NME: the final straw

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Mike Sterry sez

"Towards the end of his career the man was wholly irrelevent to folk like you and me. A bumbling muso, he loved music the same way an obsessive-compulsive tramp that lives on your High street loves to collect rubbish, pin it to his rotting overcoat, and follow you home."

Who's he talking about? John Peel.

He then goes on to praise Zane Lowe. That's right, Peel's catholic taste and enthusiasm is wholly irrelevant to ignorant fuckwads who think Kasabian are the future of music. Sure, Sterry is trying to get a reaction, but it doesn't make him any less of an objectionable little prick. By dissing Peel he sums up everything that is rotten with today's NME. It really makes me angry, but I can't say I'm entirely surprised.

I will never buy the NME again as long as Conor McNicholas lives *Spits*

― stew, Friday, 11 March 2005 22:40 (twenty years ago)

shocking.

― Honorary Banana Slug (nordicskilla), Friday, 11 March 2005 22:41 (twenty years ago)

I cannot believe that.

― hmmm (hmmm), Friday, 11 March 2005 22:48 (twenty years ago)

Shall we just change this to the all purpose "Jesus Fucking Christ Mike Sterry Is An Even More Hopeless Writer Than Imran Ahmed Was" thread?

One of the more mental moments of bong-fuelled madness on their debut album, ‘Butcher Blues’ is the anti-Band Aid, where the cast-off live tracks of four baggy-lovin’ stoners is heaps better (both morally and musically) than Bob Geldof’s latest, shocking music-for-PR exchange program. And it’d be so easy to label the work of these knuckle-dragging Leicester City fans as regressive Ian Brown plagiarism but, man, can’t you hear that lazy Zero 7 bassline?

This shit’s modern, dude – like baggy goes Buck Rogers, skinning up in the 25th century and all that. As live versions go, ‘Butcher Blues’ is basically the same experience as going to a McDonald’s in another country – you know what you’re getting, but it still manages to taste different than it did back home. It may not be an essential, life-changing track but, with the download proceeds going to Warchild, you may very well… sniff… change someone else’s.

― Dom Passantino (Dom Passantino), Friday, 11 March 2005 22:51 (twenty years ago)

who pins garbage to their overcoat?

― keith m (keithmcl), Friday, 11 March 2005 22:53 (twenty years ago)

It was only a few short years ago that a relatively unknown Kanye was playing second fiddle to Talib Kweli, with West twiddling knobs on 2002’s buoyant ‘Get By’. But now the tables have turned, and it’s none other than Talib Kweli opening for Kanye West tonight. And we’d never thought we say it – after all, this is the man that tells us “I make the streets run red like a stop sign” – but Kweli’s set is a rather safe affair.

Yeah, they don't come more gangsta than Talib Kweli.

― Dom Passantino (Dom Passantino), Friday, 11 March 2005 22:53 (twenty years ago)

I already knew NME sucked, and I'm an American. (Particularly knob-headed example, though.)

― TayBridgeCatastrophe (TayBridge), Friday, 11 March 2005 22:54 (twenty years ago)

The poor guy that wrote that clearly has no fucking clue what he's talking about. We have previously debated at length when exactly the last straw was for the NME and although opinions vary, we can all agree it was a loooooooong time ago.

― everything, Friday, 11 March 2005 22:55 (twenty years ago)

(x post) ah, Imran Ahmed - that reminds me - i heard him on the radio a week or two back, defending new the latest life/joy-sapping albums Feeder et al as being the "New MOR" (Seriously). I thought that was the total to-hell-in-a-handcart NME final straw (i'm assuming he still writes for it..?), til this....
is "Mark Sterry" another "Mark Sutherland" pseudonym or something? His spawn? just....how!?

― peteflynn (piratestyle), Friday, 11 March 2005 23:51 (twenty years ago)

Imran actually admitted to a friend of mine that his sole reason for working at the long dead NME was not because he had the slightest interest in music, but to get himself on the radio, and presumably from there into some kind of meeja career. Hmm, a bit like John Peel then.

― snotty moore, Saturday, 12 March 2005 00:03 (twenty years ago)

Not much, no.

― mark grout (mark grout), Saturday, 12 March 2005 11:44 (twenty years ago)

Why does anybody still read this, exactly?

― Pashmina (Pashmina), Saturday, 12 March 2005 12:10 (twenty years ago)

Yeah you're all over 19 we don't need or want you!

― Conor McWanker, Saturday, 12 March 2005 12:44 (twenty years ago)

That John Peel comment made me a little angry.

Was there a time when the NME was about music?

― roxymuzak (roxymuzak), Saturday, 12 March 2005 12:50 (twenty years ago)

But The Others got the NME John Peel award for innovation. See, still they are at the cutting edge...

― elwisty (elwisty), Saturday, 12 March 2005 15:00 (twenty years ago)

NME have been pathetic for a long time. Stick to Q, Uncut and Mojo for proper music writing.

― Geir Hongro (GeirHong), Saturday, 12 March 2005 15:49 (twenty years ago)

If there's anything I'll say about the English music press is that it likes to push buttons and their sole purpose is to get a reaction. Q and Mojo included.

But at least they generally stick to music and has not mated with US Weekly like Rolling Stone has. At least over there, The Olson twins and Ashton Kutcher is not on the cover of Q or NME for that matter.

But yeah, that guy's opinion is full of shit.

― JenG, Saturday, 12 March 2005 16:55 (twenty years ago)

If there's anything I'll say about the English music press is that it likes to push buttons and their sole purpose is to get a reaction. Q and Mojo included.

Indeed, I cannot see that Q an Mojo are doing this. Mojo are mainly writing about old stuff for fans that have been into music for a long time, plus (to a larger excent than Uncut) they are also trying to get those same people into other stuff that they think they may like.

Q has a tradition of relatively low-profile writers, and they cover a rather large variety of musical genres rather than just settling for "the next big thing". Even an act that NME would consider extremely unhip will get a fair treatment, and possibly a good review, in Q.

― Geir Hongro (GeirHong), Sunday, 13 March 2005 09:58 (twenty years ago)

I may be a bit out of the loop here, having not bought any music magazines for some time. But the last time I looked Q had become embarrassingly purile(all those endless bloody lists), and Uncut and Mojo had turned into trad. rock fanzines, preferring to endlessly regurgitate the past rather than cover new, exciting or unusual stuff like they used to. Another Dylan retrospective, sir?

I'm not suggesting the NME is any better, mind.

― Philip Alderman (Phil A), Sunday, 13 March 2005 12:04 (twenty years ago)

they're all terrible. bring back Flipside!

― Sven Bastard (blueski), Sunday, 13 March 2005 12:11 (twenty years ago)

and Uncut and Mojo had turned into trad. rock fanzines, preferring to endlessly regurgitate the past rather than cover new, exciting or unusual stuff like they used to. Another Dylan retrospective, sir?

Uh, I guess I'm too young to remember this? I can't think of any good ever coming out of asking "Mojo" writers to cover new, exciting or unsual stuff, they'll just come out with something really embarassing like that "Up Yours! Punk's Not Dead!" CD they did awhile ago with all those crappy nu-garage bands on it. Leave them to their old record collections, they're pretty good on those!

― Daniel_Rf (Daniel_Rf), Sunday, 13 March 2005 12:40 (twenty years ago)

Flipside had rotten design and mediocre writing. It was a nice idea to tap into the post-tribal era but ultimately it lacked focus or flair.
I think Mojo is often unfairly criticised - ok they can overdo the classic band retrospectives, although they do them better than anyone, but they manage to vary it a lot more than Uncut, tapping into music's secret histories (pieces on Jan & Dean or Count Ossie hardly count as classic rock). The new issue has an admiring feature on Anthony that avoids the NME's puerile "look, it's a cross dressing torch singer" freakshow angle. As someone said upthread, you get the sense they're still interested in new music, and not just fads, and want to get the old dudes into it.
The Up Yours Punk's Not Dead cd wasn't so hot, but the last years CDs have all been utterly fantastic, from last month's gorgeous Studio 1 sampler, to the Chili Pepper's surprisingly ace collection of funk, punk-funk, hardcore, and krautrock. Shame their good taste hasn't rubbed off on the music.

― stew, Sunday, 13 March 2005 12:52 (twenty years ago)

Yeah, the whole "they only cover DYLAN/BEATLES/ROLLING STONES!" thing is totally overstated, perhaps because they're on the cover so much, but that's the price you gotta pay (not gonna make much $ off putting Jan & Dean on the cover.)

I guess I shouldn't be so down on their coverage of new stuff, nice that they care about current music at all and everything, but somehow it feels like they bring out the received wisdom/clichés a lot more when they're dealing with new acts, and even when they feature stuff I'm excited about they usually get it horribly wrong (god, that Dizzee review.) I just don't think that covering new stuff should be some sort of music mag obligation anyway, the past is great too, embrace the past! There's lots of it!

(I buy "Uncut" for the movie/DVD stuff. I'm a much more shameless canonist when it comes to cinema than I am with music, even.)

― Daniel_Rf (Daniel_Rf), Sunday, 13 March 2005 13:04 (twenty years ago)

In other news, the guitarist for the seminal US black metal band NME drove off a drawbridge in Seattle last week.

― Ian Christe (Ian Christe), Sunday, 13 March 2005 17:12 (twenty years ago)

Muzik RIP

― Spencer Chow (spencermfi), Sunday, 13 March 2005 19:09 (twenty years ago)

As an American, I've never really read NME, aside from a few issues I've thumbed through when I've seen it on a rack...but I must say that the quote at the top of the thread seems fairly mean-spirited...mostly because it seems to reflect a disdain and coldness towards the less fortunate in society, to me at least...it seems kind of "neo con" in a way....

― M@tt He1geson (Matt Helgeson), Sunday, 13 March 2005 19:13 (twenty years ago)

Mojo has always covered retro stuff a lot. And they do so better than Uncut, because they are able to move beyond the obvious Beatles/Stones/Dylan/Bowie/Neil Young thing that Uncut seems to be stuck with, and write about more obscure stuff from the past.

― Geir Hongro (GeirHong), Sunday, 13 March 2005 22:54 (twenty years ago)

I read loads of music magazines as a kid; NME, Melody Maker, Q, CMJ NMM, and the occasional Muzik, but one I do remember liking was Select, but that had to shut for some reason.

― Nick H (Nick H), Sunday, 13 March 2005 23:37 (twenty years ago)

Why oh why was Select the first to shut? That was a good magazine for christ's sake? The only time I ever remember getting fed up with them was down to too much Oasis coverage well after they'd gone down the shitter but apart from that it was a decent magazine that managed to touch on plenty of musical bases and provide pretty good unbiased writing.

― dog latin (dog latin), Monday, 14 March 2005 00:22 (twenty years ago)

very interesting stuff about melody maker and nme's old days here:

did mick mercer have the best taste of any melody maker critic in 1984?

― xhuxk, Monday, 14 March 2005 00:24 (twenty years ago)

Select definately went the past the NME-Q "Are they skinny white boys with guitars or Public Enemy?" thinking and bothered to embrace stuff that was halfway exciting. I've still got loads of them at home which I'll try reading again. They pointed me towards a lot of stuff which I still love.

― Nick H (Nick H), Monday, 14 March 2005 16:28 (twenty years ago)

the last time I looked Q ILX had become embarrassingly purile(all those endless bloody lists)

― roxymuzak (roxymuzak), Monday, 14 March 2005 19:42 (twenty years ago)

"A bumbling muso, he loved music the same way an obsessive-compulsive tramp that lives on your High street loves to collect rubbish, pin it to his rotting overcoat, and follow you home."

It's probably a reflection of my personality that I fail to see the insult in this...

― Pete Scholtes, Monday, 14 March 2005 22:12 (twenty years ago)

Well, it's having a go at someone for liking too much music, something which is apparently uncool these days when some magazines spend more time picking apart music they don't like rather than being enthusiastic about the stuff they do like. The "folk like you and me" comment implies that he's talking to casual music listeners whose tastes aren't as wide as Peel's. Fair enough, a few of NME readers may have tastes that casual, but the mose famous music magazine around probably shouldn't be trying talking about people who liked a lot of music as if they're abnormal.

― lupine lupin (lupinelupin), Monday, 14 March 2005 22:27 (twenty years ago)

I love how it manages to insult both John Peel and the poor in one swoop.

What on earth are you doing writing for a music magazine if you hate enthusiasm?

― babyalive (babyalive), Tuesday, 15 March 2005 01:17 (twenty years ago)

it manages to insult its readers at the same time. "Don't worry your pretty little heads and listen to what we tell you to" etc.

― dog latin (dog latin), Tuesday, 15 March 2005 01:25 (twenty years ago)

Perhaps someone should show a copy of this to Peel's widow and see what she thinks about it, a month after she got a standing ovation at the NME Awards.

Then again, Mr Sterry was probably told to write it.

― Marcello Carlin (nostudium), Tuesday, 15 March 2005 08:06 (twenty years ago)

The irony being that NME is now seemingly aimed at 18-year-old retards but the people who run it and write for it will never see 30 again.

― Marcello Carlin (nostudium), Tuesday, 15 March 2005 08:07 (twenty years ago)

Most of the staff are in their 20s aren't they? For what it's worth, y'know

― DJ Mencap0))), Tuesday, 15 March 2005 09:49 (twenty years ago)

Having said that they would appear to be kicking the over-30s writers upstairs to Uncut at the moment.

― Marcello Carlin (nostudium), Tuesday, 15 March 2005 09:53 (twenty years ago)

The irony being that NME is now seemingly aimed at 18-year-old retards but the people who run it and write for it will never see 30 again

Someone said something similar here

― Robyn, Tuesday, 15 March 2005 09:54 (twenty years ago)

the guy that wrote this is 21

― a, Tuesday, 15 March 2005 10:12 (twenty years ago)

Youth is no excuse.

― Marcello Carlin (nostudium), Tuesday, 15 March 2005 10:14 (twenty years ago)

Story I heard from a London journo: Conor McNicholas went round the NME office asking who would give the Others album a glowing review. His reasoning is, that as one of "our bands", they have to be given nothing but positive coverage. However, nobody was willing to do it so he eventually found a freelancer who gave it 9/10. The Others are quite possibly the worst band ever to be hyped by the NME. First they give them the Peel Award for Innovation for essentially busking (oh, but it's organised through txt msgs and the internet - yes, so were flash mobs four year ago you fucksticks!) now they slag off the great man for being a fan of interesting and exciting music that has nothing to do with MTV2 and hair gel.
Say what you like about the mid to late 90s NME, its lack of direction and purpose etc, but it still had some good, independent minded writers who pushed for the music they loved. Maybe that would mean a one page article on Mos Def or Royal Trux amongst reams of copy about Fatboy Slim or Travis, but in the days before Careless Talk it was something.
I know it seems silly to complain about the NME when there are alternatives out there but it's a shame to see the paper so many of us grew up with become so superficial, idiotic and unchallenging.

― stew, Tuesday, 15 March 2005 11:30 (twenty years ago)

this post makes you all sound really quite bitter.

― titchyschneider (titchyschneider), Tuesday, 15 March 2005 11:36 (twenty years ago)

What, everyone posting on here?

NME having "our" bands has been going on for at least as long, almost certainly longer, than I've been a regular reader, about 11 years for the record. Yer Suedes and Blurs would pretty much never get a bad review ten years back BUT some sort of dissent and opposition was permitted in other parts of the paper, this being reflective of writers cultivating personalities through their copy. Maybe it was just because I was a lot more impressionable then, but this seems to have been gradually shuffed off the agenda, which is a great shame

― DJ Mencap0))), Tuesday, 15 March 2005 11:48 (twenty years ago)

I'm a bitter 24 year old! Gaah. No, I'm just disappointed. It's disheartening to see a music mag having a go at people for their enthusiasm and open-mindedness. And it makes their Peel cover and award look all the more tokenistic now they're showing their true stripes.
That said, maybe I have become a crotchety old snob, as I do find myself recoiling when I hear some kids talking about the Killers or whatever. But it would be patronising and wrong to assume that todays teens can't discover what lies beyond the NME's coterie of "your new favourite bands".

― stew, Tuesday, 15 March 2005 11:49 (twenty years ago)

you never know, their saturation coverage of 'cool' bands might convince some 11 year olds to investigate more interesting stuff. I only discovered guitar bands through listening to Britpop bands. Maybe the current bunch, Franz Ferdinand, The Killers might lead some kids down that path now too.

Though it did help that the coverage in the NME 10 years ago was a bit broader, so they wrote about some of the safer interesting music too.

― jellybean (jellybean), Tuesday, 15 March 2005 11:55 (twenty years ago)

The NME's policy of paying about £2 per week ensures it gets the very cream of the nation's adolescents that aren't quite up to a paper round.

To be honest, we've got no right to act surprised when they get together and produce a school magazine every week.

― coco, Tuesday, 15 March 2005 12:01 (twenty years ago)

you can argue the toss over whether franz are as good as or better than suede, but the fact is the quality of writing has diminished. there's no room for argument here: it's science.

― N_RQ, Tuesday, 15 March 2005 12:03 (twenty years ago)

Skipping 525 messages at this point... Click here if you want to load them all.

24. Captain Twat from Razorlight

― Dom Passantino (Dom Passantino), Tuesday, 22 November 2005 00:38 (nineteen years ago)

DJ Martian a f-ing total laughing stock ! but us lot get something to laugh at each week.

― nme contributor, Tuesday, 22 November 2005 00:39 (nineteen years ago)

25. The one with the tache from the White Stripes

― Dom Passantino (Dom Passantino), Tuesday, 22 November 2005 00:39 (nineteen years ago)

26. Her ex-husband.

DO YOU SEE?

― Dom Passantino (Dom Passantino), Tuesday, 22 November 2005 00:40 (nineteen years ago)

27. Da Mad Forwarda of E-Mails Featuring David Hasselhoff Photoshopz from Goldie Lookin Chain

― Dom Passantino (Dom Passantino), Tuesday, 22 November 2005 00:40 (nineteen years ago)

28. the younger cute n cuddly female from the Magic Numbers

29. Big breasted one from B & S [sorry wrong magazine that is plan b]

― DJ Martian (djmartian), Tuesday, 22 November 2005 00:41 (nineteen years ago)

29. Big breasted one from B & S [sorry wrong magazine that is plan b]

B&S have had a top 20 single, Plan B wouldn't touch them.

― Dom Passantino (Dom Passantino), Tuesday, 22 November 2005 00:43 (nineteen years ago)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/59/Rock_N_Roll_Express.jpg

look this is you two getting ready to be pwning the nme amirite???????

― nme contibutor, Tuesday, 22 November 2005 00:45 (nineteen years ago)

More like Ricky Lolton, amirite?

― Dom Passantino (Dom Passantino), Tuesday, 22 November 2005 00:51 (nineteen years ago)

― nme contributor, Tuesday, 22 November 2005 00:59 (nineteen years ago)

http://membres.lycos.fr/fidjiurka/fm.71.jpg

― Dom Passantino (Dom Passantino), Tuesday, 22 November 2005 01:07 (nineteen years ago)

This list is funnier than the real one.

― James Mitchell (James Mitchell), Tuesday, 22 November 2005 03:54 (nineteen years ago)

five months pass...

[ADMIN: SPAM deleted. Gay rape porn spam, yes that's right, somewone wrote a spambot that trawls around messagesboards looking for threads to randomly post links to gay rape pron websites. What the fuck?]

― jessy_vincent, Tuesday, 16 May 2006 17:12 (nineteen years ago)

dj martian noooo

― and what (ooo), Tuesday, 16 May 2006 17:13 (nineteen years ago)

system thinking's dark inevitable endgame

― s1ocki (slutsky), Tuesday, 16 May 2006 17:33 (nineteen years ago)

gang rape seems like it could be a form of system thinking

― and what (ooo), Tuesday, 16 May 2006 17:35 (nineteen years ago)

BRAINDEAD RAPE PORN PLONKER Max Hardcore needs to focus more on fundamentals of porn: restraints, stockings, high heels and DARKWAVE and less on YANK IMPORTS with FORCED GAY ANAL.

― Dom Passantino (Dom Passantino), Tuesday, 16 May 2006 20:20 (nineteen years ago)

http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/culturevulture/archives/2006/05/12/rockingest_of_a.html

not sure who's more stupid, guardian, nme, or nme readers.

― the confusing situation Enrique currently endures (Enrique), Wednesday, 17 May 2006 14:32 (nineteen years ago)

Those up in arms about the NME would do well to remember Frank Zappa's view of the medium: "Rock journalism is people who can't write interviewing people who can't talk for people who can't read."
Posted by DrSpinola on May 17, 2006 09:09 AM.

THANKS DOC THAT'S AN INTERESTING QUOTE THAT NOBODY HAS EVER HEARD OF BEFORE.

― Dom Passantino (Dom Passantino), Wednesday, 17 May 2006 14:52 (nineteen years ago)

The guardian article is all fairly agreeworthy, it's worst crime is it's not much more than "Yeah, we know" obviousness.

So who is the 'hero' worthy? (ans: none of the above. Or any other)

― mark grout (mark grout), Wednesday, 17 May 2006 15:10 (nineteen years ago)

I assumed this thread would've started, oh, probably 10 years ago.

― pleased to mitya (mitya), Wednesday, 17 May 2006 16:48 (nineteen years ago)

agreeworthy?

really? 'all' rock stars are pro-feminism and gay rights? for serious?

― Enrique IX: The Mediator (Enrique), Thursday, 18 May 2006 09:46 (nineteen years ago)

that's not *quite* what she wrote, tho

― Ward Fowler (Ward Fowler), Thursday, 18 May 2006 09:53 (nineteen years ago)

OK 'decent' rock star -- i'm sure a few haven't been particularly vocal about gay rights.

― Enrique IX: The Mediator (Enrique), Thursday, 18 May 2006 09:55 (nineteen years ago)

Wasn't Nevermind released in 1991?

― Sick Mouthy (Nick Southall), Thursday, 18 May 2006 11:01 (nineteen years ago)

yes.

― Enrique IX: The Mediator (Enrique), Thursday, 18 May 2006 11:05 (nineteen years ago)

But in Britain, his time at the top was so brief [cf: HENDRIX] that once the Nirvana whirlwind had passed, it turned out he hadn't left much of an imprint at all. Except, that is, on the NME, which thinks that the Darkness's mook-rock would be the prevailing sound, because Britpop, garage, grime and lo-fi experimentalism simply wouldn't have happened without him.

thing is britpop probably WOULDN'T have happened without him.

― Enrique IX: The Mediator (Enrique), Thursday, 18 May 2006 11:15 (nineteen years ago)

Where does the Sony PlayStation fit into this equation - not to mention the Portastudio, MP3s, Pete Waterman, Princess Diana etc. (apologies for restating the bleeding obvious).

― Marcello Carlin (nostudium), Thursday, 18 May 2006 11:19 (nineteen years ago)

Britpop was already starting to happen before Nirvana-mania was full-blown though right? I mean bands like Suede, Blur, Pulp etc were already going in '92. It was more a post-baggy/post-shoegaze thing than anything to do with grunge.

xpost

― Colonel Poo (Colonel Poo), Thursday, 18 May 2006 11:28 (nineteen years ago)

yeah but "britpop" the cultural phenomenon, the media event, drew on the anti-nirvana thing, and 'modern life is rubbish' was gonna be titled 'britain vs america' iirc.

― Enrique IX: The Mediator (Enrique), Thursday, 18 May 2006 11:29 (nineteen years ago)

I must have completely missed that at the time, was oblivious to any anti-Nirvana aspect of Britpop. Oh well. Maybe I just dismissed any such things in the NME as the usual bollocks and then forgot it ever existed, I wouldn't be surprised.

― Colonel Poo (Colonel Poo), Thursday, 18 May 2006 11:33 (nineteen years ago)

i think the big britpop v.1 select cover (1993) was called something like 'who do you think you are kidding mr vedder'!

― Enrique IX: The Mediator (Enrique), Thursday, 18 May 2006 11:34 (nineteen years ago)

Ah well I never liked Pearl Jam.

I don't think I read that issue, which is odd cos I bought Select quite regularly back then. I turned 17 in 1993, I was hardcore corny indie fuX0r back then.

― Colonel Poo (Colonel Poo), Thursday, 18 May 2006 11:37 (nineteen years ago)

Yeah, Britpop was massively anti-America/grunge, pro-, um, Britpop.

― Sick Mouthy (Nick Southall), Thursday, 18 May 2006 11:38 (nineteen years ago)

Obv I kinda noticed the pro-Brit part, just seem to have missed the anti-US. Maybe cos I thought most of it was silly anyway.

― Colonel Poo (Colonel Poo), Thursday, 18 May 2006 11:40 (nineteen years ago)

BAD BLUR TRACKS

1) 'magic america'

― Enrique IX: The Mediator (Enrique), Thursday, 18 May 2006 11:41 (nineteen years ago)

'la la la la la, he wants to live in magic america/with all the magic people'

― Enrique IX: The Mediator (Enrique), Thursday, 18 May 2006 11:41 (nineteen years ago)

To me, the whole idea - which has gained more currency in recent years - that 'Britpop' was some watershed phenomenon doesn't really hold water. There were a few decent songs around, but none of it sounded especially groundbreaking at the time; still less so now. And was Britpop really so anti-America/grunge? Or was is just some bands from Britain with more or less of a mod fixation?

― eyesteel (eyesteel), Thursday, 18 May 2006 11:41 (nineteen years ago)

That was a pretty good issue, actually. It all seemed so (briefly) exciting back then! blur, suede & pulp, iirc the latter 2 were described by yer select writer as "crimpleneists" in typical music press give-it-a-scene-name fashion. It wasn't so much anti-nirvana as any grey, dour grunge, poss a backlash to uk indie's pitiful surrender to grunge (eg the first high album - chiming ricky 12-string, great, vs the second - sub-seattle, fucking shit)? Din't last long, though, did it.

― Pashmina (Pashmina), Thursday, 18 May 2006 11:43 (nineteen years ago)

was it trying to break new ground? i'm just sayin. but it was a 'watershed' i think, for better or for worse or for in-between.

still less so now.

cf all music ever

And was Britpop really so anti-America/grunge? Or was is just some bands from Britain with more or less of a mod fixation?
-- eyesteel (david.rotho...), May 18th, 2006.

more the first than the second.

― Enrique IX: The Mediator (Enrique), Thursday, 18 May 2006 11:45 (nineteen years ago)

It sort of was a watershed phenomenon for me, in that suddenly most of the "indie music scene" I loved in the early 90s start to suck really bad and stayed that way for several years. I liked a lot of the early stuff - e.g. still love "Caught by the fuzz" by Supergrass. By '96 it was pretty much all shite.

Still, that made me start listening to music that wasn't "indie" for a change, so in that respect it was positive!

― Colonel Poo (Colonel Poo), Thursday, 18 May 2006 11:48 (nineteen years ago)

it was a watershed for me cos it coincided with me getting into music non-casually. but i always had some non-britpop tastes, and yes by 1996 it was unbearable, but by then it had turned to dadrock anyway.

― Enrique IX: The Mediator (Enrique), Thursday, 18 May 2006 11:49 (nineteen years ago)

Britpop WAS very anti-grunge, at it's inception Blur especially, and Suede were anti-Grunge with a passion.

― boney (b0n3y), Thursday, 18 May 2006 13:51 (nineteen years ago)

the worse.

― fandango (fandango), Thursday, 18 May 2006 14:07 (nineteen years ago)

is there a clarification to be made here between "anti-grunge", and "anti what-grunge-had-become (Stone Temple Pilots, Alice In Chains etc)/what-grunge-had-started-to-stand-for"..?

or am i just being too much of a pedant..

― Jon Benet Taxidermy (piratestyle), Thursday, 18 May 2006 14:10 (nineteen years ago)

yeah fraid so, it all fucking sucked from a britpop pov.

though maybe saint etienne's 'i buy american records' was some kind of commentary on this.

― Enrique IX: The Mediator (Enrique), Thursday, 18 May 2006 14:12 (nineteen years ago)

I've just remembered this one issue of Select that had an article on "Britpop's Dark Ages" all about the early 90s pre-Britpop UK indie scene, and how it all sucked compared to this brill new Britpop stuff, that was probably my "final straw" for Select, I stopped reading it around that time.

― Colonel Poo (Colonel Poo), Thursday, 18 May 2006 14:16 (nineteen years ago)

i don't remember that!

basically my only ways of hearing abt 'indie' music were the evening session and the nme. i don't remember there being all that much shoegazing going on c. 1993, but that's how music journalism works, you have to be mean to what came before.

― Enrique IX: The Mediator (Enrique), Thursday, 18 May 2006 14:35 (nineteen years ago)

two years pass...

NME on Joy Division's Unknown Pleasures:

Ranked #4 in NME's list of The Greatest Albums Of The '70s - ...Ian Curtis made epilepsy momentarily hip with the funereal brooding of 'Atmosphere' and panicky congestion of 'She's Lost Control.' Let's party!...
NME (09/11/1993)

― ilxor, Sunday, 5 April 2009 02:12 (sixteen years ago)

waow

― jagged-electronically mäandernden underbody (Drugs A. Money), Sunday, 5 April 2009 02:49 (sixteen years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.