Is NME magazine really THAT bad?

[504329lt]

Best music mag is 'The Big Cheese'

http://www.bigcheesemagazine.com/

[YouWhat]

Don't Know.....Don't Buy It.......What difference does it make if its good or bad ??

[robith]

A very good magazine is Plan B, it covers a broad spectrum of music but particularly those which are more interesting and alternative.

I also like Artrocker as it covers a lot of exciting new bands before NME.

I still have a place in my heart for NME, I know it gets it wrong as much as it get's it right but you generally hear about good bands along with the bad...and it's all a matter of taste anyway.

The website is fine not as good as Drowned in Sound, but still pretty useful for getting news pretty quickly (even if it's not "Exclusive")

The NME Tours are good value for money too.

[dannypal]

nme is utter crap, they cant write, they dont really write articles on cutting edge new music and they are just stuck up their own arses - if i wanted a magazine with skins on the front cover id by some teen magazine

[daveinafield]

NME was good, in the time before the internet it was how we got our music news. It was also a fine pot of writers like Burchill and Kent and the writers were sometimes as influentialas the bands, even though the crucified some of my fave bands of all time id still buy it over glasto weekend as its a tradition for me also i still dont think of it as a magazine put a paper when the ink would come of on your hands

[thomasowen]

they never were. It's been as awful as it is now for at least 30 years.

I reckon it's easy to realise why people think it used to be good back in <insert date here> but isn't now - people grow up!!

The simple fact is that when you first read it it's easy to be impressed by it - it'll be talking about the sorts of bands you'll be discovering by yourself, and so it matches your tastes. After a while of regular reading tho you get to realise that it's not actually saying anything worthwhile about those bands, and you get to start to notice how much bollox its talking (that'll be because it has pages to fill each week whether thetre's actually anything interesting to say or not).

As I say, it's been as awful now as it's been for the last 30 years.

It's extremely sad that the very worst of the once many weekly music papers is the one that survived (even Record Mirror was better before it went all 'pop' in the mid-eighties). But as it's now the last surviving, despite it's very many faults I'd be very sad to see it go.

[Hellborne]

Why buy a weekly, when by the time you have read it, its old news!

[Hellborne]

they never were. It's been as awful as it is now for at least 30 years.

I reckon it's easy to realise why people think it used to be good back in <insert date here> but isn't now - people grow up!!

The simple fact is that when you first read it it's easy to be impressed by it - it'll be talking about the sorts of bands you'll be discovering by yourself, and so it matches your tastes. After a while of regular reading tho you get to realise that it's not actually saying anything worthwhile about those bands, and you get to start to notice how much bollox its talking (that'll be because it has pages to fill each week whether thetre's actually anything interesting to say or not).

As I say, it's been as awful now as it's been for the last 30 years.

It's extremely sad that the very worst of the once many weekly music papers is the one that survived (even Record Mirror was better before it went all 'pop' in the mid-eighties). But as it's now the last surviving, despite it's very many faults I'd be very sad to see it go.

[elfimaju]

Im 33. I got the NME every week from the age of 15 untill the last year or so, It was not so much the content that made me give it up it was the amount. I dont like paying that amount of money for a nothing. I would like a "indie" style mag maybe a bit like Select used to be. I do read Q, four pound a month seems better value than 2.50 x 4 for the NME.

Still own all my old issues at my 'rents house much to there anger

[nu-marc88]

you will soon see the light and read thru there bullshit, it only took me 2 years to do so.

[William of Walworth]

I'm older than nearly all of you, so I guess it's not surprising that I only ever look at the NME very occasionally nowadays. Even checking the website for gig related stories is pretty rare for me now.

We have a fair few Glastonbury review copies from well back into the nineties between us though

[Joshuwarr]

NME is alright and does try to cover lots of genres but its writers are generally appauling. Q is terrible, it has nice articles but the reviews are awful and hardly backs new music at all. They just take the leftovers that other mags bigged up months before. Uncut is alright but my favourite has to be Artrocker

[Hellborne]

I've quite enjoyed the last couple of issues of Clash magazine. Lots of news, good interviews, loads and loads of album reviews, with a real focus on new music as well as a nod to established acts. Better than Q/Uncut/Dad Rock Monthly.

[mineapolis]

Here in Spain all music magazines are crap, it would be amazing to have anything like NME

[eFestivals]

I disagree with 30 years, it still had some great writers throughout the early 80's. To be honest I have never read any issues from the era 85-2000 so I can't comment on how it was during those years.

it was cock during the early 80s - it was the worst of the many different music weeklies - I should know, I used to buy them all each and every week.

It was cock in the late 70s too. It was also cock in the late eighties, the early nineties, the late nineties, the early naughties and the late naughties.

It was probably also cock in the early 70s, but I'm too young to know that for certain.

[cabstar]

The only reason to get NME was for the gig listings each week, now with the internet that is no longer required. Even the letters page was always the most interesting part to read but even that is crap now.

As for the writers, I feel they are more interested in furthering their own careers than the actual music they write about, hence the need to be controversial. I read one the other week in Morrisons & Mark Beaumont what a plonker!!!!!

Still not as bad as Kerrang magazine, truly dreadful, I think they have had Metallica in it now for the last 6 months

Bring back Smash Hits at least you knew the pop news was goign to be crap but those interviews where something else

[thomasowen]

it was cock during the early 80s - it was the worst of the many different music weeklies - I should know, I used to buy them all each and every week.

It was cock in the late 70s too. It was also cock in the late eighties, the early nineties, the late nineties, the early naughties and the late naughties.

It was probably also cock in the early 70s, but I'm too young to know that for certain.

[eFestivals]

As for the writers, I feel they are more interested in furthering their own careers than the actual music they write about, hence the need to be controversial. I read one the other week in Morrisons & Mark Beaumont what a plonker!!!!!

You're spot on - it's a well-trodden path for just-starting-out journos, many of whom end up in the national newspapers.

As for Mark Beaumont, I have a feeling he's on a road to nowhere - with the journos I have contact with, there's no one who has a lower reputation and no one that they have less belief in the word of.

[crosswillcastyourshadow]

New Music is NME's market, if you wanna read about Bruce and that you buy Q or some other music mag. If you wanna read about new bands that may or may not make it, then read NME. I do.

I quite like it, and i'm not ashamed to say so.

[The Beard]

Music Magazine ratings in in order of preference :

The Word-excellent

Uncut-good (used to be excellent)

Mojo-consistently good (but never excellent)

Q-bog paper

NME-soiled bog paper

[Budweiser]

I think both NME and Kerrang mags are terrible.

[crosswillcastyourshadow]

NME is good! and website is great for music news! that love glasto as well

[thomasowen]

Yep what they said.

[suchacharmer]

I read the website daily, just to find out when bands announce US tours, and when some one dies basically...being in the US means I don't really have a link to info on any of my favorite bands so it's the only way I can follow them without signing up for every fan list and polluting my inbox.

I also occasionally read the magazine, but it's not to be taken seriously. They get so excited about new bands and then just forget about them...like The Twang, Joe Lean, The View, etc...it's just a testament to the fact that they sucked from day 1 anyway.

Also, I'm the biggest Pete Doherty fan around, but do they really need to have features and "most intimate interview yet!" "Pete like you've never seen him before" "The New Pete" blah blah blah every five issues? They never say anything new about him. It's annoying, and just makes it that much easier for people to hate the poor guy.

[Chocscoffer]

Bring back Smash Hits at least you knew the pop news was goign to be crap but those interviews where something else