The Afterword

Musings on the byways of popular culture

Menu

Navigation

You are here: Home / Forum / NME Review – Return of the son of Tiny Quiz

NME Review – Return of the son of Tiny Quiz

by 74 Comments

Here’s an extract from a review published in the NME.
No clues: no year, no journalist name – and I’ve redacted the title.
I’ve deliberately moved away from corporate snark – when you know the album, you may or may not agree with the conclusion – but you can’t deny the positivity!

Which album do you think is being reviewed?

“(…) is the ONLY contemporary rock album.”

0

Comments

    • I don’t think it’s properly from the 80s, because “rock” became a dirty word unless preceded by “lovers'”. JD might be a good shout.

      But then it could be something by one of those shouty types like The Run DMC or The Beastlie Boys.

    • Later …. probably about 1988. Birdland were one of many bands (early Manics, Strokes, Libertines being prime examples) who successfully framed themselves in terms of what the music press wanted. In Birdland’s case they didn’t have the talent to back it up – a later instance of this being Gay Dad (who somewhat gave the game away by being led by an ex-NME journalist in a gamekeeper-turned-poacher scenario)

      1987-8 was the time that rock became acceptable again. Possibly, as I implied, through the back door of sampling. A milestone came early in 1987 the NME did a big cover story on what they then called “speed metal” which gave the imprimatur of acceptability to Slayer, Anthrax, Megadeth and Metallica (in retrospect, as with most music-press defined “movements”, it’s difficult to see what these bands had in common… I’m rambling now…)

  25. The reveal:

    The album being reviewed was Low by David Bowie
    The journalist was Ian MacDonald, writing in the NME in January 1977

    No correct guesses – so the magnificent prize rolls over to the next time.

    • Was it reviewed twice?

      My memory is that CSM reviewed it and, while impressed, opined that it was unhelpfully dark and bleak.

      Funny Ian McD praised Low when it’s shot through with the kind of electronic gimmickry that he hammered in the introduction to Revolution in the Head.

    • “Two reviews ran side by side in NME… [The other] review… criticised the record as vacuous, “an album so negative that it doesn’t even contain emptiness or the void… an act of purest hatred and destructiveness… concluding “OK: who needs this shit?”

          • Lazy word? No. Can a word be lazy?
            Descriptive of NME’s usual house style? Yes.

            On the other hand: I am clearly lazy, since I used “snark” (used on these boards by countless others before me) instead of trying to write something better.

            As for it being entertaining rock writing – I suppose it depends what entertains you.

            • It’s all opinion, innit? And one opinion’s as good as another, innit? An’ you know what I think? I think opinions are like arseholes – everybody’s got oneHARHARLOL!!!!

              Seriously though but – the NME would have been a dull old read if the writers were tippy-toeing on eggshells worrying about “snark” offending the delicate sensibilities of their readership. “Actually I can see why their fans will like this album, it’s just not exactly my cup of tea! No offence!” A good scathe has far more entertainment potential than praise, and shouldn’t upset anyone. It’s only people who can’t write writing for people who can’t read, anyway. Allegedly.

              • I was going to launch into another detailed response – but you’re right, of course. It might be more useful to admit that my intense dislike of the NME “house style” was formed decades ago – and carrying it forward into the 21st century could be construed as mildly irrational.

                • Over in food, Jay Rayner freely concurs his burials attract a far greater readership than those he comes to praise. So much so he tries to avoid visiting places that offer his snark on a, so to speak, plate.

                  • Theatre criticism was also covered by Diana Rigg in No Turn Unstoned.

                    My favourite film review is for the 1955 film of ‘I Am a Camera’ which is shorter than the title ‘Me no Leica’ (which I hope is true)

                    • Giles Badbreath was whiffling on about that book in the Oldie, in the context of his own rather similar book and his great friendship with Diana Rigg, obvs. In her book La Rigg quoted a New York review of her own turn in Abelard and Heloise, 1971: “Diana Ring is built like a brick mausoleum with insufficient flying buttresses.” Very sporting of her to include it, I must say…

                    • I can remember every word of one rock album review in Creem, for Lou Reed’s Sally Can’t Dance:

                      Nononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononono.

Leave a Reply