From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Magazines (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Magazines, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of magazines on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
See WikiProject Magazines' writing guide for tips on how to improve this article.
WikiProject United Kingdom  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Stall at Glasto[edit]

- Have changed the bit at bottom about the paper having a stall at Glastonbury, they don't, but they do have them at most festivals.

They used to. Wasn't the alt stage called the NME stage in the early 90s? I remember them giving out free NMEs from their stall. --kingboyk 04:51, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
you mean the other stage —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:56, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


"British music became dull and uninventive" - do I hear someone say POV? Joolz 20:14, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

agreed. this article is fawning of the magazine. in truth many observers are very critical of the direction that the NME has taken. Electing Pete Doherty to be the "Coolest Man of Rock" in 2004 was especially controversial as the man is a self confessed crack addict. Also, the late 90s and early 2000s the NME championed many new bands that would not get a smigin of attention now - Mogwai and Godspeed You! Black Emperor both obtained front pages during those days, something that would be unheard of for post-rock acts now. Other popular indie acts during the late 90s, such as Symposium and Idlewild, were certainly not dull or uninventive. They now tend, IMO, to establish very safe acts which sell well on MTV and on the Radio - the Libertines, The Strokes or Muse for example.
- Yeah, the NME briefly put much more emphasis on underground music between 'Britpop' and the 'New Rock Revolution'. Theyve lost a lot of credibility since then and websites like Pitchfork seem to be the main source of information for more discerning Indie fans now. I think the NME has successfully found a niche though.
This article needs a lot of work. Snooo 02:52, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I replaced the offending sentance but it still needs more work. --Moochocoogle 16:05, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I don't agree that the NME champions "safe acts" (who, realistically, thinks that Pete Doherty is a good role model?) - rather that any band that can be deemed new and cool is now picked up by the mainstream a lot faster than previously, and is then marketed and promoted to death because "new" and "cool" sell very well at the moment. It's not as if the NME has suddenly gone all Smash Hits and is hyping James Blunt...
Do agree that the article could use a bit of work - but it's fundamentally sound, IMHO.

Does anyone care to mention that NME is biased leaning towards racist? Giving Nas' second album and Raekwon's Shaolin vs. Wu-Tang grades of around 5/10 is pretty brutal. I've noticed many many other low scores given to rap albums. Could the article say that NME isn't a music magazine for all genres, it is a British magazine for guitar music? Seriously, 5/10 or some shit.

Really really hot[edit]

"...even attracting a rather obsessive fanbase online because they are really really hot."

Yeah. Not just really hot. Really really hot. Can we fix this? Stan weller 07:43, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
I think it was vandalism. I removed it. Thanks for pointing it out, it is often tough to spot subtle vandalism like that.--Commander Keane 07:48, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

NME tour 2006[edit]

I can assure the person who keeps editing the NME tour 2006 that the aforementioned


The line However McNicholas has been criticised for dropping journalist standards and concentrating on more commercial and tabloid press aspects. In December 2005 accusations were made that the NME end of year poll had been edited for commercial and political reasons. These criticisms have not affected the sales of the paper or stopped McNicholas from winning industry awards. was edited as being NPOV by an anon user. Seeing as the accusation links to a news story in The Guardian and was reported elsewhere, it strikes me that this is entirely legitimate to include in the article.

Anyone else agree, if there's an obvious consensus then it should stay as it highlights the current criticisms of the paper.

This should stay if it is properly referenced to the Guardian article.--TheCooperman 23:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

While I broadly agree that 'journalistic' standards have been dropped in a way NME has had to move with the times. The idea of Rock Journalism seems very old fashioned now. I think if there are any legitimate criticisms then we can put a section in regarding this but I can't find any in the mainstream media. Ketha

I would agree that the standards in the NME have suffered a major drop in quality under its current ed. I think the last decent artical i read in the NME was about kasabian when they were still a small supporting act, and the best part of the interview took part in there tiny dressing room. Is it just me or does anyone see a pattern in the fact that this indie rave movment is getting alot of press when you consider the ed's prior work - steven

I think Henry Rollins' account of an interview(referred to in "Smile, you're travelling") he gave to one of the NME's "journalists" is the best illustration of said rag's ethos; the interviewer was telling him that good music was cheap, pointless, and disposable, and that "Monolithic" stuff like the Rollins band was killing music. Rollins responded by asking him how he rated the disposability factor of, say, Aretha Franklin or Al Green, to which the journo "Didnt have an awful lot to say about that".

NME Awards[edit]

The NME awards were called 'the Brat Awards' for a short time and were reinstated as a backlash against the universally derided industry yawn-fest Brit Awards. I think this should be noted.

I am curious at the statement in the article that the NMW poll winners concerts ceased in 1966. I helped run the PA for Charlie Watkins (WEM) at the 1970 NME Poll Winners Concert that was headlined by Cliff Richard and the Shadows, which would seem to indicate that the 1966 date is incorrect. Any cites around to clear this up? 21stCenturyGreenstuff (talk) 15:02, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Never mind, I have searched the web and found programmes for sale relating to the 1958/59 and 1969/70 concerts. I am pretty certain the concerts continued at least as late as 1972 but cannot find proof yet. 21st CENTURY GREENSTUFF 13:40, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

covering "pop" acts[edit]

NME has always covered so-called "pop" acts. Lily Allen is not an exception to this. Kylie, Mel C, Destiny's Child and many more have all featured on the cover (to the derision of indie-snob fans). Other cover stars include Aphex Twin, Mogwai, Godspeed, Napster(!) and Ken Livingstone. It is an elitist group of snobs who despise all music except "four haircuts and a guitar" droneage that are critical of NME's covering of bands and artists that sell as well as what is "cool".

POV Violation[edit]

It seems that this has been a consistent problem here. I through the tag on because, well, among some of the forementioned problems, you get this statement in the first paragraph "It gained underground popularity in particular during the punk era but has recently been making up music scenes and championing incredibly mediocre rock bands in a pathetic attempt to sell more copies." This needs some work, as well as many other things.

-It cannot be denied that they have a habit-like many influential members of the media- to decide what today will be "pop". The "indie snobs" are people who beleive that the magazine ignores anything that is not part of the "scene" at this moment or time.

eg:The recent emo music onslaught that was first laughed at but now seems to be the new "scene".

It does need a little work. But I find it hard to fix it without pointing out they were pushing forward Pete Doherty and the likes.

Comments removed[edit]

I've removed some of the more curious and unencyclopaedic comments, namely "these affected McNicholas' relentless self-belief" and the utterly bizarre paragraph about NME readers' hairstyles. RobinCarmody, 06:16 GMT, 12 November 2006

The Enemy[edit]

Have deleted the following statement, and slightly rewritten the paragraph in which it was included, as it suggests that the moniker was an invention of the punk movement:

The NME was seen as The Enemy and very much part of the music establishment that Punk was rebelling against.

The term was in fact already in use in the mid-60s by jazz musicians who were critical of the coverage NME was giving to pop/rock groups at the expense of jazz. 23:07, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Rock 'n' Roll Riot Tour[edit]

This started as late as 2004 - not 2006 as stated. I can;t remember who was on the lineups though - Prehaps someone can correct it. I half rememeber Razorlight doing 2004 and Kaiser Chiefs in 2005 if that will help jog any memories... --Donald V 18:11, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Criticism, anyone?[edit]

I know Wikipedia is meant to be neutral. But there is plenty of criticism that can be thrown at that awful magazine - for example, a few years back they faked there awards so bands that NME liked won rather than bands it didn't. It also has been accused of having an obscene interest in not only pop-indie bands but pop bands and selling out, so it can no longer be accused of being the word on indie music.

Many 'indie-kids' like myself have grown tired of the bullshit that feel their pages. The magazine is so vacuous that it can take less than 10 minutes to read through. So where's the criticism? It's still worth while even it's tiny. Recently wikipedia has become white-washed because of it's neutrality and ends up promoting usually brands like NME. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 08:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC).

- I also think their bias is shocking. I can try to calculate what issue it was, but when the Arctic Monkey's first album came out, it was declared the 5th greatest British album of all time (in an article about the 100 best British albums ever) three DAYS after the album was released... Logic dictates that the article was written/published before the thing was even released. The reviews also contain a lot of hypocrisy, a Good Charlotte album "Chronicles of Life and Death" got 0/10, but were called a great singles band the next issue. In a recent issue, they blasted Linkin Park's latest album for stuff like talking about Mike Shinoda being a multi-millionaire talking about the price of gas, yet these "working class" British bands they champion aren't exactly poor themselves surely.

More criticism of the NME. Linkin Park's album went straight to #1 in the UK charts (, yet are clearly denying it ( - they say Amy Winehouse is first). Could this be because they gave it 2/10, therefore had little affect in influencing the chart?

NME is run by imbeciles for imbeciles. I stopped reading it a long time ago. One could comply a vast list of greviances against this piss poor excuse for a magazine. And, yes, it does fabricate chart positions. Imagine - it only gave Nine Inch Nails' Year Zero 5/10. Tossers!

I think a criticism section is warranted. Seeing as there is plenty of material for it -- 16:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed - at least 75% of the people I know despise and criticize NME, the other 25% don't know what it is. In fact, I could've sworn there was a criticism section in existence just a few months ago...Arkyopterix 08:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

There was, i remember reading it!-- 00:59, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

NME is a pile of crap!! I read one issue and it's nothing to do with actual music, it's just a gossip magazine surrounding the lives of celebrities involved with music. Like HEAT MAGAZINE!! Besides they conduct pointless "best album ever" lists every week. And they always have crap albums up there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The page reads like a badly-written official bio. There's next to no criticism, and there is plenty going about (as the above comments show). Could do with tidying up and having its POV balanced imo. (talk) 11:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

How exactly does the phrase "In 2006 NME won the CocaCola best magazine this century award" count as criticism? I am removing it.3fingeredPete (talk) 19:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Has anyone else seen that Pitchfork review of Konk by The Kooks that got put up today? The reviewer put some critiscism of the style of artist the NME pushes (and we all know what he's on about). I'd definiely advocate putting it in this article, but I wouldn't want to go and do it just for it to be deleted by some 13 year-old Kaiser Chiefs fan. (talk) 21:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I would like to add to critiscism that an NME writer wrote "Ska-punk is the worst thing I have heard." They have received some dislike for this comment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Someone keeps deleting the ska-punk comment. Whoever is doing this could you explain your reasons as to why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Disposableandy (talkcontribs) 16:04, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Morrissey posted a savage response to NME's allegations that he was a racist in 2008, where he criticized their shoddy journalism and tabloid style. I think it should be introduced to the article but I am lazy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:34, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I've never read it so I cant really criticize it. But Luke Lewis is.. For lack of a better word, stupid. I do know there was some contreversy with My Chemical Romance though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:51, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Morrissey's Outburst[edit]

What's the deal with this section..? 1337wesm (talk) 04:41, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

There's some sort of spat going on between Morrissey, the NME and one of the NME's journalists about what Morrisey did or did not say in an interview. Whatever the rights and wrongs of that, the amount of space devoted to it here is wildly over the top. BTLizard (talk) 12:41, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The NME Forum[edit]

I removed the section on the forum as it was clearly nonsensical. Miniexcel (talk) 21:45, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

True though. --Disregarddill (talk) 11:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

When did New Musical Express become NME?[edit]

The article implies the paper was called NME from 1952. I think it was called only New Musical Express, with the initialism "NME" not appearing on the cover until the 1970s.  Randall Bart   Talk  03:46, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Do you have references for this? --Flashflash; 17:47, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


It says that Conor McNicholas is the editor, yet on his page, it says he is now the editor of BBC Top Gear Magazine. Any suggestions on how to solve this? --Flashflash; 19:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Regional Role[edit]

I admit this is from my own POV ... I am a forgotten NME columnist from the early '70s, reporting to Tony Tyler. However, it is my humble opinion that NME was the first music paper to develop and support music properly from beyond London, making some brave decisions on provincial reviews, regional news and local hero interviews which the rest of the music press simply were closed to. So can I suggest that someone does the research necessary to comemmorate this - I can't 'cos I wuz there?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterphillips (talkPete (talk) 23:13, 13 June 2012 (UTC)contribs) 23:08, 13 June 2012 (UTC)