Conference marvin::uk_music

	in a word Yes,

		The M.M. is a shadow of its former self, as indeed is the NME
	and Sounds. instead of offering constructive criticism of latest albums
	Live gigs, decent interviews etc. they now all seem to be dominated by
	the need to be fashionable / first with the latest thing in one hit
	wonders / print the most irrelevant and obscure chart and so on.

	 Basically, I buy the NME and then read about three pages of it.

	 The Adverts for live gigs.

	 The new releases.

	 The Tour announcements.

	 (oh, and occasionally an interview if they've found anyone who actually
	  wants to talk to them)


						Hippy_in_a_time_warp.

							aka Graham.

    When my all-time hero and one of the greatest bass players the world
    has ever known, Jaco Pastorius, died last year the column in the
    NME measured about 2 by 1 inches. In contrast the Independent newspaper
    devoted a third of a (much larger) page to this innovative musician.
    
    That was the last time I read the NME......
    
    Tony

    
    re .0
    
    Not that give a damn anymore, because I retired as Moderator, but
    that's a cheap shot.
    
    /prc

    I wouldn't mind if it *was* cheap, but it costs 55p a shot!
    
    I could justify my disappointment in the paper by referring to almost
    any of the articles in Saturday's edition (the interview with Barry
    Humphries was O.K.). The only excuse for such wandering,
    inconsequential, non-sequitur ridden prose is that it is entertaining.
    It's not entertaining, or informative -- it's not even any sort
    of achievement to have written it. It's of use to neither musicians
    (� la original MM charter) nor punters. I agree with .1 -- the most
    useful bits are the gig announcements and the stuff for sale columns.
    
    It's a shame that a paper with such a history should pander to the vagaries
    of image in an attempt to out-pose its competition.
    
    Richard.

    I read NME recently, and was surprised to find it had got slightly
    (very slightly) better since its worst (and it couldnt have got
    any worse) days of about 3 years ago.
    MM never really recovered from becoming totally square at the time
    of punk....
    
    I never knew Jaco or Richard Manuel (the Band) were dead until I
    read it in this conference today....
    
    Bob

    
    I bought my first copy of Sounds recently and was disappointed. I'm an
    N.M.E. man myself and I do try and read as much as poss. Yes, there's
    some tripe in there, but the new/reviews/gig lists etc. are good. I've
    been gettin' N.M.E. now for some time - it does have some amusing
    things in now and again too.
    
    David.
    

    RE .5:
    
    I think this is an example of where the arrogance of much modern
    music journalism lets it down. If you spend much of your time scoring
    poser-points off established musicians (check the review of Winwood
    in last Saturday's MM merely as an example -- or better still,
    don't bother) then when one of them dies it's hard to put together
    any sort of report, let alone tribute. 
    
    I was amazed at the lack of interest shown in Jaco Pastorius' death.
    Even the T.V. channels, who nicked the 'birdland' theme time and
    time again, didn't deem it newsworthy.
    
    Richard.
    

    I used to read MM regularly between 1967-80. During that period
    you had good constructive reviews from the like of Richard Williams,
    and you could have a laugh reading Chris Welch's articles. When
    did you last laugh reading MM, SOUNDS, or NME (laughs of derision
    don't count!). Also you didn't need a special "hip" dictionary to
    decipher the pages. Those were also the days when Virgin was being
    born and had full page ads of cut-price LPs. 
    
    The thing that came over though, was it was all about music, which
    was what I was (and still is) into. So I bought it.
    
    Now, as someone else so aptly put it, they try to "out-pose" each
    other. Music is secondary to "trends", "street-cred" etc.
    
    Question to MM/NME/SOUNDS: What is the difference between:
    	a) Jerry Hall( & fashion in general)
    	b) Top-ten charts
    	c) Designer-stubble
    	d) "Modern" music journalism
        e) Acne
    
    Answer: Nothing! - they are all superficial and skin-deep and offer
    nothing that lasts.
    
    At the other extreme, you ought to listen to Radio-3 on a sat.morning
    where they dissect note-by-note classical recordings (including
    comaparisons of  the same work on different labels). You are in
    no doubt as to what to buy (and I don't care what the reviewer is
    wearing). A function is provided, and will also be provided next
    month and the one afterwards (boring perhaps, but providing a service,
    and if you listen long enough an education in music.) The only snag
    for me is that most of the music leaves me cold. But that is not
    the point.
    
    These guys who write now seem to be really "pseudy". Don't they
    realise that if music is good (or great), it will always be valid,
    and there will always be a demand for it. They must be real egoists
    interested in projecting what they think to be a "style". WhAT DO
    THEY TAKE US FOR!! If they want to try and prove how "outrageous"
    or "hip" they are, let them inflict it on their girlfriends (if
    they have them!). As for me, well to quote a well-worn cliche...
    
    "There's nothing new under the sun - It's all been done before in
    one form or another".
    
    	Alex.
    

    Re last:
    
    I'd rather have Jerry Hall than acne!
    
    
    Rod

    re .1
    
    Its not so much finding people who want to talk to the music press
    - it is trying to find someone who has got something worth saying
    and thus worth reading.
    
    The MM used to be a highly respected paper in the old days. You
    got NME for pop and MM for jazz and the rest.
    
    As someone has already said, it is only really good for the ads. 
                                                   
    Disillusioned of Reading
    
    andy
    
    PS
    
    I like Q
   

    Re. -1, what is so different about Q when compared to NME, MM etc.?
    I've heard others say this quite recently, but I've never seen a
    copy of this publication.  What is the format/general content?
    
    Dougie_a_staunch_NME/MM_reader_since_the_early_70's (gulp!) 8-)

    Dougie,  if you want to pop round to just behind the cash office
    tomorrow, I'll lend you a copy.
    
    -Paul

    Didn't Frank Zappa make a comment about pop journalism? Something
    like "People who can't write, interviewing people who can't talk,
    for people who can't read."
    
    Rod

    
    A few weeks ago, M.M did a reasonable 2 part interview with the
    Marychain. Other than that, the rest was twaddle.
    
    It also had a review of the Reading Festival , and I found that
    I disagreed with every opinion in it. Everything I thought good,
    they thought bad. Everything that I enjoyed was slammed. 
    
    If the pursuit to find the "Next big thing" means looking for groups
    who are completely unentertaining to 99% of the population, them
    true music is dead.