NME - useless waste of paper?

[Tim2006]

Ok so it's now a few weeks down the line since the NME printed their exclusive 'on good authority' article about the line-up this year. It seems to have got it pretty accurate on the headliners - Neil Young, Springsteen and Blur.

However, this was no great surprise as everyone was talking about this little trio anyway.

With regards the others in their list:

depeche mode

doves

franz ferdinand

lily allen

the ting tings

kaiser chiefs

rolf harris

the specials

kanye west

grace jones

orbital

fleetwood mac

keane

...,which ones do you think definitely won't play? Do you think the NME have got it right or do you think it's just a plain ol' useless waste of paper that's well past its sell by-date???

Edited February 22, 2009 by Tim2006

[kinglewi]

Yes its a load of rubbish, daily mail of music i call it.

Most the band on there, were already self confirmed or strong rumours on the line-up on efests, depeche mode definetly are not and i also doubt fleetwood mac will play.

[popcornmaster]

NME - useless waste of paper?

hmmm interesting, what if you have a shortage of bog roll ? quite useful then or would people rather use their hands?

Depeche mode wont be playing

and

i dont think

- Grace jones

- Orbital

will play either

[Mardy]

yep, every day I'm more and more sure that Orbital won't play.

Grace Jones I think might though, Didn't she play some dates in London the other week? and she's UK based now. I don't know much about her really, but my mates saw her and said she was absolutely amazing.

[micawber]

Ah. Sounds like someone else is desperate to earn brownie points by dissing NME and/or The Daily Mail. Nothing better to get a good froth going on this site.

I don't know why you don't just grow up and ignore it like the rest of us. Life's too short. There are bigger battles to fight.

[Tim2006]

Ah. Sounds like someone else is desperate to earn brownie points by dissing NME and/or The Daily Mail. Nothing better to get a good froth going on this site.

I don't know why you don't just grow up and ignore it like the rest of us. Life's too short. There are bigger battles to fight.

[Wooderson]

depeche mode - nah

doves - yep

franz ferdinand - yep

lily allen - yep

the ting tings - yep

kaiser chiefs - yep

rolf harris - yep

the specials - yep

kanye west -yep

grace jones - yep

orbital - hmmm hope so but doubt it

fleetwood mac - nah

keane - yep

[kohoutec]

I used to buy it every week when I were a wee indie kid back at the beginning of the 90s, but it declined rapidly until one day I realised the only reason I was still buying it was for the fiendishly hard music crossword, and it had to stop. Only ever completed the bloody crossword 3 times I think (without cheating and googling the answers).

[Hellborne]

I still buy NME every week, and have done for nigh on 20 years now. It goes through phases, depending on what particular genre they've invented this week, but it's still one of the best places to hear about new bands, new albums, etc. Of course the reviews, etc. are all subjective, but once you recognise the reviewers name you can get an idea of how much you're likely to agree with them. It does seem to have tried to take some of the Smash Hits audience of late, but that could just be down to "indie" becoming a lot more popular than I have ever seen it. It's still the best music mag out there I think, and certainly the only weekly one.

[eFestivals]

I used to buy it every week when I were a wee indie kid back at the beginning of the 90s, but it declined rapidly until one day I realised the only reason I was still buying it was for the fiendishly hard music crossword, and it had to stop. Only ever completed the bloody crossword 3 times I think (without cheating and googling the answers).

Nah, that's not it.

It's always been that bad (since at least the late 70s) .... at first glance you think it contains more than other weekly music mags (in the days when there were other weekly music mags), but after reading it for a while to get to realise that it contains more only because it's filling its pages with made-up shite.

[anitstar]

ust made a decision a while ago not to buy it again and then got lured into buying this copy - to discover that I should never have bothered as usual!

[ivan]

Give em some credit

The NME tours are excellent !

[airds]

Nah, that's not it.

It's always been that bad (since at least the late 70s) .... at first glance you think it contains more than other weekly music mags (in the days when there were other weekly music mags), but after reading it for a while to get to realise that it contains more only because it's filling its pages with made-up shite.

[pedmills]

I've never bought an issue of the physical magazine but I check the website for news every now and then and I really have no problem with it. I'll admit some of their reviews are pretty terrible but in terms of the news they report they cover a reasonably diverse range of music and acts. They do put maybe a little bit too much emphasis on new bands, but I can accept this, since the N stands for new. Of course they neglect some genres of music (eg world, jazz) but its designed to give news on popular music, so this is entirely understandable. I have never known them to 'make up shite' etc. It is a good site for reading music news. I doubt the magazine and the website are done by the same people, and I suspect they may have a different attitude to journalism. (I notice that the list above was not reported on the website).

[eFestivals]

I have never known them to 'make up shite' etc.

oh dear.

If you want it from a number of ex-nme journos own mouths I suggest that you watch "Blood on the Turntables" which gets shown on BBC3 every now and then (not that it took a watch of that for me to realise).

[pedmills]

oh dear.

If you want it from a number of ex-nme journos own mouths I suggest that you watch "Blood on the Turntables" which gets shown on BBC3 every now and then (not that it took a watch of that for me to realise).

[The Nal]

Does it actually mention NME.COM at any point? I am not sure you read my post properly. I am 100% specifically referring to the website, not the magazine.

Edited February 23, 2009 by The Nal

[eFestivals]

Does it actually mention NME.COM at any point? I am not sure you read my post properly. I am 100% specifically referring to the website, not the magazine.

having been to give them some bullshit consultancy () on how to make their offerings better, I know that both are written by many of the same staff.

[pedmills]

The popularity of the NME fascinates me, (e or otherwise). Ive bought a few (few too many) copies in my time, maybe 10, ever. And every one of them have been a waste of time. Its awfully written, really really bad, it constantly has an agenda, the journos are up their own arse, its design is awful, it champions shite bands just because they “discovered” them first and they report everything Noel Gallagher says, like, EVERYTHING, as if hes some sort of messiah. When people like Nick Kent are considered "legends" because of it you know theyre a crowd of c**ts.

Where the f**k is the appeal with it?

[The Nal]

I like to hear about music news (when bands have albums out, when they are going on tour etc etc). All I want is a website which puts this information together. I like the layout and the range of acts is surprisingly better than a lot of sites I have encountered. Occasionally they will put in a story which is a waste of space (e.g "Noel Gallagher admits he is rubbish at guitar.") but this isn't very often and I can easily ignore them. I will admit the reviews are biased and inconsistent, but I don't use nme.com for reviews, I use it for news.

[sifi]

And the mag isn’t even useful as bogroll.

Edited February 23, 2009 by sifimaster

[The Nal]

The old inky version I recall was stong, thick and thoroughly absorbent

[pedmills]

having been to give them some bullshit consultancy () on how to make their offerings better, I know that both are written by many of the same staff.

[eFestivals]

Okay fine, but until I see a news story which is actual bullshit, I don't believe the site is any worse than any music news site. The only occasion I can remember of them bullshitting is when they claimed last glasto's lineup leak was an exclusive, which if I remember correctly, was published here first.

I didn't say their news stories were bullshit ..... but there's often bullshit within them alongside accurate info, and their news output is generally very poor - such as only mentioning a few of the bands that are announced for a festival rather than the whole announcement.

Talking about stuff they've taken from here, well, yup, they've copied efests info verbatim before now and claimed it as their own exclusive. There's no doubt at all that they've done this, because what they published was listed here in a unique way, and not replicated in that manner anywhere else.

So although I didn't say they bullshit with their news, they very definitely do.

(apols if you're finding efests a bit slow at the minute - one of the servers is currently offline for an upgrade. It'll be back online very shortly).

[pedmills]

I didn't say their news stories were bullshit ..... but there's often bullshit within them alongside accurate info, and their news output is generally very poor - such as only mentioning a few of the bands that are announced for a festival rather than the whole announcement.

Talking about stuff they've taken from here, well, yup, they've copied efests info verbatim before now and claimed it as their own exclusive. There's no doubt at all that they've done this, because what they published was listed here in a unique way, and not replicated in that manner anywhere else.

So although I didn't say they bullshit with their news, they very definitely do.

(apols if you're finding efests a bit slow at the minute - one of the servers is currently offline for an upgrade. It'll be back online very shortly).