NME to end print edition

[Marky Dread]

From 1988 - 1998 the NME was pretty much my music bible read it from cover to cover and fingers covered in ink ..

I read it along with Sounds and Melody Maker weekly. I read the NME from 78-98. It went down hill when it went glossy and I gave up prefering to read Record Collector.

[101Walterton]

From 1988 - 1998 the NME was pretty much my music bible read it from cover to cover and fingers covered in ink ..

I read it along with Sounds and Melody Maker weekly. I read the NME from 78-98. It went down hill when it went glossy and I gave up prefering to read Record Collector.

I read Sounds more than NME.

[Dr. Medulla]

From 1988 - 1998 the NME was pretty much my music bible read it from cover to cover and fingers covered in ink ..

I read it along with Sounds and Melody Maker weekly. I read the NME from 78-98. It went down hill when it went glossy and I gave up prefering to read Record Collector.

I read Sounds more than NME.

What was the distinction between Sounds, MM, and NME? Did they cover specific genres and attract particular types of readers or were they all basically working the same turf all around?

[101Walterton]

From 1988 - 1998 the NME was pretty much my music bible read it from cover to cover and fingers covered in ink ..

I read it along with Sounds and Melody Maker weekly. I read the NME from 78-98. It went down hill when it went glossy and I gave up prefering to read Record Collector.

I read Sounds more than NME.

What was the distinction between Sounds, MM, and NME? Did they cover specific genres and attract particular types of readers or were they all basically working the same turf all around?

As far as I was concerned Sounds was directed at the 'new' and in particular punk, post punk and Two Tone. MM was old school and NME fell somewhere between the two.

[Dr. Medulla]

From 1988 - 1998 the NME was pretty much my music bible read it from cover to cover and fingers covered in ink ..

I read it along with Sounds and Melody Maker weekly. I read the NME from 78-98. It went down hill when it went glossy and I gave up prefering to read Record Collector.

I read Sounds more than NME.

What was the distinction between Sounds, MM, and NME? Did they cover specific genres and attract particular types of readers or were they all basically working the same turf all around?

As far as I was concerned Sounds was directed at the 'new' and in particular punk, post punk and Two Tone. MM was old school and NME fell somewhere between the two.

So Sounds was most likely to run after the latest hyped bands?

[Low Down Low]

Have a vague memory of Sounds being distinctly pro-Clash when it came to coverage and reviews. By round 82 anyway when I had graduated from Smash Hits to the “serious” trade papers. Not sure if I’m right on that but that was my perception anyway.

[Dr. Medulla]

Back in the 90s, I remember Q being the place for Britpop smugness. And, of course, Uncut remains the one-stop shopping for revolving cover stories on Dylan, Springsteen, Pink Floyd, Zep, Beatles, Stones, and Kinks—more rock Bible studies than criticism.

[JohnS]

I used to read the NME religiously from about 1979 to 1982/83 when I felt their writers had disappeared up their own arses writing about London-centric club scenes which meant nothing outside the capital. But in that time they were arguably braver than the other music papers with their subject matter. In a time when real intelligence was informing bands' material and for better or worse, politics came in to play as subject matter for lyrics, NME commissioned lengthy features you just didn't read anywhere else. And they got a lot of flak for it from many readers, too, but kept on doing it.
Thanks to the NME I learned a LOT about CND, and the links between EMI and the arms trade; the rise of barbiturates and opiates in drug circles; the ever-present danger of fascism and racism. And tons more.
You didn't get that in the Melody Maker, or Sounds, both of which I would also read occasionally if they had a piece on a favourite band or whatever.
MM was more safe and covered wider musical genres - folk, jazz as well as rock - but their main appeal was to active musicians. It ran lots of equipment reviews and had pages of classified ads selling second-hand gear, studio packages and of course want-ads for band members.
Sounds was very much the anti-NME in that it took the piss out of the cool club scene and New Romantics while embracing no-nonsense 'rock' - I think they coined the phrase The New Wave of British Heavy Metal, and also championed the Oi movement of (so-called) punk. There was even the 'Punk-Heavy Metal Crossover' genre.
Music was much more divisive and tribal back then and each of the papers was canny enough to focus in on a different section of the market, I suppose.
The best way to define the tone of the different papers was to read their annual readers' poll results. In the early 80s NME poll winners were aways the like of The Jam, Specials, Clash, etc; Sounds was all Iron Maiden and Motorhead

[Low Down Low]

Nice post John. Interesting that the Clash were among those always featuring in the readers polls of which I have a vague recollection too. But on the actual official NME end of year polls, the Clash barely merit a mention at all. The debut album doesn't feature in the top 5 (Bollocks was 4, Bowie 1) and it isn't until Combat Rock that any of their albums feature at all. It's all their on wiki. I'd give anybody a 1000 guesses and they'd never come up with their top pick for 82.

I think I recall Combat Rock being the album of the year in Sounds which is probably why I chalked it down as a pro-Clash paper. Could be I am wrong on that, though.

[101Walterton]

I used to read the NME religiously from about 1979 to 1982/83 when I felt their writers had disappeared up their own arses writing about London-centric club scenes which meant nothing outside the capital. But in that time they were arguably braver than the other music papers with their subject matter. In a time when real intelligence was informing bands' material and for better or worse, politics came in to play as subject matter for lyrics, NME commissioned lengthy features you just didn't read anywhere else. And they got a lot of flak for it from many readers, too, but kept on doing it.
Thanks to the NME I learned a LOT about CND, and the links between EMI and the arms trade; the rise of barbiturates and opiates in drug circles; the ever-present danger of fascism and racism. And tons more.
You didn't get that in the Melody Maker, or Sounds, both of which I would also read occasionally if they had a piece on a favourite band or whatever.
MM was more safe and covered wider musical genres - folk, jazz as well as rock - but their main appeal was to active musicians. It ran lots of equipment reviews and had pages of classified ads selling second-hand gear, studio packages and of course want-ads for band members.
Sounds was very much the anti-NME in that it took the piss out of the cool club scene and New Romantics while embracing no-nonsense 'rock' - I think they coined the phrase The New Wave of British Heavy Metal, and also championed the Oi movement of (so-called) punk. There was even the 'Punk-Heavy Metal Crossover' genre.
Music was much more divisive and tribal back then and each of the papers was canny enough to focus in on a different section of the market, I suppose.
The best way to define the tone of the different papers was to read their annual readers' poll results. In the early 80s NME poll winners were aways the like of The Jam, Specials, Clash, etc; Sounds was all Iron Maiden and Motorhead

Are you sure John? I was a Sounds reader because of their coverage of Two Tone from 79. I don’t remember it being all about metal st all because I had no interest in that.
Sounds was also very pro CND and anti fascism I remember having cuttings in my bedroom wall inspired by The Beat and their CND stance.

[Heston]

I used to read the NME religiously from about 1979 to 1982/83 when I felt their writers had disappeared up their own arses writing about London-centric club scenes which meant nothing outside the capital. But in that time they were arguably braver than the other music papers with their subject matter. In a time when real intelligence was informing bands' material and for better or worse, politics came in to play as subject matter for lyrics, NME commissioned lengthy features you just didn't read anywhere else. And they got a lot of flak for it from many readers, too, but kept on doing it.
Thanks to the NME I learned a LOT about CND, and the links between EMI and the arms trade; the rise of barbiturates and opiates in drug circles; the ever-present danger of fascism and racism. And tons more.
You didn't get that in the Melody Maker, or Sounds, both of which I would also read occasionally if they had a piece on a favourite band or whatever.
MM was more safe and covered wider musical genres - folk, jazz as well as rock - but their main appeal was to active musicians. It ran lots of equipment reviews and had pages of classified ads selling second-hand gear, studio packages and of course want-ads for band members.
Sounds was very much the anti-NME in that it took the piss out of the cool club scene and New Romantics while embracing no-nonsense 'rock' - I think they coined the phrase The New Wave of British Heavy Metal, and also championed the Oi movement of (so-called) punk. There was even the 'Punk-Heavy Metal Crossover' genre.
Music was much more divisive and tribal back then and each of the papers was canny enough to focus in on a different section of the market, I suppose.
The best way to define the tone of the different papers was to read their annual readers' poll results. In the early 80s NME poll winners were aways the like of The Jam, Specials, Clash, etc; Sounds was all Iron Maiden and Motorhead

Are you sure John? I was a Sounds reader because of their coverage of Two Tone from 79. I don’t remember it being all about metal st all because I had no interest in that.
Sounds was also very pro CND and anti fascism I remember having cuttings in my bedroom wall inspired by The Beat and their CND stance.

Loads of heavy rock/metal stuff in Sounds. I used to but it for KISS interviews/pics.

[Dr. Medulla]

Loads of heavy rock/metal stuff in Sounds. I used to but it for KISS interviews/pics.

“This one's going on the wall by my mirror,” said young Heston, as he worked on his Limahl hairdo.

[JohnS]

I used to read the NME religiously from about 1979 to 1982/83 when I felt their writers had disappeared up their own arses writing about London-centric club scenes which meant nothing outside the capital. But in that time they were arguably braver than the other music papers with their subject matter. In a time when real intelligence was informing bands' material and for better or worse, politics came in to play as subject matter for lyrics, NME commissioned lengthy features you just didn't read anywhere else. And they got a lot of flak for it from many readers, too, but kept on doing it.
Thanks to the NME I learned a LOT about CND, and the links between EMI and the arms trade; the rise of barbiturates and opiates in drug circles; the ever-present danger of fascism and racism. And tons more.
You didn't get that in the Melody Maker, or Sounds, both of which I would also read occasionally if they had a piece on a favourite band or whatever.
MM was more safe and covered wider musical genres - folk, jazz as well as rock - but their main appeal was to active musicians. It ran lots of equipment reviews and had pages of classified ads selling second-hand gear, studio packages and of course want-ads for band members.
Sounds was very much the anti-NME in that it took the piss out of the cool club scene and New Romantics while embracing no-nonsense 'rock' - I think they coined the phrase The New Wave of British Heavy Metal, and also championed the Oi movement of (so-called) punk. There was even the 'Punk-Heavy Metal Crossover' genre.
Music was much more divisive and tribal back then and each of the papers was canny enough to focus in on a different section of the market, I suppose.
The best way to define the tone of the different papers was to read their annual readers' poll results. In the early 80s NME poll winners were aways the like of The Jam, Specials, Clash, etc; Sounds was all Iron Maiden and Motorhead

Are you sure John? I was a Sounds reader because of their coverage of Two Tone from 79. I don’t remember it being all about metal st all because I had no interest in that.
Sounds was also very pro CND and anti fascism I remember having cuttings in my bedroom wall inspired by The Beat and their CND stance.

Maybe I was generalising too much and to be fair I didn't read Sounds much before 1982 so my take is based on that sort of era, the early-to-mid 80s.
I know Sounds definitely championed punk in its infancy and had plenty of good writers who supported the same new wave stuff that NME liked, but they also had a gang of writers who loved the US metal bands and NWOBHM stuff a lot.
Once I'd got fed up off the NME I actually preferred Sounds for a while cos, despite the metal and Oi agenda it still covered a good variety of music genres.

[Kory]

Sounds had Garry Bushell, didn't it? That motherfucker HATED Crass.

[101Walterton]

Sounds had Garry Bushell, didn't it? That motherfucker HATED Crass.

And wasn’t he the big Oi supporter?
I wasn’t a big Oi fan (liked a few songs) and I am convinced it only became as popular as it did because it filled a vacuum.