|
|
Post by thuperthonic on Feb 2, 2012 0:53:32 GMT -5
NME are like the Radio 1 of magazines, except instead of pop/dance they bum indie music instead Truth. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 2, 2012 0:58:16 GMT -5
NME are like the Radio 1 of magazines, except instead of pop/dance they bum indie music instead Truth. And I don't see anything wrong with that. It's the way they go about doing it is what's wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Feb 2, 2012 11:45:39 GMT -5
I told you lot why the NME picked Liam as the "Villain" and yet the debate on here continues? Really? It's about selling issues. If Noel wasn't a serious contender for Best Album, or whatever, Liam wouldn't have been listed. It's all about marketing and continuing the Gallagher feud. It's really not that hard to understand. That's on the premise of assuming that the NME picked the nominees or a committee. That the NME are in full control of the nomination choices. That isn't the case. The nominations are from readers votes from what I understand. Which I am inclined to believe because no committee would be moronic to nominate Oasis for best British and worst band in the same year which I believe has happened before. Or a couple years ago list Noel for hero and villain at the same set of ceremonies. So try again. I don't know how the NME's nominations work. So I won't call you wrong. But I disagree: It's not moronic if the same committee did indeed pick Oasis as the best and worst band. Oasis have to be one of the most polarizing bands of recent times, even in the UK - people either really love them, or really loathe them. Again, from a marketing standpoint, it would be best to maximize both of these opinions. Remember, the NME are not an independent, non-profit, non-biased organization. They are in it for the money. To play on people's strong emotional ties, positively or negatively, towards Oasis and the brothers Gallagher makes a lot of sense (read "cents", if you're in the mood for a pun). Of course, as your rightly pointed out, if the NME doesn't have any say in the nominations whatsoever, then the publicity/marketing ploy theory would be incorrect. However, do you really think the NME has NO influence on the nominations? You really think it's 100% reader's choices? And even if it is 100% directed by reader's votes, my underlying premise still stands: Oasis and the Gallagher's are very divisive figures. And without trying to spark the Noel/Liam debate, I can fully understand why the general (and often ignorant) masses would see Liam as the brash "idiot" over Noel - especially in recent times as Noel has calmed down and matured drastically, now acting as a wiser statesman. Basically, the divisiveness of anything related to Oasis is driving the nominations. Whether that's a marketing ploy by NME or because the people themselves are showcasing what we already know to be true (said divisiveness) is a moot point. Regardless, I'm of the opinion that it's the former, and a smart move by the NME to maximize their interest, readership. and therefore profits. |
|
|
|
Post by RocketMan on Feb 2, 2012 11:48:54 GMT -5
can you people stop writing essays
|
|
|
|
Post by gdforever on Feb 2, 2012 14:47:00 GMT -5
That deluge made little to no sense, NL4E.
Nominating the same band or person for conflicting awards is the very antithesis of creating a monologue which is the stock as trade of journalism. If they were prone to tampering with the results of the reader vote then 2 years ago they would have omitted Noel from that years villains list and left his in the Heros list and Liam with the villain nomination. They could have gotten this spin 2 years ago.
Of course the NME as well as everyone else will take advantage of it. But they aren't the reason than the votes fell out this way.
I'm not saying that the media doesn't play to the Noel vs. Liam story but I think your NME conspiracy theory is just a bit ludicrous.
|
|
|
|
Post by mossy on Feb 2, 2012 16:12:50 GMT -5
What state is Noel a man of? ;-)
Sorry N4LE ;-) I just hate the expression 'elder statesman of rock'. The word statesman is for politicians not musicians...
And Mr Kite, I'm all for the essays on here. They make better reading than the "Noel is a wanker for playing Oasis songs" and "BDI are shit, only Pretty Green fanboys like them" nonsense which often puts me off coming here for periods of time.
|
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Feb 2, 2012 16:37:10 GMT -5
That deluge made little to no sense, NL4E. Nominating the same band or person for conflicting awards is the very antithesis of creating a monologue which is the stock as trade of journalism. If they were prone to tampering with the results of the reader vote then 2 years ago they would have omitted Noel from that years villains list and left his in the Heros list and Liam with the villain nomination. They could have gotten this spin 2 years ago. Of course the NME as well as everyone else will take advantage of it. But they aren't the reason than the votes fell out this way. I'm not saying that the media doesn't play to the Noel vs. Liam story but I think your NME conspiracy theory is just a bit ludicrous. How did that make "little to no sense" ? What would get more interest? Noel OR Liam being in one category. Or Noel AND Liam being in contrasting categories? I'd say the latter. (Hell, it's working. Just look at this thread!). Having contrasting nominations for an already polarized relationship will only feed the fire and spark more readers and more money. I don't see how you're confused by this. And this concept is only an anti-thesis to journalism if it's regarding reputable material. The NME may be a reputable magazine. But that's all it is. A magazine. It's not the New York Times, or The Washington Post, or The Independent, etc. It's a music magazine, and no matter how reputable magazines are, they tend to be gimmicky at times. Furthermore, I'd hardly call these silly awards "journalism." E.g., The "Godlike Genius" award? Really? It's awesome that Noel won an award by that title, but don't call it proper journalism. The sparring of GDForever and NL4E hath continued.  |
|
|
|
Post by gdforever on Feb 2, 2012 18:35:46 GMT -5
That deluge made little to no sense, NL4E. Nominating the same band or person for conflicting awards is the very antithesis of creating a monologue which is the stock as trade of journalism. If they were prone to tampering with the results of the reader vote then 2 years ago they would have omitted Noel from that years villains list and left his in the Heros list and Liam with the villain nomination. They could have gotten this spin 2 years ago. Of course the NME as well as everyone else will take advantage of it. But they aren't the reason than the votes fell out this way. I'm not saying that the media doesn't play to the Noel vs. Liam story but I think your NME conspiracy theory is just a bit ludicrous. How did that make "little to no sense" ? What would get more interest? Noel OR Liam being in one category. Or Noel AND Liam being in contrasting categories? I'd say the latter. (Hell, it's working. Just look at this thread!). Having contrasting nominations for an already polarized relationship will only feed the fire and spark more readers and more money. I don't see how you're confused by this. And this concept is only an anti-thesis to journalism if it's regarding reputable material. The NME may be a reputable magazine. But that's all it is. A magazine. It's not the New York Times, or The Washington Post, or The Independent, etc. It's a music magazine, and no matter how reputable magazines are, they tend to be gimmicky at times. Furthermore, I'd hardly call these silly awards "journalism." E.g., The "Godlike Genius" award? Really? It's awesome that Noel won an award by that title, but don't call it proper journalism. The sparring of GDForever and NL4E hath continued. Creating a monologue is a trademark of all journalism...including bad journalism. In fact the entire premise of your theory relies on the fact that the NME are adhering to a monologue in which Noel=good, Liam=bad. But you supposition that the reason that BDI got worst band and Liam got villain because Noel was a contender for best album, solo artist, and hero is flawed. There is no reason to suppose that the NME are prone to tampering with results. They'll use the results to further their monologue where they can...but that seems to be about it. As I said, if they cooked up their results Noel would have been up just for hero and Liam just for villain the year after the split. Noel being up for both interrupted their agreed upon monologue if anything. You can't have it both ways. Admitting the NME had nominations for the same person/band in conflicting categories because it's a reflection of general opinion and it's a poll where of course the Gallagher's will be polarizing to the voters...which you admit. AND the NME tamper the results to fit their monologue of Noel good Liam bad. Either the NME tampers and the voting always falls in line with the monologue. Or they don't tamper and it just happens to be a straw poll of the population which has always been polarized. Your assumption that they tampered with the results to put BDI and Liam in those categories to spark controversy even though they didn't get the votes? Come on. It's a reach. So your comment that everyone should have stopped discussing and bowed to you "telling us" why it this happened was so far from sense it's not even funny. |
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Feb 2, 2012 18:46:11 GMT -5
How did that make "little to no sense" ? What would get more interest? Noel OR Liam being in one category. Or Noel AND Liam being in contrasting categories? I'd say the latter. (Hell, it's working. Just look at this thread!). Having contrasting nominations for an already polarized relationship will only feed the fire and spark more readers and more money. I don't see how you're confused by this. And this concept is only an anti-thesis to journalism if it's regarding reputable material. The NME may be a reputable magazine. But that's all it is. A magazine. It's not the New York Times, or The Washington Post, or The Independent, etc. It's a music magazine, and no matter how reputable magazines are, they tend to be gimmicky at times. Furthermore, I'd hardly call these silly awards "journalism." E.g., The "Godlike Genius" award? Really? It's awesome that Noel won an award by that title, but don't call it proper journalism. The sparring of GDForever and NL4E hath continued. Creating a monologue is a trademark of all journalism...including bad journalism. In fact the entire premise of your theory relies on the fact that the NME are adhering to a monologue in which Noel=good, Liam=bad. But you supposition that the reason that BDI got worst band and Liam got villain because Noel was a contender for best album, solo artist, and hero is flawed. There is no reason to suppose that the NME are prone to tampering with results. They'll use the results to further their monologue where they can...but that seems to be about it. As I said, if they cooked up their results Noel would have been up just for hero and Liam just for villain the year after the split. Noel being up for both interrupted their agreed upon monologue if anything. You can't have it both ways. Admitting the NME had nominations for the same person/band in conflicting categories because it's a reflection of general opinion and it's a poll where of course the Gallagher's will be polarizing to the voters...which you admit. AND the NME tamper the results to fit their monologue of Noel good Liam bad. Either the NME tampers and the voting always falls in line with the monologue. Or they don't tamper and it just happens to be a straw poll of the population which has always been polarized. Your assumption that they tampered with the results to put BDI and Liam in those categories to spark controversy even though they didn't get the votes? Come on. It's a reach. So your comment that everyone should have stopped discussing and bowed to you "telling us" why it this happened was so far from sense it's not even funny. How is that "a reach" ? We all know that from the mid-1990s on, the media have played their part in continuing, and playing upon, the Gallagher's tumultuous relationship. The NME are doing no different here. I'd hardly call that "a reach." |
|
|
|
Post by gdforever on Feb 2, 2012 18:55:32 GMT -5
Creating a monologue is a trademark of all journalism...including bad journalism. In fact the entire premise of your theory relies on the fact that the NME are adhering to a monologue in which Noel=good, Liam=bad. But you supposition that the reason that BDI got worst band and Liam got villain because Noel was a contender for best album, solo artist, and hero is flawed. There is no reason to suppose that the NME are prone to tampering with results. They'll use the results to further their monologue where they can...but that seems to be about it. As I said, if they cooked up their results Noel would have been up just for hero and Liam just for villain the year after the split. Noel being up for both interrupted their agreed upon monologue if anything. You can't have it both ways. Admitting the NME had nominations for the same person/band in conflicting categories because it's a reflection of general opinion and it's a poll where of course the Gallagher's will be polarizing to the voters...which you admit. AND the NME tamper the results to fit their monologue of Noel good Liam bad. Either the NME tampers and the voting always falls in line with the monologue. Or they don't tamper and it just happens to be a straw poll of the population which has always been polarized. Your assumption that they tampered with the results to put BDI and Liam in those categories to spark controversy even though they didn't get the votes? Come on. It's a reach. So your comment that everyone should have stopped discussing and bowed to you "telling us" why it this happened was so far from sense it's not even funny. How is that "a reach" ? We all know that from the mid-1990s on, the media have played their part in continuing, and playing upon, the Gallagher's tumultuous relationship. The NME are doing no different here. I'd hardly call that "a reach." Why do you assume that the NME are lying about the results here? It is a reach that the reason that the NME put Liam and BDI in those categories is not because the readers voted them there but because the NME wanted them there. We know the nominations happen by readers votes so your premise of the NME doing it perversely is nonsense. |
|
|
|
Post by truefaith on Feb 2, 2012 19:10:45 GMT -5
Nme are a bunch of wankers, they played a big part in the blur oasis war and they still rely on the Gallagher to sell their shit.
Nobody with any sens would take this crap journalism.
|
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Feb 2, 2012 20:23:50 GMT -5
Nme are a bunch of wankers, they played a big part in the blur oasis war and they still rely on the Gallagher to sell their shit. Nobody with any sens would take this crap journalism. Don't tell GDForever that. For she believes the readers are to blame.  Let's say Liam lost out by 1% (or whatever you believe is a minimal amount) to being included. You really don't think the NME wouldn't make an executive decision and include Liam in the list? Come on. The NME played a part - whether big or small isn't important in this discussion - in getting Liam in to that list. And, further to my point, how many non-Oasis fans know of BDI? Not too many. I very much doubt, with the likes of Viva Brother floating around, the readers would really think about BDI, let alone vote for them. This, to me, showcases the NME exploiting the feud between the Gallagher's. Again, why is that so hard to believe for you? It's what has always been done by the media for the last 15 odd years!! You do realize that the Blur/Oasis 'war' was given life by the media, right, and not the listeners? Same exact concept here. You giving trust that the NME is true to their word in letting the public decide is like you giving trust that Iran's elections were fair. Why should the NME do something that may run counter to their economic goals? |
|
|
|
Post by truefaith on Feb 2, 2012 20:30:15 GMT -5
Nme are a bunch of wankers, they played a big part in the blur oasis war and they still rely on the Gallagher to sell their shit. Nobody with any sens would take this crap journalism. Don't tell GDForever that. For she believes the readers are to blame. Let's say Liam lost out by 1% (or whatever you believe is a minimal amount) to being included. You really don't think the NME wouldn't make an executive decision and include Liam in the list? Come on. The NME played a part - whether big or small isn't important in this discussion - in getting Liam in to that list. And, further to my point, how many non-Oasis fans know of BDI? Not too many. I very much doubt, with the likes of Viva Brother floating around, the readers would really think about BDI, let alone vote for for them. This, to me, showcases the NME exploiting the feud between the Gallagher's. Again, why is that so hard to believe to you? It's what has always been done by the media for the last 15 odd years!! I agree with that, it's a piss of crap magazine, not a political election. Of course they twist the results as they like it to be. Liam villain of the year is ridiculous but possible, but BDI worst band it's ridiculous, not enought readers could care about it and they have made an ok album and are a great live show. |
|
|
|
Post by gdforever on Feb 2, 2012 20:31:06 GMT -5
Viva Brother are also on the list...
I'm not saying that the NME have anything approaching integrity. But give me a break with the "why are still talking about this as I TOLD you why this happen" when you didn't even know how the nomination was decided.
Your theory is thin. Admit it.
Of course the NME reader knows BDI exists. They had a cover and dozens of stories on them this past year.
You guys really are living in denial
I am sorry I believe that the readers might have something to do with the reader decided nominees.
I don't think that they deserve it either. But I'm not desperate enough to desperately imagine a conspiracy.
|
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Feb 2, 2012 20:37:55 GMT -5
Viva Brother are also on the list... I'm not saying that the NME have anything approaching integrity. But give me a break with the "why are still talking about this as I TOLD you why this happen" when you didn't even know how the nomination was decided. Your theory is thin. Admit it. Of course the NME reader knows BDI exists. They had a cover and dozens of stories on them this past year. You guys really are stretching. My theory is no more thinner than yours. You're simply taking the NME's word. As I mentioned in my edited post above (edited after this response I'm replying to), that's like taking Iran's word regarding their elections. There's absolutely no reason why you should believe that the NME was 100% accurate in following their reader's votes. None. Why? Because my reason for them not following the votes makes sense: MONEY. Creating controversy drives profits. Could Liam have ended up on that list without the NME's involvement? Sure. Could Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Vladimir Putin have won Iran's and Russia's elections, respectively, fairly? Sure. But it's not likely when you look at the facts: A mediocre album, good live performances, giving to charity, not doing anything bad (read: being the stereotypical Liam dickhead of punching photographers and starting fights), and, most importantly, not being well known...... |
|
|
|
Post by truefaith on Feb 2, 2012 20:38:35 GMT -5
Viva Brother are also on the list... I'm not saying that the NME have anything approaching integrity. But give me a break with the "why are still talking about this as I TOLD you why this happen" when you didn't even know how the nomination was decided. Your theory is thin. Admit it. Of course the NME reader knows BDI exists. They had a cover and dozens of stories on them this past year. You guys really are living in denial I am sorry I believe that the readers might have something to do with the reader decided nominees. I don't think that they deserve it either. But I'm not desperate enough to desperately imagine a conspiracy. Either we're on denial or you are naive. It's a point of vue. I haven't say the Nme redears don't know BDI exist, I don't think they would care that much. And like he said, of course if they have lost by 1%, the nme will twist the result to help the Gallagher freud that makes them sell so much magazine over the last 15 years. It's a piece of crap maazine, it's the sun of music if you prefer. It's tabloid more or less, the reader vote isn't much of prood they don't twist the result to me. |
|
|
|
Post by truefaith on Feb 2, 2012 20:48:08 GMT -5
But it's not likely when you look at the facts: A mediocre album, good live performances, giving to charity, not doing anything bad (read: being the stereotypical Liam dickhead of punching photographers and starting fights), and, most importantly, not being well known...... After thinking about it I've realised Liam hasn't done anything wrong this year, except on his comment about Noel sometimes. That's it and that's not breaking news. So except if all Noel fans/Liam's haters have voted for him, and I didn't know they were so much, I think Liam's mostly here for the feud the Nme likes so much. |
|
|
|
Post by gdforever on Feb 2, 2012 21:04:41 GMT -5
Which is why I brought up a few times off the top of my head where they allowed nomination to go through that didn't conform to this idea of your guys' of lying about nominations to fit into their magazines monologue.
Why wouldn't they have pitted Noel and Liam against each other in 2010 if they always tampered for a story? That was when the tension was at it's most and they would have gotten the most heat. 5 months after the split.
I like how you guys are even sharing fabricating statistics as if there is some sort of truth in it. 1% off who? So basically you think that being the band voted as the 6th worst band and being 1% off the 5th nomination is so much better. lol.
Liam has been on the villain list 2 of the last 3 years. Stands to reason his band probably probably draw antipathy as well. You think it's understandably that Liam was voted villian but don't accept that the people that voted him villain might also have voted their least favorite persons band as worst band?
He's a massive rock star. Of course people know about his band even if they aren't selling tons.
The reason they are on the list was because of the votes. No reason not to take it at face value other than that you don't want to believe it.
They are a band with more fame than success...similar problem to the aforementioned Viva Brother. Although I would only assume that BDI are better...having never actually heard Viva Brother tune.
|
|
|
|
Post by gdforever on Feb 2, 2012 21:09:45 GMT -5
But it's not likely when you look at the facts: A mediocre album, good live performances, giving to charity, not doing anything bad (read: being the stereotypical Liam dickhead of punching photographers and starting fights), and, most importantly, not being well known...... After thinking about it I've realised Liam hasn't done anything wrong this year, except on his comment about Noel sometimes. That's it and that's not breaking news. So except if all Noel fans/Liam's haters have voted for him, and I didn't know they were so much, I think Liam's mostly here for the feud the Nme likes so much. Also the people that don't care much about either Gallagher's music but find Liam's "I'm in the best band in the world and this album is going to be as good as Definitely Maybe" schtick a bit tiresome and dickish. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 3, 2012 0:01:31 GMT -5
I'd assume BDI are well known for NME readers. Everytime a news about them pops up you'll get more than 10 comments like "another news about them" "not 90s anymore", etc. Not very surprising for me that they are in worst band catergory voted by readers.
|
|
Nicole R.
RKid
Girl in the queue, got her eye on you
Posts: 39 
|
Post by Nicole R. on Feb 3, 2012 15:09:27 GMT -5
I think the NME nominations are pretty funny, and I am a HUGE Liam and Beady Eye fan. There's no such thing as bad publicity, they say! Better to be on the worst-band list than to be completely ignored and be on no list at all ... any form of heat is better than a lukewarm response. So if people hate Beady Eye it means they know about the band, and more than that are actually angered by the band, and that implies a backlash against the level of popularity and passion that other people feel for the band.
Plus Liam cuts a fine figure as a villain, and I think he knows it. It's way more interesting to be cast as the devil than as God, anyway; he gets more action.
|
|
|
|
Post by osoasis on Feb 3, 2012 15:25:32 GMT -5
I'm pretty sure that this was Liam face when he received the news:  |
|
Nov 4, 2024 5:04:30 GMT -5