The Darkness Vs NME

but those planks at the NME, are still publishing news stories on the Dork-ness/Darkness: today, quoting Xfm sources on darkness album 2

http://www.nme.com/news/107560.htm

There's a germ of truth in this. Despite it not really being any of his business, the Il Duce of music journalism has been known to throw his weight around on this issue. It was especially tricky when he had to do one himself last year (The Sleepy Jackson/The Basement) and absolutely hated it!

Can understand his point, though. What's the point in putting on what you consider to be the best new bands and then saying, "Actually they're not much cop, are they?"

the darkness are crap.

dido is a parody of the sensitive female singer songwriter.
the darkness are a parody of heavy metal.

it's a LAFF, DO YOU NOT SEE?

MY LIFE IS FOR RENT AND NO, NO, I DON'T WANT TO BUY!!!

If they're the best new bands, why would they not be any cop?

If they aren't any cop, and yet your magazine has proclaimed them the best new band, don't you think audiences will then question your authority? and question it further when told by the mag that a shit performance was actually great?

Do you not think people would rather buy a magazine that doesn't treat its readers like absolute fuckwit morons, and credits them with a little intelligence?

Stevie I've seen some of the acts you like (according to your rather good magazines) and if you listed the 'best new bands' then around 90% of the time they would be no cop whatsoever (according to me). They would very likely never have even flirted with the concept of cop. Which is completely fair enough.

And which is why the tactics Suzy's talking about upthread are entirely sucky, obv.

(Not really, it's just that his taste simply isn't mine, and I suspect most music press readers - if not letters page correspondents - have the wit to realise that one paper can print different opinions on the same band or record, because they emply -gasp- different writers.)

that's exactly my point, tim... but, when i was at NME (and i suspect now as well) that kind of conjecture was being erased from both the mag and the letters page. i don't think i've ever once read a negative view on the strokes in NME, and this is a conscious thing in many ways (and why reading such consensus is just rilly fricking dull).

Gene??? Wasnt that like 200 years ago???

obviously, however, a world tailored to exactly my tastes would be a wonderful wonderful thing indeed.

i wasnt aware that you lived in any other world, stevie.

not quite sure what you mean doomie. not quite sure you do either.

YA GOT ME STEVIE.

*plays tune to deliverance on me banjo*

i read reviews because i want to know the reviewer's opinion of the gig, not what their boss has told them to write. is that too difficult to understand?

but saying a gig put on by the NME was good because it was put on by the NME, not because the writer/reviewer themselves thinks so, is not INFORMATION. it is DISINFORMATION.

but saying a gig put on by the NME was good because it was put on by the NME, not because the writer/reviewer themselves thinks so, is not INFORMATION. it is DISINFORMATION.

DISINFORMATION is INFORMATION, STILL. listen i'm just saying that i'm not like two-face who needs a scarred coin to make decisions - music magazines are not the scarred coin for me - music magazines present INFORMATION. i make up, as do many others, their own opinion after d/ling it.

It's this more honest approach (while still couched in general praise) that you don't seem to get in an NME Brats review or even a general review of a current hypee or reviews generally.

Also, people on the Interweb often forget that there are still a large number of people without P2P/MP3 access.

but i love that you think the fact that i expect a review to contain opinions the reader can either agree or disagree with to be symptomatic of some egomania you consider me to suffer from.

live reviews are not pointless, again, they present information, that is informative and entertaining based on live v. record.

haha x-post

on a related note - i dl/purchase stuff mostly as a result of reviews i read that pique my interest; opinion, whether stated explicitly or implicit in the writer's approach/style, is a key ingredient here. otherwise, how am i choosing what to download/buy when presented with the hundreds of thousands of releases out there?

please!

we agree to disagree.

also, jim robinson otm.

or do you often write pieces while holding no opinion whatsoever about your subject?

of course. it's more post-modern, baby!!

for fuck's sake, doomie, save for the commodity you invest in the music (money vs time and bandwidth) how is this any different? you won't buy things motivated by a reviewer, but you will seek them out, amongst the welter of music out there, and listen to them - ergo, you are operating on the whim of the reviewer, fuelled and fired by their opinion expressed through the information they select to share in the review...

ENGAGE THE ARGUMENT, DOOMPATROL. or admit that there are contradictions in your argument. i'd like to think that simply deflecting with flippancies is beneath you (though i'm increasingly not so sure).

Jimmy

I can't understand your logic. It kind of seems to be based on some weird idea that "It's OK if people lie, because some people read the lies, but have already decided they disagree, so end up at their own truth".

It is complete nonsense! The reason any magazine will maintain a level of success is because of the intergrity of the writers. At certain times people will put their faith in someone who, to that date, they agreed with the music taste. To find that it is crap, because their boss is pulling strings is awful.

Where does your argument stop? Editors take advertising backhanders from labels in return for punting up good reviews, as that will generate sales???? Does this give any sort of highlight of the biggest Financial markets crisis in recent years????

People expect honesty and integrity in a magazine. A chinese wall between the advertising department and the reviewers. If that is not the case, I would really prefer the magazine to be driven to the wall.

As for the fact that people can check before they buy, so propoganda and bullshit is fine by magazines once again? That's just pure nonsense, imho.

I can't understand your logic. It kind of seems to be based on some weird idea that "It's OK if people lie, because some people read the lies, but have already decided they disagree, so end up at their own truth".

arrgh. i wrote a huge response but it crashed probably in jimmy not being flippant but serious shocker. and i can't be arsed to rewrite.

basically the short form was...

a) culture is changing;
b) mp3 and download culture is no longer counter culture but culture;
c) how does this change 'opinion'?;
d) i think information and entertainment and stroking the curiousity of the reader is perhaps more important than opinion;
e) readers now have access to mp3 and can be entertained, take information away and form their own opinion.

and then i gave an example about 'wendy and bonnie' - how i enjoyed a review, was sparked by the information to go to amazon, listened to the samples available and bought the record.

i think maybe things might be changing - for better or for worse. its the speed of x-factor in culture.

and no, i don't lie in my reviews, i can honestly say that everything i've written about was because i thought it was worthy to write about. maybe i'm 'different'.
a)

doomie. do you honestly fail to see that 'opinion' as expressed in a review goes so much deeper than just saying 'this is good' at the end of the review - that 'opinion' threads through a good review like sinew, that subtleties such as choice of words and angle of approach, even the fact that you are choosing to review said record, is all an expression of this very 'opinion' you think is so unimportant to reviewing?

and no, i don't lie in my reviews, i can honestly say that everything i've written about was because i thought it was worthy to write about. maybe i'm 'different'.

No, you are not. But do you not see that this very action is an expression of opinion?

Yes, but people still have to make the choice between the thousands and thousand of mp3's available. Other than picking ones at random or being lucky enough to hear it on the radio/TV/web/whatever the reviewer still has (even more of) a role in creating interest in the artist. As you said a review of Wendy and Bonnie piqued your interest to investigate further, what was it which made you check it out?

i want EXCITEMENT. I WANT PASSION! I WANT UNDILATED LOVE OF ROCK'N'ROLL! I WANT TO FEEL MUSIC!

do you not feel this rapturous sentiment might be somewhat compromised by being told exactly what to write by your magazine's marketing dept?

However, I still don't see how this allows for a purely informative review. Stevie otm. And how do you factor in people like Stevie and I who actually WANT a well-expressed opinion? We might be a minority (I don't think we are) but we ain't going quietly.

Also, what is the point of reviews if your argument is allowed to stand? No to consumer guide, no to opinions, yes to info - so why put this in review form?

stevie, i'm still working on this, but this whole thought, was sparked by this thread - check philistine culture - it is interesting.

Anyone here ever written a book?

as i said it is something that i have been thinking about lately.

Yes, but people still have to make the choice between the thousands and thousand of mp3's available. Other than picking ones at random or being lucky enough to hear it on the radio/TV/web/whatever the reviewer still has (even more of) a role in creating interest in the artist. As you said a review of Wendy and Bonnie piqued your interest to investigate further, what was it which made you check it out?

in review culture (not articles) this is dependant on the editor, luckily i've always worked with editors from everett to my nme editors who were knew their shit and who i respected. the editor has the final say not me.

do you not feel this rapturous sentiment might be somewhat compromised by being told exactly what to write by your magazine's marketing dept?

i write liner notes and press releases as well. i was told by suzy that i was just being a mouthpiece for the marketing department. i guess i've not bothered to be cynical because i'm still deeply in love with rock'n'roll.

: - D

sorry i guess i am still gelling thoughts in my head.

have written liner notes and press releases too, i see no problem with that, because it is understood that, as you are being paid by the artist/label, you are unlikely to write anything negative (not that i'm not proud of some of my press releases, etc) - but the relationship, the compromise, is honest and out in the open. i'd say most readers read reviews expecting a little more independence and honesty from the writer, rather than just spouting a received company line.

is this really so difficult for you to accept?

in review culture (not articles) this is dependant on the editor, luckily i've always worked with editors from everett to my nme editors who were knew their shit and who i respected. the editor has the final say not me.

are you seriously saying that your approach to writing a review is to be told what to write about by yr editor, and then just describe the music you hear, without letting slip any opinion? and this is satisfying for you??

ha ha. no, i was talking about the mass of records and live events. i suggest ideas to editors and they say yeah or no. meaning, that would be the collection of reviews not the content of.

o.k. o.k. i guess opinions are nuanced. i'm just grevious against all those goddamn badly written reviews that i've seen on the internet.

(sorry and bear with me this is me in real life fumbling and blurting-like)..

do you think 'philistine culture' has infiltrated the press because of mp3s? at all.

"It's more a rethinking of art/cultural categories by reflecting on the exclusion of the philistine from culture as bogus. In other words, our concepts of art, taste, (aesthetic) pleasure and so on take it for granted that philistine responses, interpretations and experiences simply don't count (this is how taste gets to be singular instead of plural). If you include the philistine as cultural too, then the domination of certain tastes and pleasures can no longer be seen as neutral or simply better.

It's based on the idea that otherness is always internally projected as external.

Sorry if that doesn't help."

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/1859843743/qid%3D1077061710/sr%3D1-1/ref%3Dsr%5F1%5F0%5F1/202-7424475-7108621

"I write, I dunno, a few dozen reviews a month in any given month and I've never once given download culture the first thought while I'm writing. I can't see for the life of me how it changes whether you think something is a good PIECE OF MUSIC or not. "

but seriously.

don't you think that because of the internet that philistine culture will have a more direct effect on opinions (and yes, stevie, i do hold strong opinions, i concede. if i write a bad review it gets killed but hey its better to have no publicity than to publicise something that is awful ...)

sorry i'm using ilx like my notebook today.

Also the thing with press releases is that the only folks who see them are other writers and editors, who can be hella judgemental based on oh look at this shill again, whose pussycat is he? Or oh wow, they must have £$£$£$£ if m sawyer is churning it out.

being entertaining and informative isnt exactly 'lying'.

(FX: Goes off to write article for people who want to be informed, want EXCITEMENT, WANT PASSION!, WANT UNDILATED LOVE OF ROCK'N'ROLL!, WANT TO FEEL MUSIC!- about Vera Lynn!!!!!!)

when i write a press release i do so on the understanding that i NEVER read em myself, so just try and get the correct info on there and make it interesting to read. a key for me is always, if i'm enjoying writing something, people might enjoy reading it.

that said, i've never written a press release for a band i didn't love. i still think my Press Release for the rerelease of the Grand Drive albums on RCA a few years back one of the best things i've ever written...

This is kind of cute as a one-off approach, but music criticism would kind of be the poorer if it was followed as a general rule.

to me, it is people whose opinions were discounted before, but, with internet, message boards, mp3 "download culture" - their voice is stronger yet still discounted by professional critics.

press releases - i love doing them. my tyde one is one of my favourite bits of writing. and as long as it is done well and gets them more exposure i don't really care about some moron calling it 'shrill'.

Also - I guess this might be part of what you were getting at - music journalists will (???) feel less able to talk without fear of reprisals eg I couldn't really say that Band X rip off Band Y without some real explanation, because people can now go and download some Band Y and find out that they actually don't.

Ergo, music journalists back away from 'opinion' towards 'information'.

The corollary of this is that nowadays people can say The Rapture sound like Gang of Four rather than Primal Scream (or whoever), because people can download some Go4 and 'get' the reference. Ergo the reader is in a less disadvantaged position re the writer - so is, I guess, less of a 'philistine'.

Did I get it right?

what about an 'informed(/ing)' 'opinion'?

thanks.

and can i say this in defence of liner note work - often i feel like i'm handling something historical rather than marketing. i get involved early on - doing groundwork, helping with choosing the tracks, ideas on how to present it, i often do reissue liner notes, which i think is worthwhile and gives me a chance to be a revivisionist and shout out lost classic!

-- jimmy the doom saint (x...), February 18th, 2004.

It might change how you write a review, but as Mencap says, it doesn't change whether you think something is a good piece of music or not.

Surely here ET is beink kind because he respects the feelings of his friends, rather than the whip of his editors.

That's more forgivable on a human level, but not any better as far as the reader's concerned.

Yay!

It already is. ILM must cost a few mag sales for a start ;-)

That's more forgivable on a human level, but not any better as far as the reader's concerned.

Yes, probably Mei. My point was that there are ways of being kind to aband your magazine supports even though you don't - assuming you're going to have to write about them. I guess.

NME wrote a fucking nasty, personal review dissing the band's parents early on in their career. NME decided, en masse, that they *wouldn't* support Darkness, indeed would diss them every step of the way. then the Darkness sold so many more units than anyone NME had themselves been hyping (thinking Jet et al here, the bands you only really see in NME) and NME changed its mind, expecting the Darkness to be grateful for the attention and to forget the crap that had already been written about them. The Darkness told them to fuck off. NME tongued the Darkness's arsehole regardless, giving them a cover feature when they couldn't even get an interview off the band. the Darkness continue to ignore NME. 'surprisingly', the Darkness don't get any nominations at NME awards (presumably because they wouldn't go to the award ceremony - wasn't that the case, that bands who wouldn't/couldn't go to the awards wouldn't get nominations?). the Darkness don't give a fuck, get a bunch of awards from another industry benefit.

its not the Darkness that have gotten too big for their boots.

and i love the fact that not thanking NME for support they patently didn't even offer until the Darkness were already huge = 'too big for their boots'.

not that it matters, really. NME doesn't *have* to support bands who end up becoming huge. but to attack them relentlessly from day one and then switch opinions so blatantly the minute The Darkness got huge, and then act hurt because they won't talk to you, seems evidence of a swollen and stinky ego.

seriously? fuck. was that award nominated by the readers, though?

Laticsimon, if the Darkness had won lotsa Brats and then started dissing the Brits, would you accuse them of getting too big for their boots then?

What's wrong with ver 'Ness's parents???

my memory's a little musty, but i think the review said the Hawkins brothers looked like the offspring of the nastiest, skankiest groupie and some shitty pub-rocker, or something. sort of funny, if you like that sort of writing, but i completely understand why the Darkness weren't overly desirous of accepting NME's lips on their asses after the fact.

just ask the beatles...

Mind you, even Brian May's weighed in with a rant on his website about how NME are basically a bunch of spotty oiks and he'd never met a musician in his life who took the mag seriously. The millions of quid in the bank still can't compensate for not being liked by the cool kids in school, eh?

(Not implying that they're in any way cool or anything. But you get my point)

i was listening to the stairs last night and thinking - where has this been. but the darkness are on the equivlent of pop idol success. i did not doubt they would be huge. but i do doubt whether they will matter or even sell in a few years ala gareth, will, sam and maark, michelle and hearsay (and i liked hearsay).

got a mention in Mojo's 'lost albums' feature this week.

Mind you, even Brian May's weighed in with a rant on his website about how NME are basically a bunch of spotty oiks and he'd never met a musician in his life who took the mag seriously. The millions of quid in the bank still can't compensate for not being liked by the cool kids in school, eh?

wherein LaticSimon puts his finger on exactly why NME sucked when i was there (buncha public school losers gettiing revenge on the slights they siffered at school by converting office of magazine into superannuated sixth form common room where they could take out long-seated bitterness on idealistic freelancers and anyone who came their way).

the truth is, *everyone* bows down and sucks NME's cock along the way. and NME is so used to it, they can't stand it when The Darkness call them cocks in the press.

mojo?

huh.

ha ha! that's not been my experience. of course i never venture into the nme.

how is it the same thing, doomie? the Darkness toiled in the toilet circuit like every other 'indie' band. they are just a fuck of a lot more financially successful than those they played with.

people who equate Darkness with flash in the pan successes might be surprised in the long run. i can seriously see Def Leppard/Queen type success in their hands. it isn't the NME readers, the typical indie kids, who are buying their albums. the darkness's fans have an affection for the band that runs a little deeper than, the Darkness are this week's coolest band.

and i don't mean this in terms of, they will be respected in the long run. i mean, i think they will continue to be successful albums down the line. Queen never got *any* respect in the press, but remained and remain huge. (and i fuckin loved em).

agreed. and pop music can be great.

i think they think they are rock music.

agreed. and rock music can be great.

they lack the substance and are too ironic and english to be def leppard.

that's cool about the stairs. i was talking to rob who was going to get his hands on the actual lost second album for me to write about.

what thing? HOW ARE THEY THE SAME, DOOMIE, APART FROM THE FACT YOU DON'T LIKE THEM? of course, Kym doesn't have any relation to ian johnsen, so that's one difference.

they lack the substance and are too ironic and english to be def leppard.

i love that. what part of america were Def Leppard (the union jack waving Sheffield rock band) from?

i lovedlovedloved 'weed bus' when it came out, useta get played on the GLR rock show with simon barnett all the time, which i listened to while studying for my a levels.

Dude, Ian and I worked out our difference last Christmas after the last bust up which featured on this board. This has nothing to do with him. And because of our truce is pretty cool i'm going to have to stop talking to you about the Darkness. And it is a shame because I had this neat little story about Hearsay v. Darkness.

O.k.

Stevie, what do you mean when you say 'NME decided, en masse, that they *wouldn't* support Darkness' - to what extent was it 'en masse'?

Ick. Does this mean that writers reviewing bands outside the 'pyramid' aretold to bad mouth their mothers/say they are shit?

ha h.

Argh, this Queen mention again. I mean I see what you're saying in terms of the argument, but Justin what's his bucket sure doesn't seem like the second coming of Freddie Mercury -- or Russell Mael either.

...but that's the point. The thread's about NME missing the boat and that having no effect. It's about indie/rock bands getting big despite NME and NME's reaction when this happens.

But you can find someone who loves anything, even if it's only the bass player's sister.

(I guess I'm not sure on what situation yr talking about, sorry)

Don't forget polishing his telescope!

http://i.imgur.com/EkHz4ED.jpg

What did he say last year?

What does he actually do these days?