I think they can give up trying to attract the John_Brainlove's right now, theres a certain level of popular that, once you go past it, can never be reversed. Therefore, even if they were the most obscure musical magazine on the planet in 10 years, good old J.B would still not like them. :)

it does have the occasional weak moments ... but its hardly turning into the indie-hello/ok/heat

in many ways, yes, simply because of its user base. most people on here who complain about the NME listen to 'NME style' bands. its just that the people on here listened to them before the NME started pushing them; taste wise, theres very little between the average NME reader and the average DiS reader; i mean, crap bands/artists like Tom Vek, Patrick Wolf or Art Brut get worshipped by readers of both, its just that many DiS readers these days seem to have a superiority complex.

so in terms of readerbase, theres actually a bit similarity. to my mind, what sets them apart is that DiS actually has good writers eg Adie, Diver et al, who write good reviews and features, whereas with NME the idiocy of its readers seems to be matched by the idiocy of its writers (although i would perhaps argue that many of the NME writers are good, its more that the NME seems to take an editorial line to some extent which DiS doesnt, hence meaning that the good writers for the NME are stifled.)

so in conclusion, id say that in terms of userbase, DiS has become very NMEesque lately, and i only see it getting worse, theres a clear trend, but in terms of the quality of writing, DiS is vastly superior because of its 'zine nature and hence the lack of an editorial line.

...

dear me, im awful at writing these days.


**i corrected some mistakes cos they annoyed me. and i want to point out that i think its only like, in the past year or so that this has been a problem, its just that its something which seems to increasing exponentially.**

Unfair to dig at NME or any other non online review writers - Reviewers in print work to rigid house style and believe me when you have an angry editor over you saying your detailed reviews are taking too long and are too lengthy - cut them or else....... - you understand why online writers get more respect but less or zero money. Thats not to say you work in a mag because you're after cash and don't care what you write - when in print an album review is only allowed to be 118 words 0r 150 as the NME's is - its nothing - you can't do more than crack off similes or a snippet of elegant prose and PRs love it.

Something like DiS and Pitchfork give their writers alot more space and freedom to write what they like - in print you hand your work in and it gets edited - it may not even sound like yours. It doesn't mean you're less passionate about music than the man or woman who only gets 30 quid for ten reviews. Print media is like a factory production line - extremely restricted, done on demand with tight deadlines and its annoying that people who don't know their way around the media make so much uninformed comment.

I don't think you can compare online media to print media - they work in different ways and to be honest online mags read like fanzines - thats not to say they are rubbish - on the contrary - you can smell the freedom and passion and more of us would do it if it paid the bills.

As to the readership - I think people on DiS are more savvy, older generally and more aware of music than NME readers (of the letters pages) but the two readerships cross. I just believe DiS users will question this site and its authors alot more than NME readers will and yet NME readers will be strictly censored whereas DiS isn't.