Although it’s probably over 20 years since I’ve been a regular reader I couldn’t resist buying the final edition before it gets relaunched as a freesheet. I still have some affection for the thing and I wish them well with the revamp. However, one factoid on page 10 speaks volumes about the fact that the paper has probably been stuck in a bit of a rut since 1994, where it reveals who has graced the cover of NME the most in the past 63 years. Not Mozzer, not The Beatles, not even Bowie (who comes a close 2nd with 32 covers). It is in fact those wacky funsters from Burnage, the brothers Gallagher, who have ‘graced’ the cover a whopping 78 times. It suggets the NME never really shook off Britpop, and somewhere along the line lost the confidence in putting ‘New’ on the cover in favour of remaining well in the comfort zone. Perhaps without the pressure of having to sell the thing it can get back to what it used to do and stop being a paper version of Uncut/Mojo
The last (paid for) NME and a telling statistic
78 covers? Their first album came out in 1994 which was 21 years ago. 78 covers in twenty one years is almost four a year, although Oasis had about seven albums in this time (not including live ones and The Masterplan type compilations). Beady Eye and High Flying Birds had two albums each? Is that about right?
And now the problem is eleven albums of new stuff in 21 years from the various members of a successful band is beginning to look a bit like fair enough when you consider that after Oasis, as far as UK bands flogging magazines go, there’s really only The Libertines. Coldplay never flogged a magazine in their lives I suspect.
So the problem, I would suggest, is the “Music” part rather than the “New” part, sadly. There hasn’t been any bands since Britpop who have connected enough to sell magazines and the modern day equivalents of people who read NME in the past are just expecting free stuff online. Frankly I’m amazed the NME lasted so long.
I apologise if this makes little sense. I have been drinking.
I guess it depends how they count them. I mean they’re on the cover in the picture above, but so are many other folk.
I don’t have as fond memories of the NME as others here. I bought it for a few years in the late 80s and it was a mean-spirited rag that seemed to vet an artist’s political views before deciding if it liked them. I understand that it was better in the 70s or early 80s.
I’m not sure if there’s a need for a weekly music magazine any more. Much of the information that the NME provides (gig listings etc) is now freely available elsewhere.
Agree
Mean-spirited is what they were. They once referred to the female keyboard player from Aussie band The Triffids as “A cube-shaped monstrosity” I must have read that phrase thirty years ago and I have never forgotten it, I doubt the woman thus described has either. What sort of turd would describe someone like that? It’s sheer nastiness for the sake of it.
what is that edition like?
Gangle – what you say is confirmed by the relative dearth of British acts that appear at the top end of festival bills, aside from those that were active 15, 25 or even 50 years ago.
Most of the issues from the 60s had adverts on the cover (including Bowie for a ’66 single, Who and Kinks 45s, and the famous Stones in drag cover, amongst others).
The 60s was represented with one Beatles’ cover.
Rock ‘n’ Roll, the biggest musical explosion ever, with none.
Till the very end the old warhorse soldiered on with punk and indie and grunge. Triffic.
A poor, but completely predictable and deserved, final issue.
Always hated its 1970s ‘heyday’, good riddance.
Hey deram, why did you hate it in the ’70s? From early to late ’70s, it was, easily, my most-enjoyed read. Very good journalists who wrote some great pieces (Kent on the Beach Boys, Syd! Nick Drake etc)!funny and informative. It was the late ’70s of Morley and Penman that slowly soured me of it and I didn’t always enjoy the underlying snark, particularly if it was directed at a band I liked.
I read it from around 1980 to 1999. Yes, it had annoying aspects but lots to enjoy as well.
I know it’s an unpopular opinion around here but I particularly enjoyed the Britpop era NME. Also living in Camden Town at the time, there was one newsagent that for some reason, would get it in a day earlier than all the other newsagents.
I went off it when I just couldn’t keep up with The Strokes, The Vines, The Thrills, The Kills, The Killers etc etc not for me anymore but I certainly don’t wish it good riddance.
I read from about 1977 and stopped in about 1992 (though I don’t know why, had a look their Albums of the Year. Copper Blue, Automatic for the People, Dirty, UF Orb, Nerve Net, Harvest Moon!)
I quite enjoyed the Morley/Penman days, at least they moved NME away from hoary old Rock into some great Pop music. And yes they did disappear up their own arses, but most Music hacks do.
I dislike it in the 1970s (or to be more precise ‘from’ the 1970s) because it started dictating what the public should like rather than what the public actually did like.
Like them or loathe them, Phil Collins outsold The Smiths by millions worldwide, ditto The Police and The Clash, ditto Simply Red and Manic Street Preachers.
Their preferences post-60s were phoney and infinitely more manufactured than the manufactured pop they so despised and the public, in spite of the NME, bought by the bucket-load.
I think my weekly music paper of choice would be one which considered its job to be pushing bands like The Clash, The Smiths and Manic Street Preachers (regardless of their location on my like/loathe scale).
I seem to recall reasonably regular chirpy features in the NME about non-NME acts like Boyzone, Fish and Sting.
The thing I remember reading the NME in the 80s was the amount of “Why don’t you listen to black music, you losers?” broadsides aimed at its own readers. In that context, it’s sad to hear it was locked into a Post-Britpop, Grunge rut for the last 20 years. To my eyes, it’s notable how white that last cover is, when I remember an NME that used to put very limited black acts on the cover almost willing them to be good..
but you’re commenting here and not on the Daily Mail website…
Basically, If you were the editor of the NME by the 1980s, you’d still be putting Herman’s Hermits on the cover.
Richard Clayderman sold more records than The Smiths. Go figure.
I always knew there was something to that Clayderman.
We’ll have to beg to differ @deramdaze as I started reading it in the early 1980s and together with Peel (also someone who played what he thought you should listen to rather than what was popular), the NME of Penman, Morley, Hoskyns, Quantick etc wrote about who they thought you should be listening to rather than what was popular. That was always their deal. Sometimes pretentious, sometimes infuriating and snobbish, but always worth reading. Their championing of early rap, reggae and funk played a huge part in opening my ears to music beyond guitar bands.
But I knew what was popular, I could look at the charts I needed to know about the other stuff. And that’s what NME (and Peel) gave me
Plus NME wrote about Phil Collins, The Police and Simply Red before they sold millions.
Yup distinctly remember money’s too tight to mention being well reviewed in the singles column
Just picked up the last issue. A nice NMEmento, actually. The editorial is refreshingly quite self critical too as well as celebratory. They admit their flaws and being out of step at times.
Their closing statement as they enter into freebie issues and increasing the online presence:
“Change has been its only real constant, which is why every generation looks back on its own NME differently, and invariably through rose-tinted shades. It was always better in whichever day you read it, because no publication lasts this long by staying the same: the paper always had to adapt to the times, and move with them when necessary. NME has always been at the forefront of new music, a source not only of news and reviews, but of debate, dissent and above all, passion.
We approach the future cognisant of the most valuable lesson learned from our past: that music doesn’t stand still, and we can’t afford to, either.”
Was good to see they revived some bits of the ‘Thrills’ column – which lest we forget gave us ‘David Bowie invented Connect 4’ and started the rumour that Bob Holness played the sax on Baker Street and there is the (obligatory for anniversary issues) section on ‘what were we thinking’ cover stars…it seems the NME went through a period in the 80s where it tried to cover sports as well hence Frank Bruno and Barry McGuigan graced the cover – there was also a Delboy and Rodney from Only Fools and Horses cover and of course Neil Kinnock at the height of Red Wedge. Maybe Jeremy Corbyn will be on the first freebie NME cover.
I genuinely wish it well – and I hope it’s good in it’s freebie guise and I will probably read it. It intends to have a circulation of 300,000- it’s a bold gamble and it wil be interesting to see if it works – I wonder what cache it has with ‘the yoof’ – it’s a long time since there was an NME stage at Glastonbury and other major festivals – does anyone under 30 know what the NME is? We will see.