NME and PC's review sucks...you decide

Hey I just wanted to have some fun at someone's expense especially when they seem to have no idea on what a good raw record is...why not right??

But honestly who cares? The review's probably right that its far from the best thing they've ever done, but I while I vaguely remember caring quite a bit what the music press had to say back when I was a spotty adolescent, now I'm old and jaded I don't see why I should care about the opinion of whatever random young work-experience whippersnapper happens to be reviewing the singles this week.

Anyway, the NME looks more and more like Smash Hits these days - its just a shadow of a reflection of a ghost of its former Morley glory. Admitedly it was monumentally pretentious and po(-mo) faced in those days, but now it seems to have almost no content at all.

Oh, and be thankful Steven 'Seething' Wells isn't still around, pursuing his vendetta against all things Factory-related across all forms of media known and still to be invented.

What's PC?

77-85 i bought 'sounds',late 80/90's i got n.m.e. i still read n.m.e. every week in asda

hey don't worry about it, NME hasn't been worth reading for the last 10-15 years!

it's a bit of a joke these days and gets outsold by magazines like Kerrrang! (even though NME doesn't have Melody Maker or Sounds for competition anymore).

it's a shame really - i'd like NME to be good, buts it just.....sucks! anyhow NME kids today will be too busy buying shite like Maximo Park to even look at the New Order stuff.

digitalwaters wrote: What's PC?

I think Pete Cashmore.The guy who reviewed it.

NME is a fab, fun read. It's whole purpose is to alienate music fans who read it ten years previously. Has to reinvent itself continuously to keep relevent. Don't always agree with their reviews (such as PC's comments on the single), but it's a jolly fun read and keeps me young. At least they convey enthusiasm about music, rather than seriously enthusing about stuff.

The letters page is always good for a laugh too.

Andy

I don't read reviews from any mag and I stay away from music mags so I won't be swayed by them.

I remember when Pharrell was this great thing and I had an argument with a so called DJ because I told him that he would be gone in a year because he couldn't sing for shit. I bet the DJ couldnt DJ for shit either.

((((e))))

Johnny wrote:

digitalwaters wrote: What's PC?

I think Pete Cashmore.The guy who reviewed it.

Thanks!

I only buy NME if it's got any good free gifts- they had a great JD B&W poster collection a few months + I bought the Peel RIP issue, but otherwise I generally ignore it.

I get most of my info off the web. Even Q is crap now.

IMO, the NME should've been shut down years ago. It's mean, it's nasty and it's idiotic beyond belief. They wouldn't know a good record or band these days if it slapped them round the face - which, come to think of it, is exactly what they need!

Miss Disco wrote: IMO, the NME should've been shut down years ago. It's mean, it's nasty and it's idiotic beyond belief. They wouldn't know a good record or band these days if it slapped them round the face - which, come to think of it, is exactly what they need!

I like the way you think

((((e))))

Miss Disco wrote: IMO, the NME should've been shut down years ago. It's mean, it's nasty and it's idiotic beyond belief. They wouldn't know a good record or band these days if it slapped them round the face - which, come to think of it, is exactly what they need!

Fook me i thought the nme had gone years ago!

Quite sad really,the nme usually gives 10 out of ten ratings to obscure bands like the carpet munchers or the triads or some shit like that. And to quote miss disco: They wouldn't know a good record or band these days if it slapped them round the face!

Tis true!

((((e)))) wrote: I don't read reviews from any mag and I stay away from music mags so I won't be swayed by them.

I remember when Pharrell was this great thing and I had an argument with a so called DJ because I told him that he would be gone in a year because he couldn't sing for shit. I bet the DJ couldnt DJ for shit either.

((((e))))

pharrell's still around and, according to my students, 'totally hot.' *sigh* with the neptunes and NERD (and being crowned the world's best-dressed man by GQ last month), he's one busy man. jesus, i sound like his freaking publicist.

anyway, i never read the NME or melody maker on a regular basis, although i did read Q (especially if it had a decent free CD attached). the only NME i own is the 1993 one with barney on the cover. the NME 'madchester' special magazine that came out a year or two ago is interesting though, as you can read what the reviewers thought about the bands when they were still emerging artists.

when i was a pre-teen and in my early teens i thought that rolling stone was the bible; now i don't even bother to skim through it in barnes & noble. however, i made the connection between new order and joy division by reading an article about new order in rolling stone, written by mikal gilmore. when i found out he was gary gilmore's little brother i almost pooed in my pants.

Miss Disco wrote: IMO, the NME should've been shut down years ago. It's mean, it's nasty and it's idiotic beyond belief. They wouldn't know a good record or band these days if it slapped them round the face - which, come to think of it, is exactly what they need!

And on what grounds do you base this? From the NME that i actually read, it doesnt seem to be mean and nasty at all. It is slightly idiotic. But, in the last two years it has given priceless exposure to The Killers, The Ordinary Boys, Kaiser Chiefs, Futureheads, Arcade Fire, The Bravery, and loads of other bands. This has contributed to the most vibrant music scen we've had in decades. Also, it gave New Order priceless publicity, remember the 'God Like' Genius award? If anything, the magazine is too nice. It gives good reviews to average bands, and is persisently guilty of over hyping bands. Bloc Party and the Magic Numbers for instance.

Your comment about the NME not knowing a good record if it slapped them in the face is the most idiotic comment i have seen on this board since last weeks gayest straight band thread. This year, it gave Some Cites by Doves 9/10. Same with the Elbow record. Ditto Kaiser Chiefs. Same with the Arcade Fire. Hell, even the I Am Kloot album got a good review.

It is therefore my belief that your comment about mean, nasty and idiotic is based on the fact that it gave BRMC a bad review (and rightly so, because their first two albums, and their live performances are as dull as ditchwater) and because they didnt used to like the Stereophonics. If you actually opened your eyes, and your ears, and saw what was going on around you.

And, if something or someone is mean, nasty and idiotic, does that really mean they should be shut down? What world do you think we live in, Communist Russia?

fooking hell liam,thats the longest thing ive ever seen you write i read the n.m.e. every week still.mainly in the asda ha ha did get last weeks though with the great and amusing student guide.smile@star and garter was described as a cool manchester institution. i didnt see the elbow review but glad they are still backing them.

what did the review say?

"But, in the last two years it has given priceless exposure to The Killers, The Ordinary Boys, Kaiser Chiefs, Futureheads, Arcade Fire, The Bravery, and loads of other bands. This has contributed to the most vibrant music scen we've had in decades."

You fishing for a job at King's Reach Tower, Liam?? And 'the most vibrant music scene we've had in decades' - pur-leeeeeeeeeeeeeeez!!!!!!!! The NME always says that 'cos its job is to make the kids think that they're living trough the most important music epoch in history (and thus need to buy their rag on a weekly basis to keep bang-up-to-date).

Plus The Bravery really are arse.:D

no they're not!

And this is the most vibrant scene we've had, at least since the 80's. Think about it, there are literally loads of good bands out there now. Fair enough, there are a load of shit ones as well (specifically: the magic numbers, babyshambles, bloc party) but the basic fact is, at no time in the last twenty years could you have seen as many genuine quality bands as you can now.

I criticise the NME on a regular basis mainly because of its over hyping of shit new bands. But saying that it wouldnt know a good record if it slapped them in the face is just plain stupid.

the nme is very slow to pick up on bands these days IMO

they should have been championing people like stars, spoon, death cab for cutie for the last few years & new upcoming bands like iliketrains, redjetson, komakino, mistys big adventure & so forth

instead we get the top 30 acts

Uncle Liam wrote: no they're not!

And this is the most vibrant scene we've had, at least since the 80's. Think about it, there are literally loads of good bands out there now. Fair enough, there are a load of shit ones as well (specifically: the magic numbers, babyshambles, bloc party) but the basic fact is, at no time in the last twenty years could you have seen as many genuine quality bands as you can now.

I criticise the NME on a regular basis mainly because of its over hyping of shit new bands. But saying that it wouldnt know a good record if it slapped them in the face is just plain stupid.

You're probably right on that last point, but isn't the most obvious thing about the current darlings of the music press that they're just a facsimile of early 80s combos (albeit sometimes quite good facsimilies)?? And if you really think The Bravery et al are as exciting as Acid House was (or even the holy duo of the Mondays and the Roses) then you're wrong, frankly!!

While no band which has emerged in the last 3 years is anywhere near as good as the Stone Roses, the Mondays surely were never that good, at least on record. Live was probably different, although I wouldnt know (and i'm not wasting 30 odd quid on going to see Shaun Ryders travelling circus this year) As for Acid House, as Noel Gallagher (i think) once said, it was shit but once you were on acid it was the best thing in the world.

Personally, give me Mystery Jets, British Sea Power, The Futureheads etc over Acid House any day.

isnt this all as futile as a football argument?

you like what you like

Barney Army wrote: isnt this all as futile as a football argument?

you like what you like

Good point, mate.

The review said that with Erasure and Bananarama releasing great singles, it showed up WFTSC.

I stopped reading after that.

I haven't read NME since the late eighties. Yeah, I used to crack up reading the monumental slagging matches they printed in the letters section.

But you're right. They are very guilty of overhyping bands. It was a pattern. They would build them up to hopelessly great heights and then take great pleasure in publicly knocking them down when 'flavour of the month' had passed.

I often wonder about the theory of music journalist hacks being frustrated musicians in disguise.Probably explains why Neil Tennant saw the light and left 'Smash Hits'for greener pastures.

Remember all the fabricated hype over the whole 'Blur hates Oasis hates Blur' campaign. Dear me, nothing's changed since the 'Beatles hate the Stones hate the Beatles' . It's just a different decade of sensationalism.

And don't tell me they had no part to play in the break up of The Smiths. Yes, some of us remember your past. 'Truth' is a track of 'Movement' NME. -Try listening to it sometime.

Bigmouth Strikes again..:)

Procession wrote: It was a pattern. They would build them up to hopelessly great heights and then take great pleasure in publicly knocking them down when 'flavour of the month' had passed.

They still do it, mate. That's why I said earlier that they're hateful and mean (or whatever exactly it was I said). That's also why I stopped reading it a couple of years ago. As for the theory that most music journos are frustrated musicians in disguise, I suspect that's right in most cases. In fact, I think a lot of them are actually failed musicians who like to take their bitterness out on bands who've made it.

A perfect example was The Jesus and Mary Chain.

Uncle Liam wrote: While no band which has emerged in the last 3 years is anywhere near as good as the Stone Roses, the Mondays surely were never that good, at least on record. Live was probably different, although I wouldnt know (and i'm not wasting 30 odd quid on going to see Shaun Ryders travelling circus this year) As for Acid House, as Noel Gallagher (i think) once said, it was shit but once you were on acid it was the best thing in the world.

Personally, give me Mystery Jets, British Sea Power, The Futureheads etc over Acid House any day.

The same Noel Gallagher who said something like, Aphex Twin has released a track with at 0 bpm and Moby has done at 1000bpm so there's no point doing anything else? Didn't he then go on to release some of his own attempts at the genre? He then sang on Chemical Brothers records as well? He's a clot.

I've never taken a hallucinagenic drug, people who dismiss Acid House as music for druggies just don't get it. Danny Tenaglia didn't do drugs until after 2000. Absolute bollocks to suggest you needed to take drugs to enjoy it.

Bummed was a great record as well.

Take magazine reviews as what they are (opinions), rather than following them like the Bible.

If I picked one random person and they didn't like a particular album you think i'd take their word as law? Psht, fuck off.

Unfortunately, music is far more subjective than other things people review (games, software, perhaps even movies - especially if you choose critics that are your kind of people), so opinions mean precisely what you think they mean. Erm.. fuck all.

Just to let you know that the latest NME has a half-page review of "Singles", and ends up giving it a 9 out of 10!

Unfortunately, I didn't buy the mag (can't bring myself to buy it nowadays, as it's shite), so can't scan the review in, but worth a browse in your local newsagents! :p

Woohoo. Still not buying it, but up the publicity!

Miss Disco wrote:

Procession wrote: It was a pattern. They would build them up to hopelessly great heights and then take great pleasure in publicly knocking them down when 'flavour of the month' had passed.

They still do it, mate. That's why I said earlier that they're hateful and mean (or whatever exactly it was I said). That's also why I stopped reading it a couple of years ago. As for the theory that most music journos are frustrated musicians in disguise, I suspect that's right in most cases. In fact, I think a lot of them are actually failed musicians who like to take their bitterness out on bands who've made it.

How do you know? You dont read it!