I know lots of individual people did good work at the NME in recent years. But for me it never recovered from throwing its lot in with old-before-their-time throwbacks like P-Doh and Jack White circa 2001.
The death of the NME - and the other mags that will follow - is entirely on the middle management fucknuts who browbeat every hint of personality out of every title.
@Mixmag has shown a mag can engage with the world of "extended brand", sponsor partnerships etc, and thrive.
@Mixmag has shown a mag can engage with the world of "extended brand", sponsor partnerships etc, and thrive.
And that's entirely because Mixmag was taken out of the clutches of the publishing giants in 2006 and allowed by the independent owners to establish its preeminence in its niche first, then engage with brands on its own terms, with something to offer beyond just numbers.
Dedicated music lovers aren't idiots. Even if they have no idea of the true horrors of being in a meeting with some "creative agency" numbnuts spouting about demographic reach-around or whatever the phrase du jour is, they know produced-by-committee bullshit when they see it.
As for the content, I mean fuck. I've just been looking back at 21st century cover stars. What IS this shit?
Most shocking thing of all I spotted is that Dizzee Rascal didn't get a cover until TWO THOUSAND AND FUCKING NINE.
Most shocking thing of all I spotted is that Dizzee Rascal didn't get a cover until TWO THOUSAND AND FUCKING NINE.
Where was the fucking Dizzee cover in 2003? Where was the Erol Alkan cover when every teenaged future NME writer was making pilgrimages to Trash? Where was the Skream and Benga cover in 2006? Where was the fucking Sugababes cover? Ughhhh.
Again, I know very well that there were people in the building fighting for the good stuff, and often succeeding in getting the good stuff covered. You can't judge a book by its cover. But the absolute allegiance to that dad-rock aesthetic was real, and fucking miserable.
And yes, this was always the argument. From NME and the other music titles. As if avoiding a one-issue dent in sales was all that mattered, and the overall decline wasn't actually being facilitated by the same faces on the front of the mag every week.
I mean, Dizzee. For fucks sake. There was no doubt he was a superstar by the time Boy in da Corner came out. This wouldn't be like NME chancing it on Derek B in the late 80s or something, it was an actual musical revolution happening for all to see.
Christ, they never once put Pendulum on the cover either. In 2010 they were selling out arenas, sending moshpits mental, HEADLINING THE NME STAGE AT READING.
(TBF 2010 covers are more interesting than most years: MGMT, The xx, MIA.... but still)
(TBF 2010 covers are more interesting than most years: MGMT, The xx, MIA.... but still)
And Sugababes! Should've been on in 2002 when Freak Like Me came out - Richard X connection was the perfect connection to the Trash / nu rave aesthetic... What a cover that could've been. But failing that when they covered Arctics in 2006 - how was that not an INSTANT front page?
Anyway, yawn yawn, 20/20 hindsight, blah blah. It's just depressing. It wouldn't have even needed risks taking, just a LITTLE more divergence from the ladz-with-cunty-haircuts orthodoxy. Just a LITTLE.
Because that's what "knowing your audience" is about, it's knowing what the cooler ones among them - the ones that liked Dizzee first, that liked Skream first, that liked Sugababes unironically, that went to Trash - wanted, not just the undifferentiated mass.
If Mixmag had carried on with the corporate publisher, it'd have still been pumping the cover full of half-clad girls and putty-haired trance megastars in 2005-6, because "that's what the market wanted" BUT instead it was allowed to follow the musical knowledge of serious fans...
...to cover dubstep when it was only just breaking through, to lean towards Berlin as much as Ibiza, yadda yadda - all the things that have made it authoritative in its field, and able to expand internationally because of that.
/rant ends
/rant ends
Oh P.S. obviously this feeds into conversation about diversity.
Lowest common denominator content is always driven by homogeneous, privileged management twonks; exciting content (including spotting future stars early) from listening to (and paying!) a young, diverse workforce.
Lowest common denominator content is always driven by homogeneous, privileged management twonks; exciting content (including spotting future stars early) from listening to (and paying!) a young, diverse workforce.
TL;DR:
Just an addendum on the NME thread having slept on it.
I over-emphasised the content specifics there. It's less whether they covered grime or pop that matters, than the more general principle of disconnect from the audience and even from the on-the-ground journalists.
I over-emphasised the content specifics there. It's less whether they covered grime or pop that matters, than the more general principle of disconnect from the audience and even from the on-the-ground journalists.
The main magazine companies are now SO disconnected from the business of writing and producing magazines, that the diktats from on high are worse than clueless. They come from privileged, cosseted dicks who see publishing as interchangeable with any other media/agency position.
NME could've been pure landfill indie, or a pure pop magazine, or a much more diverse one: ANY of these could have worked if it had been run like Mixmag is: musical knowledge first (and seen as an ASSET to brand partnerships!), rather than an add-on to undifferentiated "content".
