Talk:NME
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Stall at Glasto
- Have changed the bit at bottom about the paper having a stall at Glastonbury, they don't, but they do have them at most festivals.
- They used to. Wasn't the alt stage called the NME stage in the early 90s? I remember them giving out free NMEs from their stall. --kingboyk 04:51, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] POV?
"British music became dull and uninventive" - do I hear someone say POV? Joolz 20:14, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- agreed. this article is fawning of the magazine. in truth many observers are very critical of the direction that the NME has taken. Electing Pete Doherty to be the "Coolest Man of Rock" in 2004 was especially controversial as the man is a self confessed crack addict. Also, the late 90s and early 2000s the NME championed many new bands that would not get a smigin of attention now - Mogwai and Godspeed You! Black Emperor both obtained front pages during those days, something that would be unheard of for post-rock acts now. Other popular indie acts during the late 90s, such as Symposium and Idlewild, were certainly not dull or uninventive. They now tend, IMO, to establish very safe acts which sell well on MTV and on the Radio - the Libertines, The Strokes or Muse for example.
- - Yeah, the NME briefly put much more emphasis on underground music between 'Britpop' and the 'New Rock Revolution'. Theyve lost a lot of credibility since then and websites like Pitchfork seem to be the main source of information for more discerning Indie fans now. I think the NME has successfully found a niche though.
- This article needs a lot of work. Snooo 02:52, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I replaced the offending sentance but it still needs more work. --Moochocoogle 16:05, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
-
- I don't agree that the NME champions "safe acts" (who, realistically, thinks that Pete Doherty is a good role model?) - rather that any band that can be deemed new and cool is now picked up by the mainstream a lot faster than previously, and is then marketed and promoted to death because "new" and "cool" sell very well at the moment. It's not as if the NME has suddenly gone all Smash Hits and is hyping James Blunt...
-
- Do agree that the article could use a bit of work - but it's fundamentally sound, IMHO.
-
- 62.60.124.52
[edit] Really really hot
"...even attracting a rather obsessive fanbase online because they are really really hot."
- Yeah. Not just really hot. Really really hot. Can we fix this? Stan weller 07:43, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
- I think it was vandalism. I removed it. Thanks for pointing it out, it is often tough to spot subtle vandalism like that.--Commander Keane 07:48, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] NME tour 2006
I can assure the person who keeps editing the NME tour 2006 that the aforementioned
- 2006: Maxïmo Park, Arctic Monkeys, We Are Scientists, Mystery Jets will be part of the NME tour.
[edit] Pointless?
is it me or does anyone find NME completely pointless?
- Music doesn't have to have a point. That's why it's music. Or is that candy? Stan weller 14:14, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] NPOV
The line However McNicholas has been criticised for dropping journalist standards and concentrating on more commercial and tabloid press aspects. In December 2005 accusations were made that the NME end of year poll had been edited for commercial and political reasons. These criticisms have not affected the sales of the paper or stopped McNicholas from winning industry awards. was edited as being NPOV by an anon user. Seeing as the accusation links to a news story in The Guardian and was reported elsewhere, it strikes me that this is entirely legitimate to include in the article.
Anyone else agree, if there's an obvious consensus then it should stay as it highlights the current criticisms of the paper.
This should stay if it is properly referenced to the Guardian article.--TheCooperman 23:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
While I broadly agree that 'journalistic' standards have been dropped in a way NME has had to move with the times. The idea of Rock Journalism seems very old fashioned now. I think if there are any legitimate criticisms then we can put a section in regarding this but I can't find any in the mainstream media. Ketha
I would agree that the standards in the NME have suffered a major drop in quality under its current ed. I think the last decent artical i read in the NME was about kasabian when they were still a small supporting act, and the best part of the interview took part in there tiny dressing room. Is it just me or does anyone see a pattern in the fact that this indie rave movment is getting alot of press when you consider the ed's prior work - steven
I think Henry Rollins' account of an interview(referred to in "Smile, you're travelling") he gave to one of the NME's "journalists" is the best illustration of said rag's ethos; the interviewer was telling him that good music was cheap, pointless, and disposable, and that "Monolithic" stuff like the Rollins band was killing music. Rollins responded by asking him how he rated the disposability factor of, say, Aretha Franklin or Al Green, to which the journo "Didnt have an awful lot to say about that".
[edit] NME Awards
The NME awards were called 'the Brat Awards' for a short time and were reinstated as a backlash against the universally derided industry yawn-fest Brit Awards. I think this should be noted.
[edit] covering "pop" acts
NME has always covered so-called "pop" acts. Lily Allen is not an exception to this. Kylie, Mel C, Destiny's Child and many more have all featured on the cover (to the derision of indie-snob fans). Other cover stars include Aphex Twin, Mogwai, Godspeed, Napster(!) and Ken Livingstone. It is an elitist group of snobs who despise all music except "four haircuts and a guitar" droneage that are critical of NME's covering of bands and artists that sell as well as what is "cool".
[edit] POV Violation
It seems that this has been a consistent problem here. I through the tag on because, well, among some of the forementioned problems, you get this statement in the first paragraph "It gained underground popularity in particular during the punk era but has recently been making up music scenes and championing incredibly mediocre rock bands in a pathetic attempt to sell more copies." This needs some work, as well as many other things.
-It cannot be denied that they have a habit-like many influential members of the media- to decide what today will be "pop". The "indie snobs" are people who beleive that the magazine ignores anything that is not part of the "scene" at this moment or time.
- eg:The recent emo music onslaught that was first laughed at but now seems to be the new "scene".
It does need a little work. But I find it hard to fix it without pointing out they were pushing forward Pete Doherty and the likes.
[edit] Comments removed
I've removed some of the more curious and unencyclopaedic comments, namely "these affected McNicholas' relentless self-belief" and the utterly bizarre paragraph about NME readers' hairstyles. RobinCarmody, 06:16 GMT, 12 November 2006
[edit] The Enemy
Have deleted the following statement, and slightly rewritten the paragraph in which it was included, as it suggests that the moniker was an invention of the punk movement:
The NME was seen as The Enemy and very much part of the music establishment that Punk was rebelling against.
The term was in fact already in use in the mid-60s by jazz musicians who were critical of the coverage NME was giving to pop/rock groups at the expense of jazz. 83.180.171.59 23:07, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Rock 'n' Roll Riot Tour
This started as late as 2004 - not 2006 as stated. I can;t remember who was on the lineups though - Prehaps someone can correct it. I half rememeber Razorlight doing 2004 and Kaiser Chiefs in 2005 if that will help jog any memories... --Donald V 18:11, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Criticism, anyone?
I know Wikipedia is meant to be neutral. But there is plenty of criticism that can be thrown at that awful magazine - for example, a few years back they faked there awards so bands that NME liked won rather than bands it didn't. It also has been accused of having an obscene interest in not only pop-indie bands but pop bands and selling out, so it can no longer be accused of being the word on indie music.
Many 'indie-kids' like myself have grown tired of the bullshit that feel their pages. The magazine is so vacuous that it can take less than 10 minutes to read through. So where's the criticism? It's still worth while even it's tiny. Recently wikipedia has become white-washed because of it's neutrality and ends up promoting usually brands like NME. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.6.163.65 (talk) 08:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC).
