ive never thought about it that way before.

this bombshell will surely affect the way we live our lives from now on.

after this....who even am i anymore?

All those new bands and getting excited about finding out about wanking etc.

Think of DiS as University and Office Work.
Business like and cool, indie bands that are new and critically successful etc.

Essentially, graduate from NME to DiS. Then to Q, then to DEATH.

You can write about any given band very well or very badly. So, for instance, the NME might write a 40 word review of a new band that was merely a vague genre description contained in a cliched metaphor, ending in a pun... a better magazine or website might do an in depth interview and write something intelligent and interesting... and they wouldn't feel the need to bury it under mounds of sub britpop boybands in order to please their 'demographic'?

I use the term "good" loosely (when compared to the rest of the magazine content)

Its the shitty features, the terrible writing, pages of wanky advertising, the cock sucking of a number of well "past it" acts, the championing of shitty scenester bands, the dropping of said scenester acts when they are actually revealed to be beyond crap

look at the differences...

although they haven't reviewed the Youthmovies album [sadface]

Community - Music Forum
Community - Social

I don't check anything else, so my interest is purely on the forums. Go to the NME forums, and then check these - the differences are clear.

DiS is a business. Its staff have bills to pay. Leave it alone.

is it's idea of news. It's either press released copied and pasted, or basically Heat style ("xxxx was wasted in Hoxton, blah blah") rubbish only about "indie" bands. Whatever happened to reporting and original research? I know back in the 90s there used to be a short "spotted" column on one news page, but it got way out of hand about 5/6 years ago and doesn't seem to have improved since.

with the NME is it embodies a lot of the factors that I find repellent in tabloid journalism. It condenses potentially expansive subject matter (record reviews, features,) into spastic factoids with the primary goal of sensationalism.

It caters, predominantly, to the lowest common denominator music fan and as such has a responsibility to keep this demographic titilated. This, in a sense is why the magazine gives a disproportional amount of coverage to some embarrassing 'grindie' pastiche joke like Hadouken and won't touch the grime scene. All those black boys shouting would probably take the reader out of their comfort zone and wouldn't sell any Shockwaves so what's the point? Same with hardcore - Frank from Gallows is an interesting visual so let's leave it at that.

I really like it when music is discussed in context by people who know what they're talking about. You're not gonna get that from the NME but Pitchfork will write you an essay on it and DiS will happily argue over it till hell freezes over.

I think the NME is basically redundant. I, for one, don't really need week-old music 'news'. Fuck em.

and i thought there was actually a lot of bands in common both DiS and NME love. which, considering i've not read it since i moved away really shocked me! i don't know why, but i think they're more similar than people give credit for.
DiS is better because it has a wider range of bands and actually listens to the people who use/read it, whereas NME is rather arrogant in it's views i seem to find.

lost my readership after labelling a gazillion different scenes and losing what I could relate to in terms of reliable objectivity.

I read zines (be they soft or hard) for the purposes of an opinion I can trust on bands which i don't have the connections to discover myself. If a zine consistently recommends (or "hypes" as the NME did/does) music which it turns out is rubbish then in the end I won't go back for that opinion.

I wish the NME no ill will I just haven't trusted its opinion for the last wee while...

the main dis site focus is more similar to NME's than the dis forum's. I don't know what the NME's forum is like, I don't even know if they still have one...well they had that article comment thing.

I know a couple of NME contributers and one of them...I'm not lying. He DOESN'T LIKE MUSIC. As in, he doesn't like music, he only listens to stuff on the radio and the stuff nme give him..he doesn't buy music. He goes to lots of shows, but onyl waits for the parties.

He was simply someone who was a graduate from art school in photography, needed a job, found one through a mate at nme and became a photographer and gig reviewer.

I don't think this will happen at dis. Even though some oe fhte music voered is not to my taste, I don't think teh writers are 'jobbing' 'journos' where dis is jsut another writing job.

i think

and popped over to the humanities reading room where we have back copies of the nme.

I picked one out at random from 93.
I had this nostalgia thing that nme was better before.

But reading this now, its not much better.

In this issue they are going on about 'the new wave of new wave'. NME invented this 'genre' and included early supergras in it until britpop took over.

So the 'new cross' scen and the pathetic 'scene with no name' were not the first examples of nme's contrived attempts at hype

but if they offered my band a paragraph or 2, I would be in there like a rat up a drainpipe.