That aside, NME are liars and trend hoppers who will do anything to get a story, even if it's a lie.
Let's not forget what happened with PJ Harvey and Queens of the Stone Age.
NME: "We were the first mag to have Queens on the front cover."
Kerrang: "You didn't even know they existed till their third album."
NME: "......."
-AC
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
That aside, NME are liars and trend hoppers who will do anything to get a story, even if it's a lie.Let's not forget what happened with PJ Harvey and Queens of the Stone Age.
NME: "We were the first mag to have Queens on the front cover."
Kerrang: "You didn't even know they existed till their third album."
NME: "......."-AC
lets not forget that everything mentioned in my previous post is fact...and lets not forget the fact that NME almost went to the wall twice in the 1980's and 1990's for NOT following trends and rather sticking to bands in championed from the outset...namely bands such as the smiths...
all magazines are liars...all magazines follow trends to some extent...but as music changes so should (and must) the music press change as well...you cant keep touting bands that come and go in the blink of an eye
lets not ignore the fact that kerrang regularly promote turd music like linkin park and good charlotte mearly to boost sales
i guess its about what fits your taste...i occasionally read NME, Q, Uncut...not so much metal based magazines cause i ain't into metal so much as i used to be...but kerrang did introduce me to some bands i still like...the wildhearts for example...
Originally posted by jaden101
lets not forget that everything mentioned in my previous post is fact...and lets not forget the fact that NME almost went to the wall twice in the 1980's and 1990's for NOT following trends and rather sticking to bands in championed from the outset...namely bands such as the smiths...
They backed The Smiths (who were a great band) because all other magazines were backing The Cure.
Originally posted by jaden101
all magazines are liars...all magazines follow trends to some extent...but as music changes so should (and must) the music press change as well...you cant keep touting bands that come and go in the blink of an eye.
To be fair, I agree in the sense that all magazines do have coverage of popular bands despite them being shit. Not all magazines champion shit bands though. The only time shit bands are in Kerrang is for variety and because they have a multitude of reviewers. Some who like shit music, some who like extremely good music.
Originally posted by jaden101
lets not ignore the fact that kerrang regularly promote turd music like linkin park and good charlotte mearly to boost sales
They don't regularly promote either. Some of their writers like Linkin Park, some like Good Charlotte. Those are the shit writers and as a result, there's hardly any actual articles or pieces on the bands.
The writers in NME would quite easily put Franz Ferdinand on the cover every week, or The Bravery, or Razorlight. Or some other extremely shit band. Where as Kerrang focus on events and upcoming releases or issues in music. Not who's the in thing.
-AC
kerrang online as we speak has articles on
black rebel motorcycle club
the distillers
feeder
foo fighters
not to mention its award nominees include the stereophonics and nine black alps, kaiser chiefs and the white stripes
all bands featured by NME and most before they were "the in thing"
lets not pass up an opportunity to mention that other bands mentioned in kerrang online are greenday, my chemical romance, the rasmus and the ever brilliant 🙄 fightstar
just because you happen to glance at the cover of NME when a "fashionable" band are on the cover...dont presume that the magazine haven't been covering the band for an age before giving them a cover slot...
i know NME feature loads of turd bands such as franz ferdinand and the darkness and the magic numbers...but they alot of new stuff buried in the pages...i'll check it out...most of the time i'll think its pish but occasionally i'll find a band that i like
lets face facts here...nobody really finds music on their own...everyones tastes are influenced either by journalism or some other external influence...hell...even going to see live acts and hearing a support act you've never heard of before and liking them isn't really devoid of influence
as for the bands you think are shit...namely razorlight...thats your taste...i've heard one of the bands you tout as musical brilliance...namely mastodon...my opinion...total ****ing balls...but thats my taste....
Originally posted by jaden101
kerrang online as we speak has articles onblack rebel motorcycle club
the distillers
feeder
foo fighters
That's Kerrang ONLINE isn't it? I'm talking about the publication. Even so, one of those bands are very good, the other is ok, The Distillers are finished and BRMC is obviously one of the articles that one of their writers has chosen to deal with.
Originally posted by jaden101
not to mention its award nominees include the stereophonics and nine black alps, kaiser chiefs and the white stripes
The Kerrang awards are shit and are mostly associated with the actual TV station than the publication, who distances itself immensely.
Originally posted by jaden101
all bands featured by NME and most before they were "the in thing"
Well The Stereophonics, Nine Black Alps and Kaiser Chiefs are hardly anything to be proud of. "Hey, we discovered some shit bands first." I'm sure Kerrang are well annoyed with that...
Originally posted by jaden101
lets not pass up an opportunity to mention that other bands mentioned in kerrang online are greenday, my chemical romance, the rasmus and the ever brilliant 🙄 fightstar
It's Kerrang online, what is your point? Every facet of Kerrang is run by different people. The mag is run by completely different people to the site and the tv station. So that puts that out of the window.
Originally posted by jaden101
just because you happen to glance at the cover of NME when a "fashionable" band are on the cover...dont presume that the magazine haven't been covering the band for an age before giving them a cover slot...
Wanna tell me when Franz Ferdinand, The Bravery, Razorlight, The Kaiser Chiefs etc etc were ever mentioned before they got huge? They've always been the same band and if they do ever get mentioned, it's back page columns. When they get big, they "deserve" front covers.
Originally posted by jaden101
i know NME feature loads of turd bands such as franz ferdinand and the darkness and the magic numbers...but they alot of new stuff buried in the pages...i'll check it out...most of the time i'll think its pish but occasionally i'll find a band that i like
The Darkness, first of all, aren't shit. They're better musicians and performers than most bands NME will ever cover. Second, as I said above, it's buried until they become popular. Where as Kerrang don't give a shit, they put people on the cover who they like. System of a Down for example. They were next to unknown when Kerrang put them out there.
Originally posted by jaden101
lets face facts here...nobody really finds music on their own...everyones tastes are influenced either by journalism or some other external influence...hell...even going to see live acts and hearing a support act you've never heard of before and liking them isn't really devoid of influence
Not a fact is it? That's you not having any experience of others discovering music in other ways. Glad we cleared that up.
Originally posted by jaden101
as for the bands you think are shit...namely razorlight...thats your taste...i've heard one of the bands you tout as musical brilliance...namely mastodon...my opinion...total ****ing balls...but thats my taste....
Yeah but I can always make a winning case for some aspect of Mastodon. I can't hear the music for you but I can always make a winning case for them over any band NME cover. Be it musically or ability.
You think Mastodon are shit, fine. I think Razorlight are shit, fine. The fact is, Mastodon are extremely talented musicians which is again, provable. Razorlight aren't, in comparison to Mastodon. Mastodon wipe the floor with a percentage of NME bands in the high 90s when it comes to talent.
Yeah yeah "Technique means nothing if it sounds shit." Like I said, I can't make you agree the music is great. I can always make a winnable case for Mastodon etc. Nobody could do the same for Razorlight.
-AC
Wanna tell me when Franz Ferdinand, The Bravery, Razorlight, The Kaiser Chiefs etc etc were ever mentioned before they got huge? They've always been the same band and if they do ever get mentioned, it's back page columns. When they get big, they "deserve" front covers.
wow...kind of what every music magazine does...bar none...kerrang arent a bastion of musical integrity...their purpose is to sell magazines...to do it they put "big" metal bands on the cover for interest
when NME began covering the emerging hip hop acts of the late 80's a d early 90's...sales of the mags with those acts on the cover fell drastically...its called buisness
basically you pick and choose whats good about kerrang and dismiss whats shit about it as being the fault of bad writers...then when NME cover a band you actually like its because they're jumping on the bandwagon...nice try...but no....
The Darkness, first of all, aren't shit
yes they are
They're better musicians and performers than most bands NME will ever cover.
no...they're not
That's you not having any experience of others discovering music in other ways
unless you're talking about walking past a bar...hearing a band playing inside...and going in to check them out...then you would have heard that they were playing from some source...a friend...a newspaper...a flyer...something...so you were influenced and as such didn't "discover" the band yourself...correct?....yes
Yeah but I can always make a winning case for some aspect of Mastodon. I can't hear the music for you but I can always make a winning case for them over any band NME cover. Be it musically or ability.
and you say this as if you actually have a clue of the people involved and how well they know their chosen instrument....you dont...so your judgement is void...i've seen razorlight twice...once at T so it was an electric set...and once infront of 50 people doing and acoustic set...both were excellent....
what it boils down to is that if you dont like what a band play...you hide behind the same excuse that they are crap musicians when you really dont know of they are or not...
Originally posted by jaden101
wow...kind of what every music magazine does...bar none...kerrang arent a bastion of musical integrity...their purpose is to sell magazines...to do it they put "big" metal bands on the cover for interest
Like they did with System, yes?
Originally posted by jaden101
when NME began covering the emerging hip hop acts of the late 80's a d early 90's...sales of the mags with those acts on the cover fell drastically...its called buisness
So now they publish lies on the hope that they'll get an exclusive. Because they're about popularity, not integrity. Kerrang is the superior publication because it focuses more on music, being a music magazine and all.
Originally posted by jaden101
basically you pick and choose whats good about kerrang and dismiss whats shit about it as being the fault of bad writers...then when NME cover a band you actually like its because they're jumping on the bandwagon...nice try...but no....
It's not is it? They jump on the bandwagon all the time, because it's what they're known for. The fact that Kerrang cover some shit bands is because they have some shit writers. I'm not denying NME of any good writers, they have a couple but it's a publication driven more by what's popular than what they want to inform you of in the world of music.
Originally posted by jaden101
yes they are
Well no, they're not.
Originally posted by jaden101
no...they're not
Yes they are, unless of course you'd like to make a case for Scissor Sisters being better or something.
Originally posted by jaden101
unless you're talking about walking past a bar...hearing a band playing inside...and going in to check them out...then you would have heard that they were playing from some source...a friend...a newspaper...a flyer...something...so you were influenced and as such didn't "discover" the band yourself...correct?....yes
Correct? No. Have you actually never heard of buying CDs to check out music? That's what I do. I'm not denying I get recommendations or such, of course not. That's not solely how I get my music. So yes, that's just your lack of experience in the matter.
Originally posted by jaden101
and you say this as if you actually have a clue of the people involved and how well they know their chosen instrument....you dont...so your judgement is void...i've seen razorlight twice...once at T so it was an electric set...and once infront of 50 people doing and acoustic set...both were excellent....
That just means you enjoyed the show, great. Doesn't mean they're anything special with regards to their ability does it? No.
Originally posted by jaden101
what it boils down to is that if you dont like what a band play...you hide behind the same excuse that they are crap musicians when you really dont know of they are or not...
Pink Floyd are great on their instruments, I dislike them. If I dislike what a band play, I'll say I don't like them. I can't make excuses because I can't prove what sounds good and what doesn't. If they actually happen to be shit technically, why wouldn't I say so?
-AC
Originally posted by jaden101
yep they sure were...the clash, the stranglers, sex pistols, oasis, radiohead, suede, the white stripes all either on the cover, interviewed or given an award by NME before any other music publication...
Oh, you got me. Can't believe I said the NME are always wrong.
I should have said something like 'more or less'.
Yes, I did say that, no need to scroll up.
So they put some bands on the cover? Gave them interviews? Who woulda thunk it, a music magazine and everything.
Now let's move on to the shite that they claim is the next big thing every five minutes.
The thing that differs Kerrang! and NME is that Kerrang! genuinely care about music, fashion, style and irony and all that annoying NME BS don't come into it.
Case in point- both magazines feature shit bands who are popular- that's for sales. A magazine exists for sales, let's not kid ourselves. The difference is, the NME will happily sit and celebrate shite flavour of the month bands. If the band is knowingly shite, they introduce their amazingly irritating brand of sarcasm and irony so you never know what the hell they actually do like.
Kerrang! will quite happily slaughter the hell out of crap bands they interview.
The most recent thing that added to my hatred of NME was their attempt to jump on The Darkness bandwagon. However, while Kerrang! was willing to appreciate the MUSIC, as MUSIC magazines do, NME was too intent on trying to approach them as some kind of ironic statement- leading to the NME editor Conor McNicholas LITERALLY on his knees asking Justin Hawkins to reconsider talking to the magazine.
That's my main gripe with the magazine, they are so cloaked in irony and sarcasm that I actually feel cheap reading their 6th-form humour little interviews and reviews.
They need to just say that they like a band, and not continually act insincere and ironic and sarcastic so if their taste is found out (as it usually is) they can claim it was a joke.
Lest we forget the aforementioned PJ Harvey incident in which she came on stage, took the piss out of The Libertines (another completely shit but NME championed band, more on that later) for continually announcing their split, some drunk moron said "Oh! PJ is quitting!"
Called Kerrang!, editor (at the time) Ashley Bird told him to **** off because he had no proof. Called NME, next week "PJ Harvey quits music onstage!" Clearly the better magazine aren't they? No, they're shit who will do anything to get an exclusive that will make them popular.
-AC
AC...you continually say you can prove that one band is technically better than another...despite you claiming this continually...you still have never done it...not once...
your logic words in a rather crafty way that allows you to not bother proving anything and i'll simplify it for you
"my band is technically better than your band...everyone accepts this...and the fact that you dont makes your opinion invalid and therefor i dont need to prove it anyway"
what kind of proof is that?
if you want to prove that one band are technically better musicians then you would pretty much have to sit them down in a room and test them on every technique known for their chosen instrument...given that you dont have the ability to do it...then you cant really prove anything...can you?
and nothing you say are going to make the darkness any good...they're shite and always will be.
Vic
so what your saying is kerrang will put a shit band on the cover to get sales...then slaughter them in the article...nice exploitation...i like it...where as NME do there piss taking of shit bands in a way other than that which caters for angry 13 year olds...so i dont really get your point because obviously their styles are going to be different in the way they deal with bands they dont like
as for NME journalistic style...personally i dont even like it...but i know that there will be unknown bands getting mentioned that i might like...as i said before...most of them i dont...some of them i do
both of you have this weird attitude that if NME backs a good band from the outset then its somehow a fluke of taste...if they back the same band after they get some commercial success then they are jumping on the bandwagon....but when kerrang do it then it must be great journalism and for the love of music...a strange viewpoint
Originally posted by jaden101
AC...you continually say you can prove that one band is technically better than another...despite you claiming this continually...you still have never done it...not once...
Well with viewpoints as ignorantly non-moving as "The Darkness are shite and they always will be", what's the point? You're the kind of person to deny it because you don't like it. I'm not gonna spend my time proving things for you to go "Nah." I've done that too much in the 60s band thread.
If you can find a drummer from the bands I've mentioned who can play what Brann Dailor can. Play as fast while keeping a high level of dexterity, play as hard without making it sound like a truck crashing, a drummer who plays as big a part in the band as Brann does in his, not just sitting there moving their arms, but creating a whole backbody for the rest of the band to work with and not only sounding great, but being quite innovative in a world of "up and coming" drummers. Do that for me.
Find me a guitar player in an NME band who plays as cleanly, as clearly and as brilliantly as Bill Kelliher. Find me a guitarist in those bands who can come up with as memorable riffs as he has done on two albums and an ep. Find me a guitarist in those bands who doesn't play variations of the same song, in every song.
Do you listen to NME's champions and then listen to Mastodon and think "Bloc Party have the dexterity and talent to play this well"? If you do, you're baffled.
Originally posted by jaden101
your logic words in a rather crafty way that allows you to not bother proving anything and i'll simplify it for you
This will be good.
Originally posted by jaden101
"my band is technically better than your band...everyone accepts this...and the fact that you dont makes your opinion invalid and therefor i dont need to prove it anyway"what kind of proof is that?
Like I said above, I've gave you examples using Mastodon. Deny them as you will.
Originally posted by jaden101
if you want to prove that one band are technically better musicians then you would pretty much have to sit them down in a room and test them on every technique known for their chosen instrument...given that you dont have the ability to do it...then you cant really prove anything...can you?
When you listen to Mastodon making music Vs Bloc Party making music, it's safe to say neither band are showing off, just making music. So given that Mastodon kick the shit out of any NME band on that level, to imagine what they'd do given the chance is enough on it's own. Despite the fact that Brann Dailor (Mastodon) and Chris Pennie (Dillinger) have been hailed as two of the very greatest up and coming technical drummers in the world.
Originally posted by jaden101
and nothing you say are going to make the darkness any good...they're shite and always will be.
Point proven.
Also:
Originally posted by jaden101
both of you have this weird attitude that if NME backs a good band from the outset then its somehow a fluke of taste...if they back the same band after they get some commercial success then they are jumping on the bandwagon....but when kerrang do it then it must be great journalism and for the love of music...a strange viewpoint
NME champion Oasis, Franz Ferdinand and The Libertines. Those are NME's album of the year competitors. Those aren't just the bands they fellate due to popularity, those are the bands that the magazine feel have produced the best music over a whole year. Let's not stop there, lets take a look at NME's top and best 5 (judged by their magazines) albums of 2004:
1. Franz Ferdinand – Franz Ferdinand
2. The Libertines – The Libertines
3. The Streets – A Grand Don’t Come for Free
4. Scissor Sisters – Scissor Sisters
5. The Futureheads – The Futureheads
Hmm, load of shit. More importantly, the load of shit that NME labelled as the best music released that year. Coincidentally, the year they were all being jumped on.
-AC