|
|
Post by Fergal on Jun 21, 2008 16:18:01 GMT
Or our good friend kendallhummer  But aye, action needs to be taken really, I'll help write sumat if anyone wants me too |
|
|
|
Post by Darren on Jun 21, 2008 16:29:45 GMT
I'm crossed between 2 post on the same subject really  The other post is in the off topic but I suppose that one is a more general response about the NME. Erm, yeah I don't know if we should keep the letter subject within the off topic or would you lot want to write a letter based on their total nonsense of 3 different reviews of the song ? ? |
|
|
|
Post by Darren on Jun 21, 2008 16:31:25 GMT
i think me and ste should write the letter. itd be shocking. I agree, I wouldn't give it justice ;D |
|
|
|
Post by frankiewno1 on Jun 23, 2008 10:50:25 GMT
Iv just dug out the original review from when it was a b-side to Cavorting.....bearing in mind the single was single of the week this is what it says about NYDNYD:
It's B-side meanwhile has the audacity to be better still allowing Fray to indulge his Morrissey vocal fantasies, reminisce about 'doing keys' (of coke) as a teenager and tease out a riff that glides along like a 'shrromed out Jonny Marr.
It then goes on to talk about how they will be amazing and that this is the debut of the year!!!
To give the NME some credit all reviews are by different writers but an editor shouldnt print such different reviews for the same song over such a short space of time...I mean there is two months between the last two!
|
|
|
|
Post by Darren on Jun 23, 2008 11:59:28 GMT
Yeah everyone has the right to their own opinions but these people seem to put all their efforts into over the top comparisons of what the band sound like or even look like, instead of constructive journalism. That's weather it a good or bad review Where the f**k do they get this s**t from ? Or has the NME created a special drug to feed to their 'writers' so they talk drivel  |
|
|
|
Post by Andy on Jun 24, 2008 7:56:29 GMT
if it is, god blimey the drivel does pour outta them eh
|
|
|
|
Post by frankiewno1 on Jun 24, 2008 18:01:36 GMT
haha check out my comment on the nme page!I cant believe they printed it...I noticed a few other forum members as well, chezza and greg
|
|
|
|
Post by ibm03 on Jun 24, 2008 22:33:20 GMT
Even more surprising is ‘No You Didn’t, No You Don’t’, a breezily nostalgic Smithsian jangle-pop wonder that truly bridges the gap between thug and hug. Consequently it’s easily the best track on the album. ahahahahahaha this is what they wrote about it before Liam slagged them off about his interview That is so funny! It really is very simple you know.......it is possible that not EVERYONE at the NME is a huge Courteeners fan. So just because a journalist wrote about liking NYDNYD doesn't mean that a DIFFERENT journalist should have the same opinion! It pisses me off when people go an about "the NME said this one week, then said something else the next week" when it is quite clearly the words of different people! |
|
|
|
Post by amber on Jun 24, 2008 22:50:17 GMT
Even more surprising is ‘No You Didn’t, No You Don’t’, a breezily nostalgic Smithsian jangle-pop wonder that truly bridges the gap between thug and hug. Consequently it’s easily the best track on the album. ahahahahahaha this is what they wrote about it before Liam slagged them off about his interview That is so funny! It really is very simple you know.......it is possible that not EVERYONE at the NME is a huge Courteeners fan. So just because a journalist wrote about liking NYDNYD doesn't mean that a DIFFERENT journalist should have the same opinion! It pisses me off when people go an about "the NME said this one week, then said something else the next week" when it is quite clearly the words of different people! That we get. The thing is, this is what NME does: 1) Promoting a band, telling they're the next best thing etc. 2) Slate them afterwards. It's a routine thing they do, not just to Courteeners, but to many bands. That's the problem we have with NME |
|
|
|
Post by Darren on Jun 25, 2008 5:43:56 GMT
Well said Amber. That's the only thing I don't like about forums really. Good points can get missed in threads that are popular and a lot of people just hurry through without reading everything. Please have a good read of the rest of the post and you'll see what everyone's getting at |
|
|
|
Post by chezza on Jun 25, 2008 8:45:58 GMT
Even more surprising is ‘No You Didn’t, No You Don’t’, a breezily nostalgic Smithsian jangle-pop wonder that truly bridges the gap between thug and hug. Consequently it’s easily the best track on the album. ahahahahahaha this is what they wrote about it before Liam slagged them off about his interview That is so funny! It really is very simple you know.......it is possible that not EVERYONE at the NME is a huge Courteeners fan. So just because a journalist wrote about liking NYDNYD doesn't mean that a DIFFERENT journalist should have the same opinion! It pisses me off when people go an about "the NME said this one week, then said something else the next week" when it is quite clearly the words of different people! Looking at NME as a business (and I use the term losely) wouldn't you think they would let the same ppl work on the same bands each time this would allow for consistency...for example at my work we all work on our own projects....I have the website for example -doesn't mean other ppl can't contrubite just I look after the overall style to allow for consistency!!!!! I understand that it is nice to have a mix of opinions but I think if they are have one review on behalf of NME consistency is more important....if they want to show a mix then they should have a review panel....  .. Just a thought...well it's the type of thing they teach on a first year business degree course.... |
|
|
|
Post by ibm03 on Jun 25, 2008 10:55:30 GMT
It really is very simple you know.......it is possible that not EVERYONE at the NME is a huge Courteeners fan. So just because a journalist wrote about liking NYDNYD doesn't mean that a DIFFERENT journalist should have the same opinion! It pisses me off when people go an about "the NME said this one week, then said something else the next week" when it is quite clearly the words of different people! That we get. The thing is, this is what NME does: 1) Promoting a band, telling they're the next best thing etc. 2) Slate them afterwards. It's a routine thing they do, not just to Courteeners, but to many bands. That's the problem we have with NME You are doing it again though. you are saying it is what "they" do, as if the articles are written by a team. These articles are written by individuals, so it is absolutely no surprise that the articles contradict each other. It is what i want to see at a magazine, each writer giving their honest opinion of bands and records (and not just giving them a good review because they were on the cover the other week, for example). Oh, and every fan of every band that has ever been has been paranoid about the NME "building them up, and knocking them down". |
|
|
|
Post by chezza on Jun 25, 2008 11:39:32 GMT
That we get. The thing is, this is what NME does: 1) Promoting a band, telling they're the next best thing etc. 2) Slate them afterwards. It's a routine thing they do, not just to Courteeners, but to many bands. That's the problem we have with NME You are doing it again though. you are saying it is what "they" do, as if the articles are written by a team. These articles are written by individuals, so it is absolutely no surprise that the articles contradict each other. It is what i want to see at a magazine, each writer giving their honest opinion of bands and records (and not just giving them a good review because they were on the cover the other week, for example). Oh, and every fan of every band that has ever been has been paranoid about the NME "building them up, and knocking them down". Yes but it's written as the view of NME...not as the indivdual - if they want to do it that way they should profile their reviewers or as I said before use a panel.. |
|
|
|
Post by amber on Jun 25, 2008 16:56:58 GMT
You are doing it again though. you are saying it is what "they" do, as if the articles are written by a team. These articles are written by individuals, so it is absolutely no surprise that the articles contradict each other. It is what i want to see at a magazine, each writer giving their honest opinion of bands and records (and not just giving them a good review because they were on the cover the other week, for example). Oh, and every fan of every band that has ever been has been paranoid about the NME "building them up, and knocking them down". Yes but it's written as the view of NME...not as the indivdual - if they want to do it that way they should profile their reviewers or as I said before use a panel.. exactly. And, I don't think you really get my point here ibm03. What I'm saying, and I think most of the people here agree with me on that. Is that the NME as a whole, or the editors, the leaders of the magazine, the people who decide who's reviewing what etc. Are doing this build m up, knock m down thing on purpose. Since it's a pattern they seem to use on a lot of bands. |
|
|
|
Post by ste on Jun 25, 2008 17:50:31 GMT
That we get. The thing is, this is what NME does: 1) Promoting a band, telling they're the next best thing etc. 2) Slate them afterwards. It's a routine thing they do, not just to Courteeners, but to many bands. That's the problem we have with NME You are doing it again though. you are saying it is what "they" do, as if the articles are written by a team. These articles are written by individuals, so it is absolutely no surprise that the articles contradict each other. It is what i want to see at a magazine, each writer giving their honest opinion of bands and records (and not just giving them a good review because they were on the cover the other week, for example). Oh, and every fan of every band that has ever been has been paranoid about the NME "building them up, and knocking them down". Oh an NME fan boy... Go suck there dicks you fuckin fag |
|
..