NME magazine to be given away for free

That would be a great three years' worth, from The Titanic Sails At Dawn article in 1976 to the sea-change in the readers' polls of 1977 / 1978. I also recall a pull-out A-Z of new bands which would be a nice time capsule of those exciting times.

 

NME ceased to be relevant from the late 80's onwards. From the 70's through to that period it cut through all the pretentious c**p written about all the long-haired boring prog rockers who typically made one album every 4 years and expected every record to be greeted with a royal welcome. NME championed the underdogs, the post-punk new-wave young darlings, the very opposite of the dinosaur rock that had taken over and run r 'n' r into the ground. As I result of reading it back in the mid-80's I discovered R.E.M., The Long Ryders, Lone Justice, Green On Red, Rain Parade, The Dream Syndicate, Jason & The Scorchers and countless others at a time when pomp rockers like U2 and Simple Minds were playing football stadiums and were rather predictably headlining every large music event. NME was the first paper to get behind Joy Division / New Order, The Smiths, Prefab Sprout and The Stone Roses. Admittedly, fast-forwarding 30 years it is easy to see that 90% of those "obscure bands" have either been ignored or long-forgotten now while the festival and stadium head-liners from the time are still remembered. Has justice been served?

Given the age group of the members of this forum and penchant for 70's rock music in general, it wouldn't surprise me to find that the majority here were never readers of NME back then. It was certainly considered to be "hip" at one time and probably post-punk. After all, it was during the same period that even the "old guard" of critical respectability fell off the radar with woefully poor new material that failed to convince many people that they knew how to age gracefully or even had any purpose anymore: McCartney, Dylan, Young, Mitchell etc. among others became easy targets for the NME's savage attacks. They were all seen as out-dated and out of touch with music trends of the day.

 

Great post -- puts the value of NME in a better historical light. It's funny that you mentioned a good number of US indie (Paisley Underground) bands to describe what you got out of NME, while us stateside folks read it to find out what was going on in the UK scene. In those pre-Interweb days, there weren't many ways to read about what going on in your side of the pond, and that's what most of us were reading it for. I don't think the level of snarkiness toward the old wave was noticed by me too much -- after all, that attitude was a known commodity for the UK weeklies.

 

I bought and read the NME every week from 1973 until the late 1980s. I devoured it, even the letters page and the crossword puzzle. I still have most of the compilation cassettes, too. Essential reading at the time but that time has long passed.

 

When NME staff writers and critics compiled The Top 100 Album Of All Time in 1985, it was a really great poll and for many years I used it (from memory mostly) as a buying guide whenever I spotted a familiar album cover in a shop. It was also arguably the music paper that put black artists' music on the map for younger people who might have stuck resolutely to the more familiar prog rock and alternative rock genres, had it not made the case that Stevie Wonder and Marvin Gaye were just as important album artists as The Beatles, The Stones and The Who. I bought "What's Going On" on LP in 1985 purely because it was NME's No. 1 Album Of All Time. I had no interest in Marvin Gaye, his records were rarely played on the radio I listened to and if I had been asked beforehand what records he made I would have named a few hit singles at the most. Motown was rarely taken seriously outside of the bouncy uptempo early 60's hits. NME made a point out of stating the importance of Ray Charles and others to rock 'n' roll.

The fact that NME today would probably put "The Stone Roses" at No. 1 is for me typical of the on-going generation gap. The writers of '85 were probably quite familiar with "Astral Weeks" and other period rock classics as the albums were less than 20 years old at the time and the writers had grown up with them. Todays' writers are a different generation weened more on the likes of Coldplay and Embrace. "The Stone Roses" album therefore represents a modern kind of "ultimate" to them. When you see "Revolver" and "Blonde On Blonde" in the later polls you can't help thinking these are token "classics" sprinkled in there to ensure the cool and hip factor is retained, whilst the average reader and writer has little real connection with that generation of music.

 

Utter nonsense - you're just showing your age there. The NME along with Melody Maker were very much very relevant throughout "Britpop" through to the early 00's with bands like The Strokes, Libertines, The Vines, BRMC etc. The NME still had the ability to make or break bands then. Perhaps you didn't care for the bands of those era's, but that obviously has no relevance as to whether the NME was still relevant or not - it clearly was.

The NME died because people find new artists via the internet now, and marketing via the internet is more important than through any newspaper or magazine. The quality of articles also took a nosedive with the appointment of the clueless Conor McNicholas.

 

I started reading it around 1970 and kept with it until maybe the early 90's. Essential reading, especially during the P**k years. I remember reading the reviews and then running down to the record stores in the Village to pick up the newest releases. Plus they had great writers, who, even if you didn't care for the artist, managed to come up with some wickedly entertaining reading.

 

RIP

 

I'm surprised the online version sold any copies.
I stopped reading NME many, many years ago, but the PDF has been easily available on open torrents sites for as long as I can remember.

 

The problem for todays music magazines is, that the market is too divided, too specialized. So you don't get huge editions anymore. And the magazines have become too expensive. In Germany I have to pay 12,50 Euro for a Mojo, I just bought the Stones Marquee CD/DVD for 12,99 Euro. And the information is faster on the internet by now. It's an interesting experiment by NME worth watching.

 

Who wants to read about Florence or Elbow? There is nothing happening in music now.
The revolution is over.

 

When I was at school (ten or so years ago), the NME was right in the midst of that attempted Britpop revival, promoting a brand new and instantly forgettable band every week and hailing them as the second coming. Even amongst us teenagers at school, they were a bit of a joke.

Out of all those bands they adored in the 2000's - surely The Libertines and Arctic Monkeys are the only two that are still putting bums on seats?

Anyway, "change" is never good in the print media. I think it's the death knell, which is still a shame, really, for all its history. But the far superior The Fly went free and couldn't last, so it'll be interesting to see.

 

NME was essential reading for anyone into new music for a long time, I read it from 1979 to 1995ish, those years were wonderful. Not only did they champion the new British bands but also things like rap, african music, really well written pieces about old jazz and soul music etc. It was a slighlty more mainstream version and compliment of the John Peel show. Between the two I really had my finger on the pulse.

Sad to think the UK market can't support one weekly music paper. To be fair though all types of magazines/papers are suffering with the internet.

 

This too is utter nonsense to a point. Britpop, whatever that was and meant to you, did not need the NME or anyone else to champion it over here. It wasn't "underground" exactly but very much in the mainstream - Oasis at Knebworth? Also, by the time of Britpop we had multiple music magazines on the shelf including Select, Uncut, Q, Mojo etc. These were largely better written, slicker monthly mags and yes, like the NME, now becoming more and more redundant. In the 70's and 80's we never had all those magazines. But you're right about one thing: my age!

 

The latest development with the NME retooling: NME to become a free sachet of hair gel. "Publisher Norman Steele said: 'I don’t mind music, but people who get really into it are a bit weird. It’s hard to relate to them. But we all want a cool hairstyle.'”

 

It was fantastic in the 70s and early 80s and especially in the punk years. I remember the weekly reports of what The Clash were up to in the USA - massive articles.
I haven't read it since the mid-80s.

 

Internet has made music mags a little out of date - even interviews are paraphrased if you google them - shame really

 

All those slagging this off, I bet you haven't read it for decades. In fact there is still some good articles and news in there. It has not turned into Smash hits yet. I reckon I bought almost every copy between 1986 to 1999. Lived if and learnt a lot from the reviews etc.

Long live NME.

 

They were massive supporters of REM back in the early days. So why so down on them now. Fickle or new fan?

 

What the beef with the Stone Roses? It is a classic, but it is over 25 years old

 

I stopped paying any attention to it circa 2000 when one of their writers told me the only reason they were championing a certain band (I forget who) was because "there's no Radiohead album out this year".

 

Was it Coldplay.....

 

That's the problem with Hot Press, it try's to be all things to all men. Maybe they have to in a market so small.

 

I don't think so, there was quite a genuine buzz around them to begin with as I recall.

 

This one? Dates from sometime in 1978. Punk, post-punk, reggae, new wave, and lots of other stuff going on at the time. Yes, I still have it in amongst my drawer full of newspaper and magazine cuttings...