NME magazine and its readers

Bodhidharma

I check this website most days, usually to see if new tours are announced, but I very often get annoyed by the ridiculous views of the writers and readers. It seems to me that they are intent on plugging pretty poor bands early in the hope that one of them will turn out to be the next Clash.

I dont read many of the articles and their public votes (which they have a lot of) generally give results like Matt Bellamy of Muse is a better singer than Marvin Gaye :rolleyes:

I know at 27 I am probably too old for it, but surely good music is good music regardless of age.

Am I wrong? Is NME still relevant or just a purveyor of Indie Bull****?

mike65

Still sounds like it pretty much has done for the last 35 years! :pac: The problem with the NME has always been its "ideological" baggage. Music is not allowed to be just good or bad, its got to be the right type of music.

nyarlothothep

I was in my early 20s, 26 now, and even then I realized the NME was an agenda driven rag so I don't think its because you're older that your views are different. Its the agenda/ideological bit that gets me every time, I think its a form of idiocy. I dislike hipsters and hipster indie rock for all its worth but if I heard a good song from them, something that really impressed me I would acknowledge it, I would say this is a great band/artist, I wouldn't immediately shut off my mind to it due to ideological reasons. Although I can be hypocritical myself on that count sometimes, I try not to be though.

ItsAWindUp

Most of their news stories seem to come from comments made by Liam Gallagher, usually dissing other bands (which anyone who has listened to any of Beady Eye's material will find hilarious). It really annoys me that the NME website insists on reporting every one of his utterances.

ricero

ItsAWindUp wrote: »

Most of their news stories seem to come from comments made by Liam Gallagher, usually dissing other bands (which anyone who has listened to any of Beady Eye's material will find hilarious). It really annoys me that the NME website insists on reporting every one of his utterances.

i love it

MilanPan!c

NME is basically just a big advert for record labels...

Google: NME and the vaccines - and you'll see that NME has absolutely no integrity as "press". It's probably the worst "successful music magazine" still in business.

nlgbbbblth

I bought it for 17 years, 1983 - 2000. Purely out of habit for most of the 1990s. It was great..... once.

PaulieBoy

nlgbbbblth wrote: »

I bought it for 17 years, 1983 - 2000. Purely out of habit for most of the 1990s. It was great..... once.

+1. It was a fantastic read back in the day!
I do agree it's junk at this stage. It just so happened that it popped up on google news this morning with a report on the U2 gig at Glastonbury so for the first time in years I did actually read an article from NME and it was fine, a fair and decent report including the entire set list...
Then I read about the "riot" at the gig on the BBC and just about any other news source you can find. Not a mention of any protest on the NME article?
Hardly a proper report if you miss something like that!

Oasis_Dublin

The actual magazine isn't too bad. The website is a total rag though!