The NME
I dunno, the 1998-2000 cut off that's been bandied about seems fair, at least in my experience. I read it a few times then, when I was in my early teens, and it was crap from the get go, so I never got to read a 'good' NME. Generally amongst friends it was known as being pretty poor. I don't know how good it was during the early '90s, but it was definitely cack by the late '90s.
Of course it helped that even that early on we had the internet for band/gig news, which was much more preferable.
WOM wrote: Of course they do.
It just seems that nobody remembers exactly when it was at its best, which it appears that it was right around when they started reading it (aged 14 or 15), and then it declined in lockstep with pop music becoming a less important part of your teenage years (as it would).
I'm not saying that writing doesn't vary in quality. But to ignore the age / time of life bias seems willful.
It just seems that nobody remembers exactly when it was at its best, which it appears that it was right around when they started reading it (aged 14 or 15), and then it declined in lockstep with pop music becoming a less important part of your teenage years (as it would).
I'm not saying that writing doesn't vary in quality. But to ignore the age / time of life bias seems willful.
Of course it helped that even that early on we had the internet for band/gig news, which was much more preferable.
Comment