Artists don't get upset about the NME slating their albums anymore? Well maybe...but Tom Odell's dad certainly got upset enough to phone them up and complain when his son's album got 0 out of 10...
Artists don't get upset about the NME slating their albums anymore? Well maybe...but Tom Odell's dad certainly got upset enough to phone them up and complain when his son's album got 0 out of 10...
I think that fact fits in quite well with the age-relevant debate. Young Tom barely seemed to care (at least not publicly), but his dad did... possibly because the NME held more sway in his father's day?
When I used to read NME seriously it was in the days of Paul Morley, Julie Burchill, Nick Kent, Charles Shaar Murray, Tony Parsons, Tony Tyler. I actually valued them for their writing skills which weren't far off the standards of Lester Bangs and Tom Wolfe and the new journalism.
For me writing about music is quite difficult at times and there is an art of rock journalism which has largely been lost in the modern world of user generated reviews.
The problem with the NME is they turn on acts for no reason and champion wilfully obscure music. When Stephen Fry decried journalists for a variety of reasons I automatically thought of the NME and it's writers. I used to read it in the mid-90's, but by 2001 or so I couldn't tolerate the nonsensical views of some of their journalists.
I'm no fan of the rag, but they bloody well should be championing obscure acts. That's its raison d'etre.
In defence of NME it did convince me to buy Boards Of Canada - 'Geogaddi', Dave Clarke - 'World Service', Aphex Twin - 'Drukqs', Squarepusher - 'Go Plastic', Roots Manuva - 'Run Come Save Me' and The Strokes - 'Is This It' during my teenage years so it wasn't all bad (though it did champion a load of absolute shite). Thank God Jockey **** was still around back then.
I haven't read the NME for years. I have got older and my music tastes have changed. I think it a magazine which panders to the teenage rebel. Now I read the magazines that pander to nostalgia-hound. And I get them mainly for the reviews and free CD.
During my days there some decent writers like Johnny Cigarettes and whenever they allowed Steven Wells to review something it was always funny.
On a side note whilst waiting for my haircut the barbers had VIVA on with the UK TOP 20. It seemed that every record is poor, soundalike, rap record about ****ing women. it made wonder if I had gotten old as I thought the charts were much better in my day.
Read the NME review of the new Arctic Monkeys album, proves that it has absolutely no importance whatsoever. Trash.
Dear God, it's just embarrassing, isn't it? NME's obsequious fawning over the Monkeys has gone beyond arse-licking to hero worship.
Don't get me wrong, "AM" is a fairly decent record. They've matured quite nicely into a Big Rock Band who can probably sound good in a stadium environment now (as opposed to the closet confines of an indie nightclub for their trebly, New Wave inspired début) but the string of superlatives scattered throughout that review are just laughable.
Best album of the last decade? Really? Is the NME that desperate to cling to their dwindling readership that their judgement has been clouded so severely? The average Metacritic review is around 8/10 which feels more fair and balanced - it's good, but not that good.
I stopped reading the NME at the end of the 90s when they turned from being leaders providing new music into followers pandering to their readership. Nowadays they're doing little more than trying to catch up with an ever-shifting zeitgeist moulded by the speed and immediacy of the internet, a steam-powered publication in a world living in the space age.
i suppose young people didn't buy her string of platinum singles either.:rolleyes: the truth is she had cross generation appeal, she must have done to have sold so many units.
The reason Adele sold so many records was because she managed to tap into the biggest market of all - people who don't buy records.
It's the same market occupied by James Blunt and Susan Boyle. Sure, there will have been plenty of sales to both older and younger music fans - but those will have been dwarfed by the people whose CD collections barely run into double digits.
Sorry to be off topic, but I thought I'd address this point as I used to work at James Blunt's label when "Back To Bedlam" came out. We knew we had a good record on our hands, but it went into the stratosphere everywhere - because people who didn't like music DID like that album.
The aforementioned Steven Wells wrote the funniest review of a Squarepusher album:
"This is utter shit. 0/10"
I quite liked the album myself but I liked the way Swells either liked and artist or didn't and had no problem telling you his thoughts. There were better reviewers but none quite so funny.
The reason Adele sold so many records was because she managed to tap into the biggest market of all - people who don't buy records.
It's the same market occupied by James Blunt and Susan Boyle. Sure, there will have been plenty of sales to both older and younger music fans - but those will have been dwarfed by the people whose CD collections barely run into double digits.
Sorry to be off topic, but I thought I'd address this point as I used to work at James Blunt's label when "Back To Bedlam" came out. We knew we had a good record on our hands, but it went into the stratosphere everywhere - because people who didn't like music DID like that album.
Of course smaller financial rewards might be a good thing and flush out those just in it for the money. Lack of financial reward did not stop the blues singers in the early half of the last century from producing some really good music.
Swells could be funny no question depending how sharp he was on that day. Others could just be infantile ranting. The fella had a terrible tunnel vision attitude to music though, basically if it wasn't a means of protest, it wasn't worth anything.
Comments
I think that fact fits in quite well with the age-relevant debate. Young Tom barely seemed to care (at least not publicly), but his dad did... possibly because the NME held more sway in his father's day?
Modern? It was first published a good 25 years before Smash Hits was.
For me writing about music is quite difficult at times and there is an art of rock journalism which has largely been lost in the modern world of user generated reviews.
I know
I mean in its current form, not its 80's heyday
The "Der" was unnecessary, but as you were....
So you're saying the format and content of the NME currently is like Smash Hits used to be?
I'm no fan of the rag, but they bloody well should be championing obscure acts. That's its raison d'etre.
During my days there some decent writers like Johnny Cigarettes and whenever they allowed Steven Wells to review something it was always funny.
On a side note whilst waiting for my haircut the barbers had VIVA on with the UK TOP 20. It seemed that every record is poor, soundalike, rap record about ****ing women. it made wonder if I had gotten old as I thought the charts were much better in my day.
Dear God, it's just embarrassing, isn't it? NME's obsequious fawning over the Monkeys has gone beyond arse-licking to hero worship.
Don't get me wrong, "AM" is a fairly decent record. They've matured quite nicely into a Big Rock Band who can probably sound good in a stadium environment now (as opposed to the closet confines of an indie nightclub for their trebly, New Wave inspired début) but the string of superlatives scattered throughout that review are just laughable.
Best album of the last decade? Really? Is the NME that desperate to cling to their dwindling readership that their judgement has been clouded so severely? The average Metacritic review is around 8/10 which feels more fair and balanced - it's good, but not that good.
I stopped reading the NME at the end of the 90s when they turned from being leaders providing new music into followers pandering to their readership. Nowadays they're doing little more than trying to catch up with an ever-shifting zeitgeist moulded by the speed and immediacy of the internet, a steam-powered publication in a world living in the space age.
The reason Adele sold so many records was because she managed to tap into the biggest market of all - people who don't buy records.
It's the same market occupied by James Blunt and Susan Boyle. Sure, there will have been plenty of sales to both older and younger music fans - but those will have been dwarfed by the people whose CD collections barely run into double digits.
Sorry to be off topic, but I thought I'd address this point as I used to work at James Blunt's label when "Back To Bedlam" came out. We knew we had a good record on our hands, but it went into the stratosphere everywhere - because people who didn't like music DID like that album.
"This is utter shit. 0/10"
I quite liked the album myself but I liked the way Swells either liked and artist or didn't and had no problem telling you his thoughts. There were better reviewers but none quite so funny.
Of course smaller financial rewards might be a good thing and flush out those just in it for the money. Lack of financial reward did not stop the blues singers in the early half of the last century from producing some really good music.