I agree that Modern Life is Rubbish is underrated, but I think Parklife was essentially doing the same thing in a better way.

(Weren't we supposed to have got to 1000 by today?) Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By Golly Blenkinsop on Sun Oct 21 10:51:08 BST 2001:

>I agree that Modern Life is Rubbish is underrated, but I think Parklife was essentially doing the same thing in a better way.
>
>(Weren't we supposed to have got to 1000 by today?)

A thousand by today, aye. I'm now 21 years old! Woo! Anyone fancy a Malteser?

I have to go to work now, this sucks.

Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By 'Rich' on Mon Oct 22 09:50:38 BST 2001:

giant steps is possibly my favourite album of all time. every song a killer, most of them with about 3 or 4 tunes going on. wake up was their 'commerical' album but still uncommercial as fuck in places with two of their best songs on it (reaching out from here, wilder). cmon kids was a glorious failure and still had some fantastic songs on it (melodies for the deaf, bullfrog green, one whose name escapes me but starts 'and you know you shouldnt have another cigarette). Kingsize was the pop delight that everyone said wake up was but with better songs.

does anyone know what sice and the others are doing nowadays (except martin carr obviously)? any new bands or anything? Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By Unruly Butler on Mon Oct 22 11:50:35 BST 2001:

I still don't understand which parallel universe it was that the Boo Radleys were unsung in.

I liked anyone remotely noisy and guitary at the time, and loathed the Boos with a passion I reserve for bands who, while bewilderingly average, get shoved down my throat as geniuses by fans and journalists until I'm forced to gag.

I saw them live a couple of times too, and thought they were messy, unfocused and utterly overrated, with ideas way above their station (Calling a record "Giant Steps" indeed. You're asking for a kicking making that comparison. It's like Oasis naming their "Definitely Maybe" album "Abbey Road"...)

In fact, had the Gallagher boys not appeared, the Boos would still be my favourite I-just-don't-get-it band. Obviously, in retrospect, the Boos benefitted from what came after, and compared to the eyebrow brothers, they were of course The Smiths, Roxy Music, Neu!, Miles Davis and Nancy Sinatra all rolled into one.

Sorry, I just don't get it at all. What should I listen to to convince me otherwise?

BTW, this is not personal. I am assured that Martin Carr is a very lovely man indeed.
Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By 'Morally Wrong' on Mon Oct 22 12:21:35 BST 2001:

>I saw them live a couple of times too, and thought they were messy, unfocused and utterly overrated,

I can see that the first two might have some truth in them, initially at least. I've always forgiven that in a young band though, it's better to have too many ideas and learn to deal with them later than to start with none and spend a career desperately polishing turds.

> ideas way above their station (Calling a record "Giant Steps" indeed.

If you've ever heard "Everything's Alright Forever", it's a pretty accurate description... <Gets chinned by purist Boos fans>

> Obviously, in retrospect, the Boos benefitted from what came after, and compared to the eyebrow brothers, they were of course The Smiths, Roxy Music, Neu!, Miles Davis and Nancy Sinatra all rolled into one.

Ah, but I'd call the Smiths a hugely overrated comedy band, so it looks like we can't even agree on terms here...

>Sorry, I just don't get it at all. What should I listen to to convince me otherwise?

Hmm, not sure. If it's the shambolic bits you don't like, stuff like "Blue Room in Archway", "Comb Your Hair" and the title track off "Kingsize" might ping your pong. And I know people who hated the Boo Radleys who've been pleasantly surprised by the Brave Captain stuff, so maybe that would work too. Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By 'Bobby' on Mon Oct 22 13:28:08 BST 2001:

>next week on i love underrated nineties indie chancers - the new fast automatic daffodils!

they were great too. Big and Fishes Eyes and It's Not what you Know and, was it, Stockholm?
Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By TJ on Mon Oct 22 15:11:25 BST 2001:

New FADS were indeed great. I still listen to 'Big' regularly, and 'It's Not What You Know...' is one of the great classic singles that got away of the 1990s. Anyone wishing to scoff at that claim should remember that it very nearly topped the NME's single of the year chart in 1992, a time when every single other Madchester or shoegazing band was being routinely slated by journalists at ever given available opportunity. Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By Unruly Butler on Mon Oct 22 15:11:51 BST 2001:

>I know people who hated the Boo Radleys who've been pleasantly surprised by the Brave Captain stuff, so maybe that would work too.

Yeah, the Uncut track I heard was rather good. As I said, nothing against yer man Carr, I just heard some moderately interesting songwriting buried under grisly, confused production, a need to be fashionably noisy at the expense of clarity or adventure, and a staggering lack of instrumental imagination.

It probably just chided me that he was constantly going on about the influence of Brian Wilson, Miles Davis etc, then his band just stood on stage bellowing with a wall of howling Marshalls behind them. A couple of flutes and a trumpet buried in the mix do not make you Scott Walker. I was promised ambition, and heard a sixth form racket.

His solo stuff's a bit more carefully arranged, by the sound of it.

As Brian Eno once said in criticism of David Bowie's later work, "Arrangement is when someone stops playing. You should try it."
Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By 'Rich' on Mon Oct 22 15:55:48 BST 2001:

i would say that giant step is the perfect boo radleys album. it has the guitar meltdowns without going too far. it has killer tunes (wish i was skinny, i hang suspended, leaves and sand, barney and me, fuck it the lot of them) and invention galore. it even manages to have dub elements in the song without sounding like indie kids trying to do reggae.

andi think it was called giant steps more as a reference to how much better it is than their early stuff than to john coltranes (?) album.

someone mentioned my bloody valentine. ive been listening to them lately. ive had a couple of their albums for a while but never really listened to them properly until now. they were fucking brilliant. why is kevin sheilds dicking about with primal scream when he should be writing songs of his own again? the first three tracks of isnt anything are some of the most beautiful i have ever heard, and the rest of that album and loveless are also wonderful Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By TJ on Mon Oct 22 16:03:51 BST 2001:

Maybe they named it Giant Steps in reference to a building somewhere?

Just a thought from someone who knows a bit about it... Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By Jon on Mon Oct 22 19:00:34 BST 2001:

The story goes that a while back Island sent someone round to see Shields and point out to him that they could not keep paying him without seeing some work in return. To which he produced some tapes of musical works of such genius and beauty that the threat was immediately lifted.

Well, that's what I read in NME about 2 years or so ago. But can you trust anything they say? Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By 'hemidemisemiderm' on Mon Oct 22 21:44:44 BST 2001:

<fact>kevin and belinda popped up in 97 on fabulous dino jr. album hand it over.</fact>

unruly, go for kingsize. if anything, it's overpolished - very different from the earlier stuff. great songs, no clutter.
alternatively, if you see singles knocking about in second hand piles, buy them! i'll allow for personal taste in the boos v beatles argument (don't have much choice, really), but their can be no doubt that the boos are the greatest b-side band of all time. giant steps/wake up era was the highpoint, but in their entire career they released two, maybe three singles that weren't backed by at least one solid gold *classic*. i've got a c90 crammed with them. it's probably the greatest tape ever made.

(a selection - as bound as tomorrow - at the sound of speed - vegas - whiplashed - rodney king remix - let me be your faith - cracked lips, homesick - blues for george michael - in 1989 - no-one died - in 1990 - no-one died...)

also great - kitchens of distinction. FACT!

Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By Unruly Butler on Mon Oct 22 23:38:23 BST 2001:

>The story goes that a while back Island sent someone round to see Shields and point out to him that they could not keep paying him without seeing some work in return. To which he produced some tapes of musical works of such genius and beauty that the threat was immediately lifted.


It's like Lee Mavers sightings. In those stories, Lee was always on the prow of some Ferry across some sort of Mersey, strumming potential number one singles on a battered old guitar and steadfastly refusing to commit a single note to record. Record execs would return, frustrated by convinced they were on the cusp of the greatest album ever made, if they could only be patient... Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By 'rob jones' on Tue Oct 23 00:19:57 BST 2001:

These mysterious, enigmatic indie stars are bound to produce such stories when they're silent for a few (several) years. I'm not convinced, personally. Do you think if they really had produced a masterpiece, they wouldn't want people to hear it? And what's all that business with Kevin Shields and Primal Scream? etc... Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By 'Rich' on Tue Oct 23 09:01:50 BST 2001:

And what's all that business with Kevin Shields and Primal Scream? etc...

he produced one or two tracks on xtrmntr, cant remember off-hand which ones. they were alright but nowhere near his potential as a songwriter.

Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By Unruly Butler on Tue Oct 23 10:04:55 BST 2001:

>These mysterious, enigmatic indie stars are bound to produce such stories when they're silent for a few (several) years. I'm not convinced, personally. Do you think if they really had produced a masterpiece, they wouldn't want people to hear it?

My thoughts exactly. Weight of expectation can be a dangerous thing, especially for people working in a conservative cul de sac like indie songwriting, where the introduction of a trumpet can be seen as a radical reinvention. It's unlikely that anyone in the field would be able to come up with anything sufficiently inventive to justify more than a couple of years' deep thought. The whole point of a lot of indie (like heavy metal) is that, at best, you come up with something as good as your heroes. ie: Lee Mavers will turn up eighteen years later with Rubber Soul, pleased as punch, and leave the rest of us feeling a little disappointed.

(I am a massive, lifelong indie fan, but I've no illusions about what it's capable of. Spending ten years thinking will probably only turn up a record that sounds even more in thrall to some distorted notion of "classic" music. The Stone Roses spend years away, only to realise that nothing less than a monumental Led Zep record will justify their hugeness etc etc.) Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By 'hemidemisemiderm' on Tue Oct 23 10:26:53 BST 2001:

and yet new order's "get ready" is the best album this year. ha!

i'm convinced that mavers has given up because he can't bear to be referred to as "the bloke who used to be in some band with cast's john power".

can't blame him, really. Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By 'Bobby' on Tue Oct 23 13:33:03 BST 2001:

>Spending ten years thinking will probably only turn up a record that sounds even more in thrall to some distorted notion of "classic" music

or - a Kevin Rowland covers album. Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By 'Ben Fellini' on Tue Oct 23 14:19:28 BST 2001:

Whenever I try to call to mind quintessential mid-90s indie, I always think of Salad. Is that so very wrong? Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By Steven on Tue Oct 23 14:43:12 BST 2001:

Mavers won't release anything because he knows no matter how good an album he can make, it would never be a commercial success. He's not a boy band or pointless indie wank like Starsailor so nobody is going to be interested, other than maybe an article in a few music mags about his 'cult' status, it's not going to shift many albums still.

Even his most commercial ever song 'There She Goes' completely failed to do anything in the charts really. Just shows the ignorance that goes on. Lee wouldn't go through a major label either for a start, so if he ever does put anything out, it will be via an independant like the Viper label, or something via mail order. Despite his talk of wanting have a raw, honest sound, and how he's not interested in pop ethos, he still wants to be number 1 in the charts, it just shows you're appreciated. He's capitalising on his Syd Barrett status by sitting on his arse for years, and he's scared that if he does fianlly put something out, it will be deemed mediocre and he will lose all credit.

Pardon my ignorance and dergatory view on the Boo Radleys, but all I remember of them is a flurry of terribly bland pop singles, and a god awful cover of 'There She Goes and 'And Again Or'. I really can't see any kind of argument comparing them to the Beatles come across as more than anything than a pretentious attack on the Beatles mythical status, just because the Boo Radleys 'may' have put out some better stuff than most people heard at the time, it does not mean you can stick them up on a higher pedastel than the Beatles to simply satisfy you're annoyance of them going unrecognised. Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By 'Rich' on Tue Oct 23 15:16:28 BST 2001:

>Pardon my ignorance and dergatory view on the Boo Radleys, but all I remember of them is a flurry of terribly bland pop singles, and a god awful cover of 'There She Goes and 'And Again Or'.

then you should probably have a listen to more of their output because they did much better than that

> I really can't see any kind of argument comparing them to the Beatles come across as more than anything than a pretentious attack on the Beatles mythical status, just because the Boo Radleys 'may' have put out some better stuff than most people heard at the time, it does not mean you can stick them up on a higher pedastel than the Beatles to simply satisfy you're annoyance of them going unrecognised.

i think the comparison to the beatles is that they were were always experimenting with different sounds, techniques, styles and production while still making great pop songs, though doubtless you would disagree if you hold such a dim view of them. i would say that giant steps is much more a worthy successor to <insert favourite beatles album made between 1966 and 1968 here> than oasis or any other band that has been touted as the 'next beatles', which is a pointless tag in the first place.

that and they were from liverpool Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By 'kip saunders' on Tue Oct 23 15:20:42 BST 2001:

At least two of them weren't (it would help if i knew which ones but i don't. Except two of them were from the Wirral). Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By TJ on Tue Oct 23 15:20:48 BST 2001:

I don't think that's what's being claimed at all though. The suggestion appeared to be, as far as I could tell, that the Boos were closer in spirit to The Beatles than Oasis during the 1990s, as they had a desire to push forwards, do new things and experiment in the studio, rather than just rehashing old styles.

Nobody was saying "they were as good as The Beatles" as far as I can see. Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By TJ on Tue Oct 23 15:44:31 BST 2001:

Martin's definitely from the Wirral, the other three, as far as I know, are from Liverpool. Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By 'kip saunders' on Tue Oct 23 16:08:55 BST 2001:

>Martin's definitely from the Wirral, the other three, as far as I know, are from Liverpool.

He's from Wallasey in fact, now you mention it.




Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By 'Bobby' on Tue Oct 23 17:42:25 BST 2001:

>Even his most commercial ever song 'There She Goes' completely failed to do anything in the charts really...

yeah but it's still ubiquitous enough from soundtracks, compilations, radio play, cover versions etc to mean he'll never have to work, or more likely release any myth shattering record, ever again. Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By Unruly Butler on Tue Oct 23 18:02:23 BST 2001:

That was always my theory too.

Why work when the MCPS and PRS from one single will keep you in smack and baked beans for the rest of your life?

He wanted to be John Lennon, and he ended up Arthur Brown.

Sorted, la'. Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By Steven on Tue Oct 23 18:08:28 BST 2001:

Hmm ok, I took the Beatles comparison the wrong way then.

Lee has recorded tons of stuff, but is very wary of working with other musicians, mostly plays all the instruments on his tracks himself now, so other people don't steal his demos and bootleg them etc. I'm sure he'll put out something in the next couple of years, probably via The Viper Label. Though I don't expect anyone will notice. Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By 'rob jones' on Tue Oct 23 19:54:14 BST 2001:

>Though I don't expect anyone will notice.

Really? Why not? Unless he manages to keep it very low key indeed (ie so that only Steven knows when it comes out, on the Viper label) I find that suggestion extraordinary. A Mavers release would be one of the biggest musical stories of the year.

>Mavers won't release anything because he knows no matter how good an album he can make, it would never be a commercial success. He's not a boy band or pointless indie wank like Starsailor so nobody is going to be interested, other than maybe an article in a few music mags about his 'cult' status, it's not going to shift many albums still.

Bollocks bollocks bollocks. Whatever you make of Starsailor, the two are operating in a similar musical field (ie blokes who strum guitars and sing plaintively). If Mavers made an album of music that was up to standard, I emphasise again that it would receive a mountain of coverage and very possibly sell a mountain of records.
Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By 'kip saunders' on Wed Oct 24 10:04:06 BST 2001:

>Why work when the MCPS and PRS from one single will keep you in smack and baked beans for the rest of your life?
>
There was some article , possibly in MOJO a few years ago which took the PRS/Set up for life assumption about There She Goes and did the maths on it. The income LM would get off it turned out to be about £14,000 per year. Anyone remember this?
Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By 'Stuart O' on Wed Oct 24 10:10:08 BST 2001:

I remember the article, but I thought the figure was a little higher than that. But still not lottery money. Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By Steven on Wed Oct 24 12:36:28 BST 2001:

>Really? Why not? Unless he manages to keep it very low key indeed (ie so that only Steven knows when it comes out, on the Viper label) I find that suggestion extraordinary. A Mavers release would be one of the biggest musical stories of the year.

Well I doubt a couple of favourable (if that) articles in a few music mags will propel sales to the level needed to actually make a large dent in the charts. He's an old bloke now, I just wouldn't think anything he puts out would bother the young pretenders 'boy bands', 'watered down guitar bands'. And only people who already are fans of his music, which is more a small cult audience.

>Bollocks bollocks bollocks. Whatever you make of Starsailor, the two are operating in a similar musical field (ie blokes who strum guitars and sing plaintively). If Mavers made an album of music that was up to standard, I emphasise again that it would receive a mountain of coverage and very possibly sell a mountain of records.

Hmm, well you have a more favourable view of the media than I do then. Starsailor's success is probably down to their management, marketed image etc, than due to their piss poor dirges, Mavers has an unadulterated scorn for the media and barely ever did interviews, nevermind appearing on Ant and Dec to promote his single or whatever, I don't think he could get much exposure nowadays, they didn't even in their hay day. There are many decent unsigned young groups that can't get their music in the charts, nevermind some old bloke who's seen more as a has-been. I think the charts are run more by behind the scenes business deals more now than they ever were, it keeps Hear'Say and co selling anyway, and whoever the new Pop Idol twat is going to be. Maybe I'm wrong and the music industry isn't as pop-culture obsessed as I think it is.

Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By Mogwai on Wed Oct 24 12:57:27 BST 2001:

> and yet new order's "get ready" is the best album this year. ha!

But they've hardly spent the last eight years thinking about it. In fact they've spent most of that time thinking about anything but another New Order album.

Of course, this could explain why it appears to have been dug up in a time capsule from around 1990. Still a couple of cracking tracks on it, mind.





Has Golly's birthday been and gone, by the way? Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By 'Bobby' on Wed Oct 24 13:17:39 BST 2001:

>The income LM would get off it turned out to be about £14,000 per year..

that's not far off the national average wage and more than a lot of other people in L8 I'd think.

Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By 'hemidemisemiderm' on Wed Oct 24 15:45:40 BST 2001:

>> and yet new order's "get ready" is the best album this year. ha!
>
>But they've hardly spent the last eight years thinking about it. In fact they've spent most of that time thinking about anything but another New Order album.

yeah, but i'm sure you could say the same about kevin shields, the stone roses, or even the sodding stereo mcs.

>Of course, this could explain why it appears to have been dug up in a time capsule from around 1990. Still a couple of cracking tracks on it, mind.

it's 1990ness is what appeals to me - and it's definitely more technique than *shudder* republic. Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By '8Ace' on Wed Oct 24 17:31:55 BST 2001:

Ha ha ha! Did you see The Music in this week's NME? Dunno if it's frowned on in this forum to take the piss out of people's aesthetic disadvantages, but they don't just look unattractive, they look fucking ridiculous. I love The Stone Roses as much as anyone, but fucking flares? In 2001? They're 18, they're cheeky Northen lads, the music is even quite promising in a derivative early Verve type way - but they're surely doomed. Uglier than the Inspiral Carpets. I don't usually do sniping like this, but I just can't help it. Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By 'Bobby' on Wed Oct 24 17:45:19 BST 2001:

>Uglier than the Inspiral Carpets

I met Clint Boon in a club in Cardiff a couple of weeks ago, and he was one of the nicest people I have ever met. Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By 'Boab' on Wed Oct 24 17:48:25 BST 2001:

>Uglier than the Inspiral Carpets

also - Steve Lamaq played 'Shall We Take A Trip' by Northside last night and it's a brilliant record. Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By 'Bobby' on Wed Oct 24 17:55:34 BST 2001:

In the letters page this week is a complaint about the coverage of the conviction of a So Solid Crew member for breaking a 15 year old girls jaw, apparently she wouldn't have sex with him. This was reported on nme.com in a very sparse bare facts way and there's no question of them not sponsoring the forthcoming So Solid crew tour.

The reply from Siobhan Grogan is essentially - we reported it, any consequence is up to you lot... does anyone else find this somewhat out of step with previous nme witchhunts?

Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By Jon on Wed Oct 24 18:29:12 BST 2001:

Inspired by the discussion around here, I listened to "C'mon Kids" for the first time in a very long time the other night. More on that later.

I never heard the early stuff and didn't think anything of them until "Lazarus" (which inspired Embrace's entire career, sadly) which was great. I remember someone at a gig in 94 ranting venomously about how he reckoned the Boos were just indie chancers back-pedalling and trying to do proper anthemic rock, but I have no idea about that. "Giant Steps" got quite a lot of positive press coverage, though I never bought it.

"Wake Up!" was actually alright. It didn't really sound like them making a big go at trying to be "commercial", it was just a progression. And they were miles above some of the unbelievable chancers going round in 94/95.

"C'Mon Kids" I didn't really like, then or now. The thing is, the whole thing sounds very "this is our White Album/Sgt Pepper", and you can't make a record that way because (1) the original albums were genuine experiments that grew naturally, (2) but the scale of what they achieved means that anyone trying to imitate has to set out with an agenda of trying to be self-consciously both pop and experimental, yet self-consciousness kills both approaches. Smashing Pumpkins did a terrible album, which I heard once, that was meant to be "our White Album". Mind you, their other albums were shite as well.

So CK just leaves me cold, though there is some good stuff on it. It's nowhere near as bad as "13" by Blur (which I also re-heard last night, for comparison). Every track of that (apart from the token decent pop song at the start, included to ensure at least a few sales) should have been followed by a tape recording of Damon or Graham saying "Bet you didn't expect us to do that, eh?"

I've never heard anything from "Kingsize", though I will be buying it ASAP. Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By TJ on Wed Oct 24 18:57:46 BST 2001:

>In the letters page this week is a complaint about the coverage of the conviction of a So Solid Crew member for breaking a 15 year old girls jaw, apparently she wouldn't have sex with him. This was reported on nme.com in a very sparse bare facts way and there's no question of them not sponsoring the forthcoming So Solid crew tour.
>
>The reply from Siobhan Grogan is essentially - we reported it, any consequence is up to you lot... does anyone else find this somewhat out of step with previous nme witchhunts?

Yes. See, told you they don't give a fuck about anything but appearing 'trendy' any more. Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By Peter on Wed Oct 24 20:02:20 BST 2001:

What about the advert for next weeks NME on the inside back cover? For fucks sake!
Why can't someone send a letter asking why the NMe feel the need to constantly promote themselves in thier own paper (is there one news story this week that doesn't say 'NME' in it's first paragraph)? I've bought it, so you don't have to go on about how good you are. Especially when it's quite clear that it's not.

I had trouble getting interested in any of the bands featured in feature - but then the American bands named don't seem particularily exciting.
Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By 'rob jones' on Wed Oct 24 22:40:53 BST 2001:

Got the So Solid Crew album today. It's really good. Shame about the assault thing. Expect a sycophantic review of the LP in a month's time, coupled with zero mention of the fact that at least one of them is predisposed to violence towards women. Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By Unruly Butler on Thu Oct 25 10:23:14 BST 2001:

Maybe it was an ironic appropriation of the violence towards women schtick that The Prodigy ironically appropriated from gangsta rap? But done in real life. To make it work on a different level.

Had the So Solid Crew member done it while wearing a Union Jack, we'd all be right to be appalled.

But these killings are so obviously ironic.


(Issued on behalf of the music journalists of the world) Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By Jon on Thu Oct 25 12:57:43 BST 2001:

You should have signed that last message "Willis Zillins". Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By 'Bobby' on Thu Oct 25 13:49:42 BST 2001:

>Had the So Solid Crew member done it while wearing a Union Jack, we'd all be right to be appalled

Notice the Union Jack cover. They'll be up in arms at morrissey-solo.com Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By Prep Gwarlek 3b on Thu Oct 25 16:05:32 BST 2001:

re: This week's NME. What the chuffing arse is the lead feature all about? Seems to me that it's just a way to fill twelve-odd editorial pages with very little writing.

(For those sensible enough the avoid the NME like a lift with a skunk in it, the lead feature consisted of several formerly-blank canvasses, which were filled by members of Britain's best new guitar bands. A full page for each 'piece', with a few paragraphs about each band. Cue lots of sprayings that a mentally subnormal five-year-old would be ashamed of.)

Semi-relatedly, that bloke from Raging Speedhorn must have the smallest face in rock. It really is quite chilling. Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By Golly Blenkinsop on Thu Oct 25 20:59:41 BST 2001:

>Has Golly's birthday been and gone, by the way?

Yes, twas on Sunday. Jolly good effort though. Excuse my lack of posting, esp on the Boo Radleys and The La's because I like both, but this week I have mostly been wearing a fish costume. At the CIPD conference in Harrogate. I've been a Fish4 fish. The shame! I also have blagged lots of crap promotional tat. If we think the music industry is shite, it's nothing on HR.

I did go to the Twisted Nerve night last night in Leeds and approximately a dozen of those there were not part of TN in any way, and probably half of them were guestlisters like me. It was very good though. I want to marry Dave Tyack. Alfie didn't play. Which was A Good Thing.

Of which more later, when I have had sleep. Not sure when I will get to rest for I am fishing it again tomorrow and at WHS all weekend. Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By Steven on Thu Oct 25 22:13:33 BST 2001:

On the subject of The La's, here's a little Mavers treat for you all, two songs live, Song of a Gun and There She Goes:

http://briefcase.yahoo.com/bc/jay160e/lst?.dir=/My+Files&.order=&.
view=l&.src=bc&.done=http%3a//briefcase.yahoo.com/bc/jay160e/lst%3f.
dir=/My%2bFiles%26.src=bc%26.view=l Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By Steven on Thu Oct 25 22:20:50 BST 2001:

Ahem, Son of a Gun. For some reason whenever I read back what I've written I never notice all the tragic mistakes that litter everything until after I've posted it.

There's also an mp3 of an unreleased song done live - The Way We Came, on my La's tab site www.geocities.com/mavers81/

Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By 'Paul C' on Fri Oct 26 11:50:19 BST 2001:

Cheers for that, I've been trying to find a version of The Way We Came for ages. Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By Mogwai on Fri Oct 26 13:46:49 BST 2001:

> See, told you they don't give a fuck about anything but appearing 'trendy' any more.

I appreciate the passion and conviction in these sort of postings but I really cannot stand to hear the bleating of late twenty and early-thirty something hacks getting all dewey-eyed and nostalgic for the NME of the past. These are exactly the sort of people stuck in an "it was all better in my day" rut that will end up reading the Daily Mail when they're 50.

All the problems at the NME stemmed from the fact that it did exactly what these guys wanted - ie spent 8 years acting as if it was still 1992 and NME ran the UK record industry.

Yes, NME was great, it was fun, and it was immensely important, but the world moved on and it didn't (and clearly neither did some of these guys). Things change. Change is a good thing, It keeps things interesting. The alternative is called conservatism.

NME had to change and is changing. And the change is only going to increase until the title settles back into its natural position as the "Fuck! I didn't get a copy this week!" most exciting, vibrant and important music magazine on the planet - but when this happens it will happen in a different way than before. Ben is a brave editor who is making some big decisions and taking some risks (remember them? Some people consider them quite exciting) and doing a bloody good job exploring a new future for NME. He should be getting support and encouragement rather than petty sniping.

You could try and publish the old NME again and approach everything in the same way and use the same writers but you'd be fucked because it just won't be
relevant. It won't sell. Few people would care about it, and that would be a crime for such an important magazine with a unique legacy.

If all these whining media-blokes really think otherwise, and really care that much, then fuck off and raise some venture capital and publish "Old NME" yourself and prove me wrong. But it won't work.

Conor McNicholas
Editor
Muzik magazine





[He asked me to post this because the thread kept crashing his browser. Only the messenger, don't shoot, etc - M]

Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By 'Bobby' on Fri Oct 26 13:59:35 BST 2001:

>You could try and publish the old NME again and approach everything in the same way and use the same writers but you'd be fucked because it just won't be
relevant. It won't sell.

well they did it with 1988 melody maker and Uncut seems to sell o.k. Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By 'Stuart O' on Fri Oct 26 14:05:25 BST 2001:

>re: This week's NME. What the chuffing arse is the lead feature all about? Seems to me that it's just a way to fill twelve-odd editorial pages with very little writing.

In fact, that seems to be about it for features in this issue. That's a poor total even for the NME.

Strokes mentions in this issue: 5. They have two singles in the NME Radio Top Ten; a story about their album only reaching number 74 in the billboard chart (quote from US spokesman: "The video will definitely help because not everybody reads magazines" - cue consternation in NME office); a tedious quote from Fab Moretti in the Verbal Abuse column; "Hard To Explain" is the NME's number 2 ringtone; and of course the cover, where the heading reads: "Never mind The Strokes [nobody was], here's Guitar Britain".

"The NME can reveal"...that Princess Superstar and Jarvis Cocker will be playing a gig in some concert or other. No, their PR agency revealed it. You're just printing what they've told you.

Oh, and the news item detailing the Radiohead live album apologises for "forgetting" to include the story in last week's issue, after putting it on the cover.

Stuart O can reveal that he won't be buying the NME any more. And that's an exclusive. Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By 'Stuart O' on Fri Oct 26 14:11:18 BST 2001:

Oh yes, and the post of Marketing Manager is vacant. Any takers? Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By TJ on Fri Oct 26 14:35:57 BST 2001:

Then tell this character from me

a) He has no idea about my age
b) I am not nostalgic for the past. If I was, then I wouldn't care about what was happening in the present.
c) I will never, ever become a Daily Mail reader
d) I have changed since 1992, as I'm sure we all have.
e) Ben Knowles would get support and encouragement from me if I felt he deserved it. And I don't.
f) I don't want the old NME to be published again. I want the new one to print material that is worth reading.
g) I'm not a whining media bloke. I'm a computer technician. I might write in my spare time, but I've not sold my soul to the dollar to do so, and never will.
h) Before picking on one comment on mine in isolation to the rest of the discussion, why not try 1) reading some of my other points before making a decision about what I'm like and what you think I believe (you never know, you might find you agree with some of them) and 2) providing some kind of defence for the very serious point that was being contested (by my comment as well as several others) instead of just resorting to complete Lord-Hailsham-On-Weekend-World-style hot air. Do you think the actions of that band member should not have been called into question instead of just merely reported?

And finally, if the views expressed on this thread are so unimportant, why do you feel the need to respond to them?
Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By 'James M' on Fri Oct 26 14:39:39 BST 2001:

So the gist of Conor's assertion is:

1. The NME is really good, actually, because it takes risks.

2. If you disagree you must be a sad old reactionary muso journalist grandad, who needs to get with it.

That is a brilliant and devestating bit of argument. The decline in circulation *must* be entirely due to failed "media blokes" leaving in droves, while wanking themselves to sleep over the past glories of Baker, Burchill, Maconie or however many golden ages there supposedly have been.

There's definitely no possibility that the whining comes not from embittered "media-blokes" but from average music fans who have found less and less music of any interest to them in it and because they've noticed a decline in the quality of writing.

The idea that Ben Knowles deserves support and encouragement is a very silly one. He's not campaigning against land mines, he's running a (rather shitty) magazine. Is his wage not enough? If he wants our money, he can give us something we want.
Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By 'Saint Nick' on Fri Oct 26 15:48:35 BST 2001:

I would suggest that Conor has a good look at his own magazine and sorts that out before he starts defending his IPC mates and their rag.
Coz Musik is a shite read as well (although the occasional free cd is very nice) Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By Golly Blenkinsop on Fri Oct 26 16:16:25 BST 2001:

Yeah and I'm CLEARLY an ageing meeja bloke...errrr...

I don't want the NME to be a dull schmindie grungey studenty rag either, that's why I hated the Maker (before it went A4 magazine and strange) - OK so I admit I did appear in the Maker a few times but it was a laugh. I suspect Everett True etc's attempt will be much like this and therefore die on its arse - no teenager or student I know would read it. In fact, few of them read magazines at all these days.

What I DO want is a magazine with content. Relevant content to me, preferably, but content in itself would be nice. Because most of them are all pictures and press releases. And, of course, aimed at men - apart from gossip mags and women's glossies, which are even more irrelevant than Loaded to me.

I got grief the other day from a PR woman because Studybees has "too much content, it has too much text." Well fuck off then. It's not for you, it's for me. I just want free records to review because I have no money to buy them and it means I get to hear stuff the NME DOESN'T sanction.

PS I do like the Strokes and Andrew WK, but not 'cause I was told to. Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By 'wiseblood' on Fri Oct 26 16:17:54 BST 2001:

the editor from IPC's Muzik said:

"Ben is a brave editor who is making some big decisions and taking some risks"

Yes I agree on the risks thing... risks - that would be great. When will these risk be put into the magazine? The "10 best guitar bands in South East England" article would have been much better it had had some risks in it.

I can't wait for all this risk stuff to start happening because hopefully it will replace a list of "10 bands who are second division record company designed fodder" to inflict on their long suffering readership.

You know when dogs fight and one of them gives in and it rolls on its belly exposing its soft underside? Thats what that edition looked like. It felt like there was no fight left in the old dog.

I'm not sure what these risks could be, I'd like it to be 'find better bands than a bunch of Alien Ant Farm or Coldplay clones and write exciting articles about them'.

But I think the Muzik editor hit it on the head with the needed result of dismay if people say "I didn't get a copy this week!"

Nobody will be saying that about the '10 guitar bands that won't become popular or ever make interesting or innovative music'
edition.

But then I suppose staking your magazines reputation on such a poor selection of shabby prospects and not even doing it very well is quite a risk. The NME might not be able to boost circulation with such awful content, but it was until recently able to deliver to record companies some measure of success. If the NME can't deliver an audience to a record company then it really has no use at all.
Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By Unruly Butler on Fri Oct 26 17:14:56 BST 2001:

The "get some venture capital and start your own magazine" argument doesn't work either.

You'd be starting with an audience of zero and attempting to build from there. Very difficult to do.

What's shocking about the NME is it started with an audience of hundreds of thousands and slowly pissed them all off, one by one. Everyone on this thread is an ex-reader. They're expressing why they're annoyed with the paper. Listen to them. There's some good points amongst the wailing and gnashing of teeth.

The NME used to help shape the industry. It's increasing irrelevance is a crying shame, though not necessarily the fault of the current editor. It's painted itself into a difficult corner over the last decade by chasing a dwindling audience (traditional NME fans), then, thinking this small audience is no longer worth pursuing, turning round and chasing a bigger one (pop kids, nu-metal fans etc), but one that, not raised on the weekly newsagent trip to get the NME and Maker, no longer thinks it needs magazines at all.

Acknowledged, therefore, the editor is in an impossible position, but that's no defence. You're not asking us all to read a magazine out of pity, surely? Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By Mogwai on Fri Oct 26 17:47:34 BST 2001:

[Forwarded again - all complaints to the usual address - M]


I don't think that the forum is unimportant, quite the opposite, it's the fact that I think it is so important that I want to debate this. Good to kick up a bit of passion around the NME.

I do think they're wrong though. Nothing personal at all. Sure we'd all enjoy a pint and a bitch.


> Musik is a shite read as well (although the occasional free cd is very nice)"

Point taken. I've only been editing Muzik for five weeks so apologies if you haven't been able to see any of my input yet, but you will. Muzik is going for a total re-launch at the beginning of next year and it will be much improved all over. Stonking, in fact.

Oh, and we give a free CD away every single issue.


Conor McNicholas




Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By 'rob jones' on Fri Oct 26 19:34:49 BST 2001:

Problem with this week's NME is that the British guitar bands we're supposed to be 'excited' about are the ones they've been half-heartedly covering for the past six months. Why have they been so ambivalent about them until this week? Because none of them are much cop. Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By 'Indie Kid' on Fri Oct 26 22:35:27 BST 2001:

As Michael Stipe wrote/quoted in song "WITHDRAWL IN DISGUST IS NOT APATHY".
Have you ever seen such a pathetic effort as the latest NME? Give us something to read dimwits and get writers who can write. If I was eighteen I would be insulted. You can be 65 and listen to Simply "Awful" Red, so why should 30 be a line in the sand for NME.
I didn't turn my back on NME it turned its back on me. Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By Unruly Butler on Fri Oct 26 22:46:26 BST 2001:

Good point. As NME-style indie guitar bands like Travis (whatever you think of them) started to crawl into the mainstream, and began to appeal to a wider and wider range of ages (radio 2, radio 1, Capital, Virgin, everyone...), surely the NME should have been drawing in MORE not FEWER readers.

For it to fail to do so is a shocking indictment of its lack of focus and appallingly low standards of debate or engagement with its readers. Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By 'Peter O' on Fri Oct 26 23:35:06 BST 2001:

I haven't read the Not Muchcop Express (ha ha!) for years but I really like the Strokes album. It reminds me of 'Hatful of Hollow' and the Violent Femmes.

Do I win £5? Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By Unruly Butler on Sat Oct 27 01:19:25 BST 2001:

And it's 38 minutes long (or something like that). Surprisingly good, even if it is just a great Iggy album. The only thing they got wrong is they should have been standing in front of a brick wall / flyover on the cover. Call themselves stylish young punks, with a cover like that?

If you're convinced by The Strokes, get Spoon's album. They're good nouveau US nu-wave too. (Going to keep saying that until their album's outselling The Strokes. For god's sake, they've got the Farfisa organ too, thus they win.)

BTW has everyone heard that tricksy version of Christina Aguilera's "Genie In A Bottle" clipped and pasted over the top of The Strokes' "Hard To Explain"? XFM were giving it some a while ago. It's really neatly done. I'd like to get hold of it for novelty value, but can't remember who's responsible. Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By 'Mr Shankly' on Sat Oct 27 03:35:50 BST 2001:

> I really cannot stand to hear the bleating
> of late twenty and early-thirty something
> hacks

Me neither. Given that this forum is populated by a bunch of random comedy fans from around the internet, surely the person that this description applies to most closely is "Conor McNicholas, Editor, Muzik magazine". Just a thought.

> If all these whining media-blokes
> really think otherwise, and really care
> that much, then fuck off and raise some
> venture capital and publish "Old NME"
> yourself and prove me wrong. But it won't
> work.

Hmm, would that be a version of the forum favourite "You don't think [person] is funny? Well I bet you couldn't do any better!"? If so then, once more, for those who haven't been paying attention: you don't have to be good at something to tell if someone else is shit at it. That bloke who keeps on getting lost in the North Sea and being rescued by the RNLI because he's trying to navigate his way to Denmark with just a road atlas of Europe is probably a better sailor than me, but I reckon that I can say, with reasonable confidence, that he's still fucking rubbish.
Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By 'hemidemisemiderm' on Sat Oct 27 13:00:43 BST 2001:

>[Forwarded again - all complaints to the usual address - M]
>

do IPC have computers? come on mr muzik man, show yourself. Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By 'Bobby' on Sat Oct 27 16:45:06 BST 2001:

>...I really like the Strokes album. It reminds me of 'Hatful of Hollow...

It reminds me of early smiths too, the guitars on nyc cops. Also reminds me of Elastica for some reason. Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By 'Bobby' on Sat Oct 27 17:08:59 BST 2001:

>Problem with this week's NME is that the British guitar bands we're supposed to be 'excited' about are the ones they've been half-heartedly covering for the past six months. ..Because none of them are much cop.

That's a bit harsh - The Coral are ace and The Cooper Temple Clause are pretty good, I don't mind Haven and I haven't heard much by the Music to say...

what summed up the state of the NME in the feature for me was the introduction. I don't mind them doing a 'ten best new guitar bands in Britain' feature but to claim this in anyway represents some kind of Britpop busting youth explosion that's gonna replace Travis and Stereophonics at the top of the charts and festival bills is just hyperbolic, blinkered nonsense.



Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By 'Bobby' on Sat Oct 27 17:15:47 BST 2001:

>If you're convinced by The Strokes, get Spoon's album. They're good nouveau US nu-wave too. (Going to keep saying that until their album's outselling The Strokes...

it probably is in America. Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By 'rob jones' on Sat Oct 27 19:26:25 BST 2001:

>That's a bit harsh - The Coral are ace and The Cooper Temple Clause are pretty good, I don't mind Haven and I haven't heard much by the Music to say...

Sorry, forgot the Coral. They genuinely are full of promise. The rest of them are just acceptable indie, though, and that surely can't be enough for the 'youth explosion' they're trying to pass it off as. The Music's instrumentals are pretty good but their singer's voice is an awful Jon Bon Jovi-esque whine and ruins most of their songs. They're also ugly as fuck, which shouldn't matter, but does. Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By 'Indie Kid' on Sun Oct 28 01:23:24 BST 2001:

I like indie. I like most types of music save AOR. What I dont like is whole pages of NME having about 150 words. Are they trying to be The SUN? Dont piss on us and tell us its raining.


This is how i see NME - like Socialist Worker its the same issue:

An Average NME

They have no news just press releases or self serving gibberish.

Gossip about media bores or coke heads

Three pages of minimalist text to sell major label fodder

"Interviews" that Frank Zappa couldnt satirise

Live reviews - perhaps the only justification for theirliving death experience

Albums regually get 8 or 9 out of ten (including STEPPS - the age of irony is dead).

Crap movies and crap reviews

Adverts for gigs perhaps the other justification for their living death experience if one were pushed

Does anyone still glane at angst?

SAVE YOUR MONEY - THEY ARE NOT WORTH SAVING.
Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By 'hemidemisemiderm' on Sun Oct 28 01:47:30 BST 2001:

>Albums regually get 8 or 9 out of ten (including STEPPS - the age of irony is dead).


surely this isn't true?
Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By 'Peter O' on Sun Oct 28 01:03:08 GMT 2001:

>>...I really like the Strokes album. It reminds me of 'Hatful of Hollow...
>
>It reminds me of early smiths too, the guitars on nyc cops.

Which they've now stopped playing, or changed to "New York City Cops... are very brave" or something.

>Also reminds me of Elastica for some reason.

Hmm... New wave of new wave of new wave. I can hear some Fall and Velvet Underground in there so that's bound to sound a bit Elasticky, but to be honest I can't remember what Elastica sounded like now, they were so similar to a lot of other things. The label stamped on the CD itself is a very Blondie-era bit of graphic design, so there's a vaguely Elastical link.

What I really like about the Strokes is that there's definitely something mixed into it that isn't from other people's records. It's a badly sequenced album - "Barely Legal" is crying out to be track one. "I just want to miss-a-behave, I just want to be your slave!" I love the way the chiming guitars and the loud melodic bass guitar are always fighting over what chord it's supposed to be. Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By Peter on Sun Oct 28 14:01:28 GMT 2001:

Steps Greatest Hits got 9 out of 10. It's true. Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By 'Sir HC' on Sun Oct 28 21:21:59 GMT 2001:

That's not necessarily a bad thing, though, is it? I mean, the reviewer was a gay man who I've found (from what he's written before) tends to like music stereotypically linked with What Gay Men Buy.

And anyway, I'd much rather people listened to Steps than dire shit like JJ72, Muse, Strokes etc. At least it'll put a smile on their face, rather than make them scrawl shit on their pencil cases. Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By 'Peter O' on Sun Oct 28 21:26:59 GMT 2001:

I just wish they'd all fuck off. Am I right or am I right? Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By 'Mr Shankly' on Mon Oct 29 01:51:14 GMT 2001:

> And anyway, I'd much rather people
> listened to Steps than dire shit like
> JJ72, Muse, Strokes etc. At least it'll
> put a smile on their face, rather than
> make them scrawl shit on their pencil
> cases.

Fine, but there's a hundred magazines for people who think that all music can and should do is put a smile on your face. Where's the magazine for people who like to scrawl shit on their pencil cases?

And, not wanting to get all absolutist on yo'ass, but Steps are unmitigated shite. That's just a fact. Oh yes. Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By Paul Kelly on Mon Oct 29 11:21:38 GMT 2001:

To quote Ken Korda:

"Never mind about diction! IT'S! FOR! KIDS!!!"

Which everyone forgets. Hoever I was listening to Neu!, Beefheart and Phillip Glass at the tender age of 3 which makes me genine and real and not like the fake whorekids who had Agadoo. Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By Jon on Mon Oct 29 12:06:14 GMT 2001:

Peter O: how old are you? Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By 'Bobby' on Mon Oct 29 17:39:45 GMT 2001:

>They're also ugly as fuck, which shouldn't matter, but does.

being ugly doesn't matter, but looking shit does. They look shit.
Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By 'Sir HC' on Mon Oct 29 17:44:50 GMT 2001:

>Fine, but there's a hundred magazines for >people who think that all music can and >should do is put a smile on your face. >Where's the magazine for people who like to >scrawl shit on their pencil cases?

I think therein you've unwittingly unearthed the problem: what's crippling about the current music press and its readers is the utter lack of dialogue, its inability to give people the space to take risks or actually push forth their own agenda without people sneering down their noses, be it in pop, in gothic-techno or in avant-rap. Instead what's happened as the wordcounts dry up is an acceptance of eclecticism in the worst possible manner: covering multi-genres in the most superficial, patronising, way, just as a buffer against one of them going tits up by Xmas.

What made MM in 94 so thrilling was that they were simultaneously crusading for jungle, trip-hop, hip-hop, speed metal etc etc without recourse to this horrible notion of 'rock history' which keeps pop in its cage and keeps it there, groping for space in which to actually breathe. Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By 'Mr Shankly' on Mon Oct 29 18:04:54 GMT 2001:

Not sure I like the suggestion that I unwittingly unearth things, but I'll let that slide ...

> What made MM in 94 so thrilling was that
> they were simultaneously crusading for
> jungle, trip-hop, hip-hop, speed metal etc
> etc without recourse to this horrible
> notion of 'rock history' which keeps pop
> in its cage and keeps it there, groping
> for space in which to actually breathe.

Speed metal?! Are you sure that MM was crusading for that in 94? Seems unlikely...

I'm not sure if I understand what point you were trying to make in your last post Sir HC. Rather than me guessing, it might be easier if you rephrased it for the hard of thinking. Thanks. Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By 'Sir HC' on Mon Oct 29 20:16:15 GMT 2001:

Basically, I'm sick of this idea spouted on this forum that there should be a voice in mainstream media (rather than a specialist mag) for people who like indie music, when what's needed is a print magazine that can treat pop (as a whole) with the breadth, intelligence and tactility it deserves; I also think the facile passing off of chart music as an (inherently) inferior artform is wrongheaded, because it denies how stunning some of the most hugely popular music is: blind rejection is just as stupid as blind acceptance.

It all went wrong for the NME during Britpop, when they got what they always wanted (white men playing retro rock in their local pubs and then getting into the charts) and then forgot to move on again in a considered and intelligent manner when Britpop choked on its own bloody-minded inertia. Hence the horrible rut it's now in.

And I'm sure Jon Selzer, who now edits extreme metal mag Terrorizer, was writing about strange dark / speed metal types of music for the Maker back in the day. Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By 'Mr Shankly' on Mon Oct 29 21:00:09 GMT 2001:

> Basically, I'm sick of this idea spouted
> on this forum that there should be a voice
> in mainstream media (rather than a
> specialist mag) ....

Is NME mainstream media? Should it be?

Also, you seem to be missing the point a bit: the complaint is not that Indie kids don't have a voice in the media, but that the media aren't talking to them. And this isn't being framed as a complaint along the lines of "we like this music and there fore people should write about it". Fans of Gregorian music might well have similar greivances. The point is that NME's circulation is falling *because they aren't talking to their readers*.

> ... for people who like indie
> music, when what's needed is a print
> magazine that can treat pop (as a whole)
> with the breadth, intelligence and
> tactility it deserves;

Maybe both are needed...
The issue is which NME should do, and, relatedly, which NME is capable of doing.

Both options would be a valid progression for NME to take. Magazines dealing with either of these markets might well work. However, as I think you agree, NME are doing neither at the moment. Without doubt, it would be great to have a magazine that wrote intelligently about all forms of pop music. And while they're at it, they could write intelligently about cookery and home improvement and literature and caravanning. If they really did do this well it would be great. But the question is whether it's practical to have that breadth of focus and depth of knowledge on one magazine. The NME currently does not have it. Jack of all trades, master of none, and all that.

Also, is there a market for such a magazine of such broad tastes? (all of pop/rock I mean, not one that writes about caravans too)
It's not clear to me that there is. And if there is, it seesm likely that it would have to be a mag aimed at the Q end of the market?

The other option, and the one that has been suggested here, is that NME focusses on its strengths rather than write substandard and ill informed articles about genres about which it knows nothing. There are a lot of people who listen to Indie music who don't read NME, but would if it were better written and had a less condescending tone towards them. Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By Unruly Butler on Tue Oct 30 00:43:40 GMT 2001:

Aye to Shankly.

I thought most of us were arguing that the NME *should* be more of a "specialist" rag (like mags for folk, or jazz-blues, or heavy metal). "Mainstream" wasn't an issue.

The NME has tried to hold onto a mainstream position, and lost sales to a degree that it might as well go back to serving its traditional, more "specialist" market. It'd sell the same, but at least be doing its job properly.

In fact, if it did its job properly, then more disgruntled readers would return and it would soon crawl up to a respectable point on the sales graph. Not to its Britpop heights, but somewhere it could become a viable voice for a particular genre of music, rather than an inconsequential, snotty echo of whatever The Observer / Smash Hits / The Big Issue said about Busta Rhymes / Linkin Park / S Club 7 last week.

It's covering the same broad church of music as everyone else. So why should I pay £2 extra to read opinions that turn up in other, more interesting magazines for half the price? If it specialised, it would have some sort of USP. Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By 'Jessica' on Tue Oct 30 11:01:35 GMT 2001:

>In fact, if it did its job properly, then more disgruntled readers would return and it would soon crawl up to a respectable point on the sales graph.

Potentially, and I agree that this is what they should do. But (devil's advocaat) - that audience is not particularly attractive to advertisers, and is very difficult to define neatly as a marketing target audience. The ad sales teams at IPC would be unlikely to support this, maybe? Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By '8Ace' on Tue Oct 30 14:41:25 GMT 2001:

Whatever the NME does you're not going to like it, and it's unlikely to boost it's sales. Why? Because people used to buy the NME to keep informed. Now if they want to know something they go to the internet. Far more comprehensive, far more up to date, and free. Under the circumstances it's not surprising that the NME will try any gimmick to keep afloat in a market place that's absolutely saturated already. And you never give 'em credit when they do something good anyway. That Oasis interview a few weeks back was fucking brilliant, and not one of you whinging cunts mentioned it. As far as I'm concerned, I wish they'd give Simian a bit more exposure and I wish they'd given the Super Furry Animals more kudos a few years ago (obviously the best British thing about for years). But that's just personal preference - the NME is doing what it has to, trying to survive in a cut throat marketplace. Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By 'Saint Nick' on Tue Oct 30 15:17:53 GMT 2001:

She Bop by Cyndi Lauper is about the art of solo vaginal stimulation, as I believe is Sugar Walls by Sheena Easton...

and as for I Can't Come, My Willie's Numb by The Snivelling Shits and Love Comes In Spurts by Richard Hell... Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By Jon on Tue Oct 30 15:56:53 GMT 2001:

You can find the collected writings of Jon Selzer here:

http://members.tripod.com/mozaque/comezero/zerohome.htm Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By Jon on Tue Oct 30 15:59:34 GMT 2001:

It was "Sugar Falls" by Sheena E, and it was indeed banned in some US radio stations. Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By Mogwai on Tue Oct 30 20:45:21 GMT 2001:

> You can find the collected writings of Jon Selzer here

> She Bop by Cyndi Lauper is about the art of solo vaginal stimulation


Are we just posting anything at this point to get this thread to 1000? Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By Jon on Tue Oct 30 21:15:49 GMT 2001:

Yes, but by all means carry on talking about NME if you want. Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By Jon on Tue Oct 30 21:24:24 GMT 2001:

"the only question now is - having ripped apart modern rock music - what's Andrew WK going to do for an encore?"

What do we reckon? I've narrowed the possibilities to:

(a) get dropped for not selling enough records,
(b) be quite successful, become a tedious tabloid "story" and then take ages trying to come up with a not-very-good 2nd album,
(c) have tedious celebrity breakdown, give up music, etc.

Anyone heard his record, anyway? TimeOut were slagging him off the other week, I noticed. Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By 'Celesteville' on Tue Oct 30 22:56:31 GMT 2001:

>Anyone heard his record, anyway? TimeOut were slagging him off the other week, I noticed.

I heard it. Basically 80's cock rock without quite so much hair. Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By 'Gedge' on Tue Oct 30 23:50:03 GMT 2001:

>>Anyone heard his record, anyway?

Reminds me of Rocket From The Crypt, but rubbish.
Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By on Wed Oct 31 00:01:54 GMT 2001:

Just doing my bit for the big one zero zero zero! Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By on Wed Oct 31 00:09:38 GMT 2001:

What?

Er.

Well, I suppose I ought to...

Er...

Well, with all this pressure on, I don't really know what to...

A thousands WHATS, you say?

Well, it would be nice to have a moment to say something to mark the...

Don't want to waste the, er... Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By on Wed Oct 31 00:17:54 GMT 2001:

1001 posts!!! And NME is still run by

CUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU
UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU
UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU
UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU
UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU
UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU
UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU
UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU
UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU
UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU
UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUNTS! Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By on Wed Oct 31 00:19:35 GMT 2001:

Er, have we not names? Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By on Wed Oct 31 00:19:58 GMT 2001:

I'm sorry, but where have all the names gone? Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By on Wed Oct 31 00:21:24 GMT 2001:

Have we finally broken the forum then? Hooray! Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By 'Mr Shankly' on Wed Oct 31 00:37:42 GMT 2001:

And thus we win! Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By 'Mr Shankly' on Wed Oct 31 00:40:14 GMT 2001:

Oh fuck. Seems it's working again now. And worse still, that identifies me as the twat quoting comedy catchphrases in place of genuine wit. I'll get me coat.

Do you see what I've done there?

God, there's no avoiding it, is there? Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By Unruly Butler on Wed Oct 31 00:41:33 GMT 2001:

That happened as soon as I posted the 1000th post.

By deleting the credit for inane comment number 1000, we can all share in the glory of passing this crucial whinging milestone. Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By 'rob jones' on Wed Oct 31 01:42:46 GMT 2001:

Weird to think that this monolithic thread was started by an innocuous comment about NME's 'legalise cannabis' coverage. And, just in time for the 1000th posting, the government have legalised cannabis! (well, almost) Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By 'Ben Suiinister' on Wed Oct 31 08:40:41 GMT 2001:

What happened to NME-the shocking truth! Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By Unruly Butler on Wed Oct 31 11:48:30 GMT 2001:

Has anyone been unfortunate enough to read the Daily Mail letters pages since Cannabis was legalised?

Scary.

The only major publication still claiming this means the end of civilisation. Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By Jon on Wed Oct 31 13:03:53 GMT 2001:

Andrew WK is the end of civilisation. Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By 'Chet Morton' on Wed Oct 31 13:39:36 GMT 2001:

Andrew W--K is a crossword clue. Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By 'Bobby' on Wed Oct 31 13:57:30 GMT 2001:

it's a shame that this thread is running out of direction just after passing the 1,000 mark - can someone start a conversation about Ride or something.

Also it was teenage behaviour (?) that nme were talking about that started this thread, not cannabis. Sorry for pointing that out.

My flatmate (the one that went to the conference in Harrogate) thought the Andrew WK song went 'Party On' not 'Part Hard'. Which in a Bill/Ted/Beavis/Buthead way sums up WK.

Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By 'Chet Morton' on Wed Oct 31 14:55:05 GMT 2001:

>it's a shame that this thread is running out of direction just after passing the 1,000 mark - can someone start a conversation about Ride or something.

How about James Oldham's review of Andrew WK's album in this week's issue? The opening lines talk about how A.W.K. has already managed to surpass the hype surrounding The Strokes. And what was the source of this mysterious hype of which you speak, Mr Oldham? A random cloud of free-floating hype, enveloping any artist in its path? NO, IT WAS THE NME, YOU MORON!!! *YOU* HYPE THESE PEOPLE!!!
Apologies for lapsing into Swells vernacular there.
Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By Jon on Wed Oct 31 16:25:13 GMT 2001:

The NME isn't very good. Let's face reality. Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By 'Stuart O' on Wed Oct 31 16:30:06 GMT 2001:

This thread has reached another milestone, as one poster has now reached over 100 posts. So that some sense of mystery remains (and to drag this thread out further), you'll have to work out who for yourselves. Aren't I cruel. Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By Jon on Wed Oct 31 16:33:14 GMT 2001:

You've posted 100 times? Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By 'Stuart O' on Wed Oct 31 16:40:32 GMT 2001:

No, you've posted 102. Possibly more, as it's quite difficult to weed out all the pseudonyms.

If anybody is really that fucking interested, the top ten is:

Jon 100
Unruly Butler 69
Bent Halo 59
TJ 54
Peter 38
Rob Jones 34
Bobby 33
Mogwai 32
Tom Adams 29
Justin 27

I'm at 11th, and my bruised ago is at 12th.

I'm really, *really* bored. Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By Unruly Butler on Wed Oct 31 18:28:04 GMT 2001:

As another gesture to how much I can't be bothered with the NME, I'd like to point out that my friend's album has just been picked to be Album of The Week in the Sunday Times this week, and that rocks way more than anything the NME might have to say about it, and so I'm really happy.

(Unless of course they change their mind before print deadline...)

But it's cool nonetheless. The Sunday Times are obviously prepared to pick up a tiny, struggling, penniless, full-time-working-in-a-crappy-job, independent artist, and really get behind him, despite a minuscule promotion budget. The NME do that about as often as I shit clock parts.

His album's fab too. Buy The 253 by Chris T-T, and smile like bastards, everybody. Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By Jon on Wed Oct 31 19:36:47 GMT 2001:

Now I'm aiming for 1000-postings-on-this-thread-by-Jon. Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By 'Indie Kid' on Wed Oct 31 21:53:06 GMT 2001:

OK Lets be constructive: What would you have in an average NME?

How about decent telly previews, higher word counts, interviews in a question/answer format more often.. Less "news" as its on the net, more championing bands, get out of London.

Any news on Everett True's rag or is it a wind up? Subject: Re: NME disappearing up its own PR
Posted By Peter on Thu Nov 1 00:43:29 GMT 2001:

The interviews could be a bit more interesting - Ok, so a lot of that is down to bands with nothing intersting to say, but the journalists could at least try.(The 10 guitar bands is a good example) Obviously, I count people saying something funny as interesting (comedy forum and all that..., but it's amazing how few bands seem to have a sense of humour.). The big build up for this White Stripes interview (pop-up Adverts on the website, which i've never seen before) highlights the fact that nothing particularly new is actually contained in it. Although, having said that, i don't read that many articles in the magazine. Whoops. They just don't seem to interest me, but perhaps i should put more effort in if i'm going to attempt to start constructively criticise things (better late than never).


(btw - i have made about 45 postings to this thread. All which no of little value. I'm here to make up numbers. This is my 46th.)