The NME must really hate U2.

[asr]

On their '60 Most Important Albums In NME's Lifetime' not one U2 album was listed. How strained was their relationship with the band and vice/versa?

 

[cobl04]

I'm burning down their offices. Who's joining me? What a disgrace

 

[Vlad n U 2]

I'm going to knock over my 3/4 full coffee mug onto my lap in sheer disgust.

 

[PopFly]

Didn't NME name U2 as the greatest live act of all time a couple of years ago? Or was that SPIN magazine?

 

[Galeongirl]

At least their editor has discovered U2 slash lately, so he'll be busy for a while...

 

[Aardvark747]

What was number 1? Nevermind or Ok Computer?

 

[u2popmofo]

I don't care.

 

[Registered Dude]

^ I'm betting on Oasis.. NME is shit

 

[doctorwho]

NME still exists?

 

[Danny Boy]

Bono sent an axe to the NME offices in 1993. Apparently they hold a grudge.

 

[LUNEDEMINUIT]

NME hating U2 or Rolling Stone kissing U2s ass e-v-e-r-y-t-i-m-e !!!

which is worst?.....

 

[The Panther]

Rolling Stone kissing U2's ass is worse, because it reminds us of how low Rolling Stone fell. Just when it seemed that rag could fall no lower than in the early 80s with filmstars and athletes on the cover, it sunk to new depths around Y2K by listing the Backstreet Boys as performers of one of the ten greatest singles of all time. Since then, RS has negotiated a very awkward entry into its senior-citizen years by trying to keep up with the latest pop trends, while at the same time kissing the corporate arse of every stadium-filling act in existence, knowing that doing so will win it favors with exclusives and cover features that will help sell copies.

NME is utter crap and always has been, so it's entirely irrelevant. The only reason it still exists is because every other British music weekly (there used to be 57 of them published each week) died a fast death with the faintest whisper of the Internet.

 

[gvox]

Who gives a fuck about what they like, right?

 

[rennowba]

This issue with the NME has been brought up on numerous U2 message boards. I have started threads before on here and over on U2.com about the NME's hate towards U2.

Now back tracking to the atyclb era when I really got into U2.id have been 14 at the time. I was buying the NME every week back then. the NME loved U2 then,giving great reviews for atyclb,great reviews on the singles being released,the elevation tour went down really well and U2 were regularly on the magazines cover.

U2 also won big at the NME awards in 2001 they won best rock act and the nme's top award the godlike genius award. When past winners are mentioned at recent NME awards U2 are never listed as past winners.

Around the same time the NME released a U2 special collectors magazine which I still have and is a great read. Every album gets great reviews.

U2 again won at the NME awards in 2002 , they won best live act!

This is we're the relationship goes downhill between U2 and the NME.

I remember U2 being on the cover when htdaab came out and the album got a good review. But from 2003 onwards theres been a lot of hate towards U2,

the main thing that takes my eye is how U2 are ignored for more less everything the NME do. Greatest albums,greatest singles,best live band of all time,greatest frontmen,greatest guitarist etc etc etc the list goes on U2 don't get in the top 100 in anything.they are ignored.

Nloth got a 7/10 review which isn't bad at all,the Glastonbury gig got a good review and was voted the 2nd best gig of the festivals weekend that's about the only mention u2 have got over the past 10 years.

I gave up buying it years ago it's the most contradicting music rag out there, the NME latches onto scenes and anything outside that scene is rubbish until the scene their raving about passes its sell by date ,they move onto something else and criticise the previous scene.

So from 2003 onwards the NME have ignored or hated U2 whether it's because U2 aren't really a cool band with youngsters in the uk anymore or something happened with the relationship they had. All I know is I don't buy the crap anymore!

 

[rennowba]

I sometimes buy q magazine Im sure bono is the editor of that magazine.its unreal the amount of times U2 pop up in different random interviews. Q are massive on u2 and so is the rolling stone.

 

[last unicorn]

I'm sure U2 will survive it as long as Q and Rolling Stone are kissing their royal Irish asses up and down

And last time I checked one of NME's ridiculous lists - greatest live acts I think - A LOT of readers' comments weren't exactly appreciative of the fact that U2 get so blatently ignored all the time.

Everyone can see an agenda. It's so childish and ridiculous.

If NME was at least a great, innovative, original or innovative magazine, maybe there would be a reason to care, but it isn't.

 

[lemonfly]

it's a bit of a shame that some of these music rags are either shitting on U2 or kissing their butts. It's impossible to take anything the NME say about U2 seriously just as it's pointless reading Rolling Stone and Q constantly gush about them. A little (ok, a lot) of impartiality towards U2 from the three of them would be nice.

 

[Peterrrrr]

NME has always been a bit rude, realy awful sometimes
When William Sinnott, the basist in The Shamen died in an accident back in 1991 they wrote an realy awful article about them. You expect some respect to when someone just has died.

 

[corianderstem]

I rather love Q magazine, especially their review section - I always find cool stuff to check out.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

Agreed. And I like getting that magazine because they're more likely to do stories/reviews on bands I like that don't get as much coverage in U.S. magazines like Rolling Stone.

 

[mama cass]

i always preferred Uncut magazine... much better! especially loved their freebie cd with every issue

 

[last unicorn]

I rather love Q magazine, especially their review section - I always find cool stuff to check out.

Yes, me too, but they have a VERY obvious U2 bias - which a lot of readers find a little annoying.

My only real beef with Q is that they weren't willing to give me my free Achtung Baby! cover CD

 

[corianderstem]

Their U2 bias doesn't bother me. I mean, it's not like I don't love them.

 

[The Panther]

I don't think rags like the NME have any editorial policy towards U2, as some of you are suggesting. On the contrary, I think such publications have no particular policy towards anything. The basic rule is: if it shocks people and sells copies, do it!

As far as U2 not being cool with British youth since 2001...? Er, they haven't been cool in Britain since at least 1982!

I like Mojo and Uncut's review sections, too. (My only beef with Uncut is the editor, whom I can't stand, and their all-male/all-old-men editorial board.) Those are good magazines. The NME is a rag, and Rolling Stone (which at one time I could at least respect in certain ways) is now an unreadable corporate whore.

 

[doctorwho]

I don't think rags like the NME have any editorial policy towards U2, as some of you are suggesting. On the contrary, I think such publications have no particular policy towards anything. The basic rule is: if it shocks people and sells copies, do it!

As far as U2 not being cool with British youth since 2001...? Er, they haven't been cool in Britain since at least 1982!

I like Mojo and Uncut's review sections, too. (My only beef with Uncut is the editor, whom I can't stand, and their all-male/all-old-men editorial board.) Those are good magazines. The NME is a rag, and Rolling Stone (which at one time I could at least respect in certain ways) is now an unreadable corporate whore.

I think you're pushing the 1982 bit there.

I have found there's always several types of music "fans". There's the type that love the underground band - the type that's not yet a big deal, maybe had some song or two on a super elite radio station, perhaps tours in some smaller places. Then, if that underground band actually has some real success - something almost all bands want - these "fans" hate them. So if you're talking about those types of "fans", yeah, U2 hasn't been "popular" with them since 1982.

But if you mean regular music buying folk, the only true stumble in the U.K. came with the last U2 album where no single reached the Top 10 (in the U.K.). Otherwise, U2 has been popular there for decades. And I would argue the "cool" factor existed through at least "Pop" (and maybe even the ATYCLB era).

 

[asr]

Well, I don't like magazines that are either biased in their love of U2 nor in their hatred for them. I just think that OBJECTIVELY, U2 deserve at least a simple mention of their contribution to popular music in such a "major" , 60-year old music publication as NME. I never insinuated that everyone in the press/public should like the boys.
For instance, I hate the Red Hot Chili Peppers with a passion, but I wouldn't ignore their significant standing in the rock pantheon.

 

[rennowba]

As far as U2 not being cool with British youth since 2001...? Er, they haven't been cool in Britain since at least 1982!

.

Id have to disagree there, like i said in my other post i was 14 when i got into u2. There were plenty of kids into u2 in the school i went to some older then me and some alot younger.

Infact there were loads of kids into u2 even to the point were kids would decorate there work books with u2 pictures.

At the time the nme was the heartbeat of music for youngsters and back then the nme was big on u2.

U2 were everywhere leading into the atomic bomb album. They won every award going, they were on tv all the time etc etc

When htdaab came out it was more or less the same but not as much. Infact atomic bomb produced 2 number one singles which had never happened before. They also had a u2 ipod advert and ipod ,now it dosent get any cooler then having your own ipod

This un coolness shall we call it defo started between the gap after atomic bomb and before nloth.

 

[An Cat Gav]

U2 were popular with hipster types in the UK up until around 85-86, when they exploded onto the world stage with Live Aid and then TJT, basically once they stopped being"underground" as they may have said and became household names.
The ZOO TV era saw them them gain back some ground with "the cool kids" but that quickly ebbed away. Even Passengers wasn't respected though when Radiohead did something similar later they creamed themselves over it.

With regard to the general public in the UK, U2 were reasonably popular(though most people did dislike Bono quite intensely) right up until after the Vertigo tour.

NLOTH did about as well in the UK as elsewhere in the world sales wise, it got to number 1, however for the first time the general public as well as the hipsters didn't have a high opinion of U2.
I feel it's a mixture of this perceived notion that NLOTH wasn't very good and a general weariness of seeing Bono on TV because of his charity work etc, Bono isn't a popular guy here, or in Ireland either really. Sad, I still think he's pretty great.

 

[gvox]

With all this talk of how U2 is so un-cool and apparently popular with niche groups, really makes one wonder how the hell they ever sold, like, you know, 150 million+ records

 

[nielsgov]

The ZOO TV era saw them them gain back some ground with "the cool kids" but that quickly ebbed away. Even Passengers wasn't respected though when Radiohead did something similar later they creamed themselves over it.

That's probably because Kid A is better than Passengers. Mind you, I like it a lot.