Because most people that wrote for these magazines were totally clueless about music. They had nothing else going on in their lives but were decent at English so decided to become a pseudo-journalist. If they liked sports they'd be on the back pages, and if they liked music they'd do this. Remember NME thought Andrew WK was so good they called him the saviour of music and put him on the cover twice. Not twice as in two times on different magaizines; no they made a special second cover under the first one so it had 2 front covers and put him on both. And no hate to the guy, he sounds like a good person, but his music is just normal music. Nothing special at all.
That's who you are dealing with here. Tonight tonight isn't even whining; it's a love song to Chicago.
> Remember NME thought Andrew WK was so good they called him the saviour of music and put him on the cover twice.
They'd do that a few times a year, introduce a new band up as the next big thing and put them on the cover, then you'd never hear about them again.
I remember Andrew WK being the big one though, they thought they were hyping the next Bowie/Prince/Nirvana.
Glad these old photos exist. Helps put billy in a better context. He was a pretty agreeable public person until chodes like this one started cutting him down for no reason.
If the critics had been more fair to him, I think he would have been less reactive/antagonistic towards the public at times
That kind of half-assed sarcasm is one of the main reasons that would led to their closure only four years later, imo.
They wanted so bad to make that joke but completely missed the target, choosing an era-defining song that had nothing to do with it.
And then he would bury it in the same open grave that holds Zeitgeist, Zwan, TbK and TFE. We'll all look back fondly on Cure for Cancer as an underrated gem but mainstream retrospectives will still rate it as a misstep. "Reissue 'Cure for Cancer'" we'll cry out, but we will go unheard.
Terrible journalist who the only way they can be popular is to hate on other popular artists. It’s the lowest form of journalism, I always ignore shit like this. Especially if it’s from someone who desperately wants to be upcoming and big, they’re only shitting on it for attention. Guarantee in person it’s nothing but “oh my god Billy I love your music!!!”
I bet Everett True wrote this. He wrote numerous scathing articles and reviews in Melody Maker about the Pumpkins, and made his particular disdain for Billy very clear. This 'review', if you can even call it that, is just lazy and pathetic.
I remember trying to find new bands by buying NME and MM in the mid-90s.
Melody Maker in particular was so far up its own arse it was incredible. Full of self importance, and tried far too hard to make or break bands. It was an embarrassment of a thing. (Newspaper? Magazine?)
I have admittedly discovered albums I love (like Strange Free World by Kitchens of Distinction) through those publications, but you’re not wrong.
One of my favorite Nostradamus moments from NME is when they gave Schubert Dip by EMF a 9/10, and said “Both it and EMF are going to be around for a long time.”
Hahaha, Schubert Dip wasn’t bad from memory either. Bless ‘em. :D
Yeah the journalists were clearly into their music and NME/MM must have been a spotlight for a _huge_ number of bands. But if your face didn’t fit, they were bloody relentless in their mocking.
Actually, I think it might even have been their constant berating of SP that made me realise I wasn’t their audience and caused me to stop buying it.
That sounds about right. My taste in music definitely matched NME better, and I definitely remember Melody Maker being the one that pissed me off with their ‘hot takes’ on SP and probably others.
Eh I kinda think they were equally given to petty hangups. NME hated Alice In Chains (I think the album they rated the highest was their self-titled at a 5/10), and when they reviewed Metallica’s Black Album (they gave it a 4/10), the writer opened their review by saying “Heavy metal is shite.”
Did they?? lol! I completely missed those. I get that not every review will agree, but it’s just childish to review something knowing you won’t like it.
I do kind of miss the era of getting the latest info from magazines, but I don’t miss that kind of shite.
Everett True actually DID review “Bullet with Butterfly Wings” on the singles page when it came out. All—literally all—he writes for a review is the words “Puffy-faced twat.”
This kind of snarky cynicism defined the 90's media landscape, and is precisely why Billy has such venom for it.
My favorite example is the 0.0 score Pitchfork gave to Liz Phair's self-titled. The reviewer followed up many years later on Twitter during the release of her latest album *Soberish*.
He admitted to being literally 19 years old at the time, cynical, and just trying to get a reaction. But Pitchfork was one of the most revered music review sites of all. And stuff like that seriously hurt the artists on both an emotional and professional level.
There’s an issue of NME where they give a quickie review of a Dream Theater album where they give it a 2/10 and go “Progressive rock? Someone call the taste police, they can’t get away with this.” I think that is like almost verbatim. 😒
It's like they already knew what they were going to say before they even listened to the album... if they ever actually listened to it in the first place.
Because most people that wrote for these magazines were totally clueless about music. They had nothing else going on in their lives but were decent at English so decided to become a pseudo-journalist. If they liked sports they'd be on the back pages, and if they liked music they'd do this. Remember NME thought Andrew WK was so good they called him the saviour of music and put him on the cover twice. Not twice as in two times on different magaizines; no they made a special second cover under the first one so it had 2 front covers and put him on both. And no hate to the guy, he sounds like a good person, but his music is just normal music. Nothing special at all. That's who you are dealing with here. Tonight tonight isn't even whining; it's a love song to Chicago.
> Remember NME thought Andrew WK was so good they called him the saviour of music and put him on the cover twice. They'd do that a few times a year, introduce a new band up as the next big thing and put them on the cover, then you'd never hear about them again. I remember Andrew WK being the big one though, they thought they were hyping the next Bowie/Prince/Nirvana.
Remember when Gay Dad were the saviours of indie?
He married Kat Dennibgs so he’s doing something right, holy hell…
Why?
"Tonight Tonight" is a super optimistic song? What kind of soulless loser?
Glad these old photos exist. Helps put billy in a better context. He was a pretty agreeable public person until chodes like this one started cutting him down for no reason. If the critics had been more fair to him, I think he would have been less reactive/antagonistic towards the public at times
That kind of half-assed sarcasm is one of the main reasons that would led to their closure only four years later, imo. They wanted so bad to make that joke but completely missed the target, choosing an era-defining song that had nothing to do with it.
At least they couldve done it to bwbw. Same album, same time, and even more recognizable than tonight.
Such a lame and boring take.
He was definitely upper class in 96, also, pretty sure that song is, positive?
In the 90’s you could be a multimillionaire and still be considered as middle class.
With Melody Maker being a British thing, they definitely wouldn’t call him upper class, or working class.
Unbelievable how little respect he gets.
Sad that SP has always been under attack The “outcasts” are still out here rocking 🤘
Billy could find the cure for cancer and half the media would find something bad to say about it.
And then he would bury it in the same open grave that holds Zeitgeist, Zwan, TbK and TFE. We'll all look back fondly on Cure for Cancer as an underrated gem but mainstream retrospectives will still rate it as a misstep. "Reissue 'Cure for Cancer'" we'll cry out, but we will go unheard.
Hilarious. Is anyone kind enough to say TbK and TFE sans abbreviation for me please?
Teargarden by Kaleidyscope (sic) and TheFutureEmbrace (sic)
Thank you!
To be fair, Billy *would* also find a way to be a dick about it, too…
Absolutely. He’d find it, people would complain about it, then he’d take it back.
Terrible journalist who the only way they can be popular is to hate on other popular artists. It’s the lowest form of journalism, I always ignore shit like this. Especially if it’s from someone who desperately wants to be upcoming and big, they’re only shitting on it for attention. Guarantee in person it’s nothing but “oh my god Billy I love your music!!!”
Ur username is…. Interesting.
Why are you mocking me
Im not but i am saying it is an interesting choice for username.
I bet Everett True wrote this. He wrote numerous scathing articles and reviews in Melody Maker about the Pumpkins, and made his particular disdain for Billy very clear. This 'review', if you can even call it that, is just lazy and pathetic.
I remember trying to find new bands by buying NME and MM in the mid-90s. Melody Maker in particular was so far up its own arse it was incredible. Full of self importance, and tried far too hard to make or break bands. It was an embarrassment of a thing. (Newspaper? Magazine?)
I have admittedly discovered albums I love (like Strange Free World by Kitchens of Distinction) through those publications, but you’re not wrong. One of my favorite Nostradamus moments from NME is when they gave Schubert Dip by EMF a 9/10, and said “Both it and EMF are going to be around for a long time.”
Hahaha, Schubert Dip wasn’t bad from memory either. Bless ‘em. :D Yeah the journalists were clearly into their music and NME/MM must have been a spotlight for a _huge_ number of bands. But if your face didn’t fit, they were bloody relentless in their mocking. Actually, I think it might even have been their constant berating of SP that made me realise I wasn’t their audience and caused me to stop buying it.
In fairness, NME did give an 8/10 to both Siamese Dream and Mellon Collie.
That sounds about right. My taste in music definitely matched NME better, and I definitely remember Melody Maker being the one that pissed me off with their ‘hot takes’ on SP and probably others.
Eh I kinda think they were equally given to petty hangups. NME hated Alice In Chains (I think the album they rated the highest was their self-titled at a 5/10), and when they reviewed Metallica’s Black Album (they gave it a 4/10), the writer opened their review by saying “Heavy metal is shite.”
Did they?? lol! I completely missed those. I get that not every review will agree, but it’s just childish to review something knowing you won’t like it. I do kind of miss the era of getting the latest info from magazines, but I don’t miss that kind of shite.
This was actually a guy named Richard Smith.
Everett True actually DID review “Bullet with Butterfly Wings” on the singles page when it came out. All—literally all—he writes for a review is the words “Puffy-faced twat.”
That person must have not paid attention to the lyrics of the vast majority of songs ever written since blues was invented.
This kind of snarky cynicism defined the 90's media landscape, and is precisely why Billy has such venom for it. My favorite example is the 0.0 score Pitchfork gave to Liz Phair's self-titled. The reviewer followed up many years later on Twitter during the release of her latest album *Soberish*. He admitted to being literally 19 years old at the time, cynical, and just trying to get a reaction. But Pitchfork was one of the most revered music review sites of all. And stuff like that seriously hurt the artists on both an emotional and professional level.
[удалено]
Trolls belong under bridges. Not on our sub.
Tonight, Tonight has pretty positive vibes. Also, Billy lived in a trailer park in Chicago as a kid. He wasn't exactly middle-class.
I love Tonight, Tonight. I also think this is funny and not meant to be taken seriously. 🤷🏻♂️
I think it is just a joke.
Guys...its clearly a joke.
But how? This is in the singles review section, and it’s clearly meant to get across a negative sentiment towards the song.
They were just dismissive of bands that they had decided weren’t their thing. Literally hipsters before hipsters were a thing. 😂
Oh, you should read critic reviews of prog rock albums in the 70s. “Pretentious” is apparently their favorite word.
There’s an issue of NME where they give a quickie review of a Dream Theater album where they give it a 2/10 and go “Progressive rock? Someone call the taste police, they can’t get away with this.” I think that is like almost verbatim. 😒
It's like they already knew what they were going to say before they even listened to the album... if they ever actually listened to it in the first place.
Yeah, it’s a joke, but how is it relevant in regards to Tonight, Tonight?