn't be covered full stop, but my reference to "printing wank about them" was in direct reference to the fact that because they are vaguely fashionable, they are *always* featured in the news pages whether there is actually any real news about them or not. If they found something interesting to say about Craig David or Ibiza, I'd have no problem with them printing it. When they are just running full page stories that boil down to "some American records sound a tiny bit like UK garage" and very little else, though, it does annoy me slightly.

And this, I have to stress, isn't necessarily limited to pop and dance music - there was a hideous half-page non-story about Mogwai recently. Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By 'Jessica' on Thu Jun 21 16:40:12 BST 2001:

>>why do you think NME shouldn't cover Ibiza or Craig David?
>
>Well, I didn't actually mean that they shouldn't be covered full stop

Ah... I see now. Totally agree. I haven't really read the NME for years now for the same reason. Every time I pop my head round the cover they seem to be filling it with nonsense about whoever is fashionable at the time - it used to be Blur and Oasis, and now it's their lame attempt to appeal to 'the kids' that they are always on about. Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By Bent Halo on Thu Jun 21 17:55:47 BST 2001:

Just as an aside, I think we've now broken the record for a forum thread, knocking the previous record' into a cocked hat. That's beret in a way. Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By Jon on Thu Jun 21 18:07:00 BST 2001:

But do postings like that one (or this one) really count? Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By 'Nick Kent' on Thu Jun 21 18:16:14 BST 2001:

Maybe. Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By 'Anonymous' on Thu Jun 21 23:25:14 BST 2001:

>Just as an aside, I think we've now broken the record for a forum thread, knocking the previous record' into a cocked hat. That's beret in a way.

Yeah, but isn't that just because you haven't deleted it? You could have put it to death months ago, couldn't you?

Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By Bent Halo on Thu Jun 21 23:41:51 BST 2001:

Eh? I don't run this forum, despite my ruddy complexion. Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By Unruly Butler on Thu Jun 21 23:57:59 BST 2001:

It's a mere stripling compared to Doctor Who, Local TV, Subbes and other Great Redwoods towering over the TV Forum, though, isn't it? Their attention spans are so much longer over there.

(PS Thanks, Jon.) Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By Unruly Butler on Thu Jun 21 23:59:43 BST 2001:

Suiii, not Subbes.

I get easily confused. Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By 'Ben Sinister' on Fri Jun 22 09:46:53 BST 2001:

>It's a mere stripling compared to Doctor Who, Local TV, Subbes and other Great Redwoods towering over the TV Forum, though, isn't it? Their attention spans are so much longer over there.
>
>For "attention spans are so much longer", read "they are much more self indulgent."Love your version of "Will My Chewing Gum Lose Its Flavour On The Bedpost Overnight?", Butty.

Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By Jon on Fri Jun 22 13:35:26 BST 2001:

"I don't run this forum, despite my ruddy complexion."

What about your bloody legs and sodding arms? Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By Jon on Fri Jun 22 13:36:41 BST 2001:

BTW: the Moldy peaches album is *almost* complete shite.

Unruly: are you actually the singer, or just a guitarist?

Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By Unruly Butler on Fri Jun 22 14:12:21 BST 2001:

singer. but I'm singing much better on the new record. because I learnt how to do it properly in the past year. promise. Subject: The noble Steve Sutherland vs evil freelancers
Posted By Mogwai on Fri Jun 22 18:16:09 BST 2001:

http://www.mediaguardian.co.uk/newmedia/story/0,7496,509521,00.html
Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By Unruly Butler on Sat Jun 23 00:54:04 BST 2001:

Jesus! Having known several NME freelance journos and photographers in the past, the effort / pay ratio offered by IPC is pissy at the best of times, without them trying to tie you to an exclusive rigths contract.

(I know we're consistently rude about NME journos on here, but think about how long it takes to do a single capsule live review - chasing PRs, getting records, reading up on band, turning up early at gig, watching show, getting home, writing up, submitting, rewriting etc - all to earn under £40 for the average non-photo live piece) Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By 'dj' on Sat Jun 23 08:41:09 BST 2001:

Now they have a supposed success in NME.Com, IPC are trying to milk it for as much money as possible. This will probably stop any talk of 'interesting' music, and turn it into crap news about rubbish pop music, which is what has happened to NME, in a vain hope it will appeal to a mass market.

Thats how i see it anyway. Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By Unruly Butler on Sat Jun 23 11:25:45 BST 2001:

On the subject of the online NME, I can't help feeling that the necessary slickness of the online magazine mitigates against it championing great crappy little bands. It's somehow believable for a lump of 64 sheets of bad paper stock to be going on about tiny weeny bands, but the corporate tightness of the website feels too rarefied - as if it would never be seen dead down the Bull and Gate.

This is akin to Neil Young's refusal to have lots of his back catalogue released on CD, but it's just a gut feeling. Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By 'Tom Adams' on Sat Jun 23 19:49:31 BST 2001:

The raison d'etre of the NME has changed over time. I mean, Cliff used to win best male artist in the polls a long, long time ago. Some time in its history, presumably when good and bad music overtly started to exist, it must have begun to champion the lesser known acts.

This may have been for a variety of reasons, but most likely is that it was to publicise acts not known to the public. Such a policy would be nice, were it not open to such obvous abuse. BUt it is.

The NME was probably happiest in the late seventies with the advent of punk, when what had become its music (in much the same way as SOTCAA has 'its' comedy) became so despised by the middle-class. Obviously, the journalism at this time was of an acceptable level as well.

Obiously, there have been great bands, both before and after this time. The NME was always interested in promoting artists in whom it believed. But then New Order happened. The Mondays happened. The Stone Roses happened. Blur happened. THEN Oasis happened. 'Their' bands started becoming popular. En masse.

The NME was far more comfortable with 'their' bands scarping into the Top 30 if they were lucky. As recently as 1994(?) Steve Lamacq was ecstatic when 'Caught by the Fuzz' entered at No. 43. Just a few years later, this would have been a failure.

Inevitably, the record-buying public tired of Lush, Sleeper et al. 'Their' music was no longer the most popular variety. Only the best few bands survived, most of whom had pre-existed Britpop anyway. And so, for a terrible few years (during which my, and I presume many others intersts began to fade) they tried to influence the public to buy more of the same rubbish that they had before. But the public would not buy.

And now, as the NME resorts to Destiny's Child on the front cover, we are left with the shell of the NME. It cannot possibly exert the same influence as it once did. So what does it do? It tries. NME.com is just an example of this trying. But it tries too hard. There was a time when I was proud to be seen with the NME in my hand. NOw it's redundant. It has to champion bands it doesn't believe in. I mean, how can a paper that used to champion The Smiths possibly promote Elbow, or Terris, or Coldplay wih as much conviction. It can't, and it doesn't. Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By 'Tom Adams' on Sat Jun 23 19:59:03 BST 2001:

In fact, the NME's most useful phase was the late 70s, and its Zenith in the mid-90s. But it abused its power in the mid-90s, by promoting all manner of shit. The 'I don't care how many records I sell' ethic went out the window.

If you ever go to the Good Mixer, and I hope you don't, then you get the horrible feelign that everbody there might be the drummer in Rialto Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By Peter on Sat Jun 23 23:01:36 BST 2001:

"...everbody there might be the drummer in Rialto"

Which Drummer? (A band, i notice, cruelly missed from the multiple drummers discussion had elsewhere)

Now, someone explain the appeal of Sleeper to me...
Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By 'Jugglepuppy Nicepants-Flamethrower' on Sun Jun 24 00:03:06 BST 2001:

Oh, thats easy. A lot of students wanted to shag Louise Wenner. Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By 'Tom Adams' on Sun Jun 24 00:38:48 BST 2001:

I'm sure 'Inbetweener' got NME Single of the Week. And it was all over Radio 1. And, compared to anything else they released, it was Sympathy for the Devil.

The student thing is good, too. Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By 'Tha t Bird Out Of Echobelly' on Sun Jun 24 00:54:06 BST 2001:

Most of Sleeper wanted to shag sweet Louise,too. In fact, most of them did. Went through them like a dose of salts, did Wenny
{Bz George, this is relevant and contemporary, isnt it?} Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By 'Tom Adams' on Sun Jun 24 01:12:29 BST 2001:

Is (Was?) your name Sonia MAdan? With some bllody middle name that I've forgotten. Aurora, was it?

I'd forgotten about the Sleeperblokes, though. Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By 'Miki Biriyani' on Sun Jun 24 01:15:42 BST 2001:

Well, most people did. Even when they were up there on the stage, playing. Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By 'Tom Adams' on Sun Jun 24 01:20:41 BST 2001:

What sort of a name is Wener, anyway? And, if that WAS your name, you'd go out of your way to be either exceptionally good, or exceptionally quiet. Something that la Wener conspicuously failed to do. Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By 'Alice In A Jugular Vein' on Sun Jun 24 01:24:26 BST 2001:

Oh, come on, shes a good girl.
*SLEEPER SONG TITLE JOKE!:}* Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By Peter on Sun Jun 24 01:25:06 BST 2001:

She just went for exceptionally breathy instead - and the last thing i want is some asthmatic woman resperating over some generic white boy indie shite. In fact, i want none of those things. Now Lush, on the other hand... Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By Peter on Sun Jun 24 01:26:30 BST 2001:

Look, someone snuck in thier and completely ruined the flow of my comment. Ah well. Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By 'Tom Adams' on Sun Jun 24 01:26:48 BST 2001:

Didn't their bassist commit suicide, or something? Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By Peter on Sun Jun 24 01:29:00 BST 2001:

Drummer wasn't it? Chris Ackland was his name, i think? Well, that's enough half truths for now.. Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By 'Tom Adams' on Sun Jun 24 01:30:01 BST 2001:

You may very well be right. I always said that the rhythm section looked a little unstable. Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By Peter on Sun Jun 24 01:31:46 BST 2001:

Reported in the days of the NME when it actually used to bother with news (phew, back on track now), as opposed to the nonsense it pedals now (with further coverage, no doubt, on the web site). Very annoyed to discover they didn't review the Luke Haines gigs in the mag only to discover that, actually, they probably did at NME.com, but i can;t actually find it. Oh, and there's some news there about another gig as well. Bastards. Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By 'Jeremy Paxman' on Sun Jun 24 01:33:48 BST 2001:

It was the drummer. Quite a sad event, actually. I used to quite like Emma Anderson, despite her resemblance to Emma Freud, but that Miki, oooh full of herself she was-proper little madam!
Incidentally, The Pale Saints lp from 1992, and the second Echobelly LP are two of the most dated records in the world. Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By 'Tom Adams' on Sun Jun 24 01:39:26 BST 2001:

Yeah, never a good thing.

But this illustrates my point. By reading the NME in 1994, you could actually have thought Echobelly were any good. No wonder nobody pays any attention to them now, is it? Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By 'Mont E Smith' on Sun Jun 24 01:48:43 BST 2001:

Youd be hard pushed to be into a group solely through reading the print version of the NME nowadays. Its all vapid lifestyle lite, very much in the style of the once decent Select magazine, before that went tits up. Nobodzs seriouslz expecting the NME to last for much longer, are they?
The sad thing is Im not really arsed either way. Theres always UNCUT. {Ian Penman!Chris Roberts! Huzzah!} Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By 'Tom Adams' on Sun Jun 24 01:52:05 BST 2001:

BUt I would have been arsed a while ago. Just not now. NOw it'd be a relief. Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By 'Not As Old As Carter USM, But Getting There' on Sun Jun 24 01:55:59 BST 2001:

Yeah, same as when Melody Maker mercifully breathed its last. Theres also the fact that we re getting older. Eeeeh, it were all The Wedding Present Round ere when I were a lad. Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By 'Tom Adams' on Sun Jun 24 13:16:08 BST 2001:

I think my age precludes me from passing too strong a judgement. HAving first started to buy the NME in about 1993 aged fourteen, the NME's music was on the up, culminating in Blur Vs. Oasis and Britpop. And I was one of those sorry fools who bought whatever they, Steve Lamacq and Jo Whiley told me to do.

I mean, all that time ago, I'd probably have sworn blind that Travis and COldplay and whoever else were the greatest things in the whole world. It makes me angry that they did abuse their position back then, that they did tell people to buy all manner of rubbish. Which is why I wouldn't touch a copy of it now. Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By Jon on Sun Jun 24 18:24:52 BST 2001:

"If you ever go to the Good Mixer"

Don't. It's a shithole. Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By Jon on Sun Jun 24 18:29:17 BST 2001:

"you could actually have thought Echobelly were any good."

There's a Best Of Echobelly coming out any day now, so someone must still like 'em. Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By Jon on Sun Jun 24 18:32:46 BST 2001:

Actually there was a brand new Echobelly album out a while ago, which was widely ignored. Didn't even get the sniggering "why do they bother?" coverage that the Shed 7 comeback got. A bit like the Jesus Jones comeback of 1997, in fact.

Gene have a new album due soon. Now, them I will stick up for. They did write some great songs, though they did have formulaic indie twaddle as well.

This, and the last 2 posts, would have been better off as one entity. Unfortuantely, thge thoguhts came to me sporadically. Anyway, this strand has a position to maintain these days. Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By 'Tom Adams' on Sun Jun 24 21:44:43 BST 2001:

I won't have a word said against the Sheds, mind.

Which, given the amount of words actually said against them, goes some way to illustrate the effect I have on people. Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By 'Edward M© Ferraris' on Mon Jun 25 10:02:29 BST 2001:

When I first joined Amnesty International, I wrote my debut letter to some evil foreign dictator, and proudly signed it "Chris Acland" as a sort of intensely private joke between myself and myself© A few months later, he was dead©

Suicide? Pah© Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By Unruly Butler on Mon Jun 25 10:19:27 BST 2001:

Lush appeared in the NME once dressed as the cast of Man About The House. Chris Acland made a stunning Richard O'Sullivan. He is sadly missed, if only for that.

(See, it IS a comedy forum after all.) Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By TJ on Mon Jun 25 15:55:17 BST 2001:

Lush are sadly missed because they were incredibly underrated, and were clearly capable of great things that they never got to achieve. Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By Jon on Mon Jun 25 16:59:04 BST 2001:

Speaking of Great Lost Bands, Menswear did actually have some decent songs. Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By 'Tom Adams' on Mon Jun 25 18:35:52 BST 2001:

But this was the NME at its worst, i.e. promoting their friends, 'their' people. That's what made the whole thing so calculated and cynical.

Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By Jon on Mon Jun 25 18:41:17 BST 2001:

I think it was Melody Maker that did more of the big push for Menswear, NME were a bit cynical about it. But it's all long past mattering now, anyway. Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By 'Tom Adams' on Mon Jun 25 18:46:43 BST 2001:

I did mean Lush more than Menswear. But you're right. Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By 'Jack Welsby' on Mon Jun 25 19:04:50 BST 2001:

>Lush are sadly missed because they were incredibly underrated, and were clearly capable of great things that they never got to achieve.

Apparently Miki now works as an IPC sub-editor...

Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By Jon on Mon Jun 25 19:52:32 BST 2001:

Emma Anderson had a band called Sing Sing, who might still be going.

I thought Miki was doing a solo album, so maybe it didn't work out.

Whatever happened to the Louise Wener "solo project"? The world waits... Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By Unruly Butler on Tue Jun 26 00:03:42 BST 2001:

I passed quite a pleasant summer standing in Miki Berenyi's way at Throwing Muses gigs.

Ah, happy times... Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By 'Ben "Remember Chapterhouse?" Sinister' on Tue Jun 26 11:26:23 BST 2001:

>Whatever happened to the Louise Wener "solo project"? The world waits...

Well, shes having to take lessons to actually drive the minicab first......

BTW, the one-time bassist of MBV, now slapping the strings with Snowpony, actually DID end up driving a mini-cab for a short post-MBV while. And top Diane Keen lookalike and non-smiling minimal geetar contributor Belinda Butcher ended up getting married to me and having my children. One of these things is not true at all, Im afraid. Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By Unruly Butler on Tue Jun 26 11:47:37 BST 2001:

Favourite pop day jobs:

XTC (non Partridge members): delivered rental cars for years.

Throwing Muses: Bernard Georges and David Narcizo ran a bicycle repair shop.

Mark Eitzel: librarian


Erm, can't think of any more. Contributions, anyone? Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By 'James M' on Tue Jun 26 12:11:47 BST 2001:

>Erm, can't think of any more. Contributions, anyone?

The excellent, but entirely unknown (except to me) New Orleans lounge singer Glyn Styler worked in a porn shop, but then the mafia took it over. He can't get any money to finish his record so he sells mattresses at the moment.

He did find the time to star in Doris Wishman's latest film ("Satan was a Lady"), though. Don't suppose anyone's seen it?
Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By Unruly Butler on Tue Jun 26 15:18:10 BST 2001:

Cha Cha Cohen runs a casino in Vegas. Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By 'Tom Adams' on Tue Jun 26 22:41:52 BST 2001:

Art Garfunkel set up an on-line alice band company, apparently. Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By 'paul twist' on Wed Jun 27 00:53:09 BST 2001:

Grant Hart from Husker Du is now a chef. Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By Jon on Wed Jun 27 12:42:31 BST 2001:

No, that was Greg Norton, the bassist. Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By 'Andy Dawson' on Wed Jun 27 16:22:41 BST 2001:

Veering slightly back to the subject of this thread, Andy Dawson, one of the contributors to the NME's execrable 'Thrills' page, works for Directory Enquiries. Fucking well deserves it as well. Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By 'paul twist' on Wed Jun 27 20:10:57 BST 2001:

>No, that was Greg Norton, the bassist.

Sorry. Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By 'Tom Adams' on Wed Jun 27 20:25:18 BST 2001:

is this the end of 'Sounds of the Sixties'?

Jeff Beck is still making music today. Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By 'Oscar the latecomer' on Wed Jun 27 22:04:19 BST 2001:

I thought I'd contribute my bit for this thread. My comment's don't (on the whole) concern the "paper"'s content, which, IMO, got so bad that in January I stopped buying it.
I've dabbled with design for years and when my dad bought me this week's NME I couldn't help notice quite a few glaring flaws in the new revamped design and while I don't call myself an authority on design, these errors really were striking . So I'll list some of those I noticed.
1. COVER.
*Use of "MACHINE" font - angular, tall, presumably to convey "Hard," "Tough" image/brand - outdated font (I used to have it on my old Mac Quadra 3 years ago), overused and above all, _tacky_ as hell
*Lack of adherence to a certain unwritten law of layout: COLOUR UNIFORMITY. Never use more than one shade of black / white together on a page - the "black" in the main photo and the "black" of the logo-border (which is unnecessary anyway because the logo has its own red background. The black appears only to exist to carry the "Award winning" strapline below - why can't this float over the picture, like the NME logo used to?? Maybe I'm nit-picking) Was this cover colour-proofed in any way, or even checked at all? I put this down to laziness.

2. INSIDE.
*Heavy reliance on outmoded, rounded edge box format - used over and over again through the pages - I assume this is what they call "Synergy". Whatever, it just adds even more to the "music _magazine_, not music _paper_" feel
*Bright colours - to grab attention for weak journalism? to prevent reader from falling asleep?
*ANGST page: image (of Travis) accompanying star letter fills 20% of page. It's obvious why they've done this, I won't go into it.

I could go on but after 6 minutes of flicking through the paper I found I couldn't endure any more. Okay, I'm sure my points are obvious to some but I wanted to point out these flaws because for me the paper's presentation (or style) is a symbol of the direction it's going in. It's over-designed. It's awful. Don't get me started on the content. Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By 'Tom Adams' on Thu Jun 28 20:09:46 BST 2001:

I couldn't give a monkey's what the NME looks like, within reason. Although the more consciously stylish (or apparently not) it becomes, the further it veers from its roots and its role.

The point is that it's rotten and commercial to its very core. It's the Oliver Cromwell of music papers. In a mad way.

Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By Bent Halo on Thu Jun 28 22:06:54 BST 2001:

Unless I'm very much mistaken, I sat next to Steve Sutherland on the train yesterday morning. Staring at adverts for land in California he was...

(It might not have been, but he had a V2 bag so I'm hedging my bets.)

What a pointless message. Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By 'Tom Adams' on Thu Jun 28 22:24:20 BST 2001:

Ah, but a pointless message with your name in red still has a certain something, i think Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By 'Harvey Keitel' on Fri Jun 29 08:51:04 BST 2001:

I dont really read the NME any more, and I eat a lot of toast. Theres pointless for you.
Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By 'pig' on Fri Jun 29 14:31:55 BST 2001:

http://www.mediaguardian.co.uk/presspublishing/story/0,7495,513257,00.html

Going A4 and glossy? What kind of idiocy is this? And what exactly do they mean by "one-shots" - Travis Special Poster Magazine or some such? Good god... Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By Jon on Fri Jun 29 15:57:01 BST 2001:

"Going A4 and glossy? What kind of idiocy is this? "

It's what made Melody Maker what it is today... Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By 'A Dodo' on Fri Jun 29 16:29:43 BST 2001:

Wot, like me you mean? Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By 'Stuart O' on Fri Jun 29 17:06:04 BST 2001:

Yes, but remembered with less affection.

(NME still in existence at Christmas: 2/1 and falling.) Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By Jon on Fri Jun 29 17:16:03 BST 2001:

What, you mean we won't get to see their hilarious skit of the pop news of 2001?

It'll be... right... er, based on Big Brother... with The Strokes... and some another band... um.... Britney's Top Tips... er... Radiohead's Favourite Cracker Jokes...er... can anyone remeber what was in the charts this year?