Morrissey vs NME

[dynatech]

http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/music/2007/ ... ponds.html

I read the Morrissey interview, and it was only too obvious what the editorial intent was.

[fudgeflaps]

As a Mozza fan, do tell?

[Arginald Valleywater]

Who cares about Mozza? Hasn't been making any decent social commentary for years. And anyway now lives in Italy with his Italian bumchum.

[Trumpton]

dynatech wrote:



Clickable.

[fudgeflaps]

D'oh! !doh!

Thanks, Trumpty.

I back Morrissey in what he says, but I wouldn't be as concerned as the 'magazine' is now abhorrently piss-poor and with little circulation with those who matter- it's like 'Heat' or 'Smash Hits' with a few guitars- and an insult to those who read it at it's best. To have writers not well-versed in music who may have a journalism degree interview such a big name is pretty disgraceful!

It won't happen, but I hope he sinks them.

[The Last Word]

One is an ageing backstabber dropping in popularity and of little importance these days

....and the other is Morrissey.

Moz is perhaps being a little melodramatic here but, admittedly, he does have a point. NME are really acting the prick over this.

[algarve addick]

is he really a fag?
maybe i'm a bit naive but i really didn't ever consider him as one?!

[Pervert]

Nothing new for the NME. I stopped reading it when Parsons and Burchill were working there. The main thrust of any feature was how good obscure band A are, because I saw them at some wanky London venue the other night and there were only 14 of us in the crowd and it's awful that no one else knows about them; and then, how band A have sold out because they are now popular and have an album in the charts.

It's often said that the press in this country like to build people up just so they can tear them down again. That was certainly the NME's agenda in the late 80s and early 90s.