The official NMA board
General Category => New Model Army => Topic started by: Space on January 22, 2015, 02:23:58 AM
-
I remember early '80s music mags were trying to pick some post-punk bands that were going to be big. One article analyzed Echo and the Bunnymen, The Teardrop Explodes, and U2 wondering which would be the one to break big. Well, we saw it was U2. But we also saw The Police, The Clash, even The Southern Death Cult of all bands hit the big time.
And deserve's got nothing to do with it. The Chameleons deserved to be big, they never were. Bono and the Edge sure didn't deserve to be, and they were.
My question is why didn't New Model Army ever make it big time? Ever become household names like The Police, The Clash, U2? Once again, deserving it does not enter the equation. In other words, quality of material is not a factor in determining success in the music biz. (Is Katy Perry's material better than Bob Dylan's? Nope, but she sure is bigger.) So if the actual content of the band doesn't really matter, what prevented NMA from making it big?
(Have to include a brief story here. Mid '80s MTV was brand new here and EVERYONE was watching. Friend told me he saw a video by some band and he said they were the ugliest band he'd ever seen. I discovered he was talking about the "51st State" video. Now is that one of the factors that held the band back?)
I say one of the things that prevented a big breakthrough for NMA was a lack of touring the States. All the post-punk bands that had massive success really made an effort to tour as much as they could across America.
What do you say? Why didn't NMA ever make it big?
-
Because the band did not take shit from record companies. I think they wanted to do their own thing without a record company having control. I get the impression that back then, Justin did not care what critics or record executives though, he just wanted to make art primarily. Then as a bonus make enough to pay bills off of it.
Also I think Vengeance may have frightened some critics. I don't think they fit under any label either.
When i hear post-punk, i think of a 1980s band who cares more about image, fashion and their hair than actually art. NMA are not like that. I think it's unfair to say they are the ugliest band ever because everyone has a different idea of what is physically attractive.
Plus i think that America denied them a visa.
Early U2 very well did deserve success. The first three albums are brilliant and they seem like all were nice guys at the time of their rise.
Bob Dylan was just as big in the 1960's and still highly regarded as well. Success has nothing to do with talent as far as big record companies go. It's about who will make them the most money. That was sting and the police singing "Don't stand so close to me".
This is just my theory as I have no memories of the 80's at all.
-
What do you say? Why didn't NMA ever make it big?
A good question Space :)
It is a question everyone who likes the band asks themselves at some point. In my opinion they are not famous because they do not want to be.
JS wrote some very challenging songs for Vengeance. The swearing on "Vengeance", and the at the time very controversial lyrics in "Spirit of the Falklands" are not radio friendly and pushed the band to the outside of the industry. In the film, Phil Jupitus made a comment I agreed with, if the band had been famous they would probably have split up years ago. JS has often referred to the fall outs and break ups in the earlier years. With the pressure of fame on top, that may well have been enough for a full split.
I personally get the impression that JS would like to avoid being famous at all costs. In an interview once he said he was told that if he ever wanted to make it in the States, he would need to get his teeth fixed - which he has not chosen to do. To me he seems to be a very humble man that while he likes people to enjoy his work, he does not like to be the centre of attention, and maybe in some ways is a bit shy about it. To me, professionally he is a world class musician, but personally someone who wants to remain an ordinary bloke, one of the lads. As such avoided becoming famous all these years. I do believe that it has never been about the money that would come with fame. I cannot imagine JS compromising his music to make it popular. That my view on it, but obviously I cannot speak for him.
Maybe it is better to be loved and admired by thousands than liked by millions.
-
IMO, two reasons... firstly, not photogenic enough. 80's MTV ( the real benchmark of which band would make it and which wouldn't) wasn't ready for a wild-eyed madman / genius with questionable dental hygiene, no matter how passionate and beautiful his songs were...
Secondly, they weren't willing to remix their songs into potentially stadium filling tunes... look at The Alarm for example, some good tunes, but I can imagine some fuckwit producer turning some of NMAs classics into something like this...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8D6pPgwafq0
And even if NMA later chose to go down that route (thank God they didn't!) they were 'old news' by that point...
IMO, anyway...
-
IMO, two reasons... firstly, not photogenic enough. 80's MTV ( the real benchmark of which band would make it and which wouldn't) wasn't ready for a wild-eyed madman / genius with questionable dental hygiene, no matter how passionate and beautiful his songs were...
Secondly, they weren't willing to remix their songs into potentially stadium filling tunes... look at The Alarm for example, some good tunes, but I can imagine some fuckwit producer turning some of NMAs classics into something like this...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8D6pPgwafq0
And even if NMA later chose to go down that route (thank God they didn't!) they were 'old news' by that point...
IMO, anyway...
That's a job for Space :) :)
Sorry, even after I started a new thread I just had to have one last comment
Goodnight :) :)
-
IMO, two reasons... firstly, not photogenic enough. 80's MTV ( the real benchmark of which band would make it and which wouldn't) wasn't ready for a wild-eyed madman / genius with questionable dental hygiene, no matter how passionate and beautiful his songs were...
Secondly, they weren't willing to remix their songs into potentially stadium filling tunes... look at The Alarm for example, some good tunes, but I can imagine some fuckwit producer turning some of NMAs classics into something like this...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8D6pPgwafq0
And even if NMA later chose to go down that route (thank God they didn't!) they were 'old news' by that point...
IMO, anyway...
That's a job for Space :) :)
Sorry, even after I started a new thread I just had to have one last comment
Goodnight :) :)
BA-DUM-TISH!
-
probably because they never set out to be
sometimes you can influence the outcome through choice
i don't even know why anyone who respects nma would ever even ask such a stupid question
-
Heno, why insult my question by calling it "stupid"? Others here have offered some constructive answers to that "stupid" question and it is actually you who are, I'll use your word, stupid when it comes to artists and their work.
You say NMA never set out to be big. That type of thinking is typical of a teenager. "Don't sell out! Being big is wrong! Keep it real! Sell only 100 copies at independent record stores!" You really still haven't grown out of those ideas?
Fact: every single artist wants their art to be heard by as many people as possible. You really think Justin Sullivan wouldn't want millions and millions listening to, enjoying, learning from his work? As soon as you sign to a record label you are admitting that you want people to hear your work. If not, then why even bother performing outside one's bedroom?
I can name only one artist who didn't want to be big. The poet Emily Dickinson. She wrote her poems and hid them in a box which she kept under her bed. No one saw them while she was alive. But guess what? Justin Sullivan isn't recording songs and tucking them under his bed. He wants you and I and as many others out there to hear his work. There is nothing wrong with sharing your work with as many people as possible. If you paint a wonderful painting, wouldn't you want it to be displayed at a national museum for all to see? What makes you think NMA want their music to be listened to by a tiny number of people?
The very first time Justin Sullivan played his guitar in front of someone else -- be it a friend, a family member, a stranger -- he demonstrated that he wanted his music to be heard by others. He wanted to share his art. And the very first time Justin Sullivan signed his name to a record contract, he demonstrated that he wanted his music to be heard by as many people as possible. That's not a crime. That's what any artist would want. Share their wonderful creations with as many of us as possible.
A great artist wants to give their work to the people. Be it Michelangelo, Beethoven, Kurosawa, Bob Dylan, or, yes, Justin Sullivan.
-
No, Space, the real question is: why didn't you?
-
you see space bro, the question is stupid since you already know all the answers as demonstrated by your ability to write pages of responses to justify your point of view. this is not about opinions, it is about yours. it is your need to demonstrate your articulate and well informed opinion.
you seem like a reasonably intelligent and sometimes funny and entertaining type. use it to your advantage. stop wasting it on us. people here don't set out to upset anyone. and they don't take kindly to being upset.
everyone here realises what you are and most would genuinely extend the hand of friendship. but not if you continue to insult them and try to set them up for a slam dunk with your trolling
take it easy. i hope you get your head around it.
-
Yeah, Heno, you pegged me right. I am very intelligent and I do know the anwers to everything. Yet, there are two things I do not know. I do not know who was behind the deflated footballs in last week's Patriots Championship game, and I do not know why New Model Army never made it big. If you can answer either I would appreciate it because then I truly would know everything.
-
not photogenic enough....
Sadly, that just might be the number one answer.
Above I told the story where a friend of mine said he saw the ugliest band he'd ever seen. He was watching MTV and saw the video to "51st State." Now that tune is probably NMA's most easily accessible song. It's also a great song. Yet, all my friend "heard" was how bad the guys in the band looked. I've a feeling he wasn't the only one that felt that way when first coming across New Model Army.
Very sad that a band's looks determines the size of its audience. There's definitely a reason why Katy Perry is playing the Super Bowl this weekend and New Model Army are not. Two reasons. Two big reasons. (And I'll be honest, I hope she has a wardrobe malfunction and we get to see those two reasons.)
-
The band were pretty big - well medium anyway - in the UK and Germany around the very early 90s - selling out nights at Brixton Academy (4,500 capacity) and doing two sold out nights at the Academy in Manchester (2,300 cap) and getting decent top 30 slots for their albums. But for a whole host of reasons things grounds to a bit of a halt 1993-97 when they almost split up a few times. When the band regrouped after Rob had left and Strange Brotherhood was released, they lost a lot of the momentum they may have had - which, IMHO, is why they never made it bigger
As for the states - you have to tour constantly to make any headway there. I also think the record companies would have had difficulties marketing them pre-grunge as they were too rock-y for the indie/alt fans and too indie/alt for the rock fans
-
As for the states - you have to tour constantly to make any headway there. I also think the record companies would have had difficulties marketing them pre-grunge as they were too rock-y for the indie/alt fans and too indie/alt for the rock fans
This about sums it up. Agreed!
-
no idea on the deflated ball but me and a mate have pats to win and brady to be mvp - both 8-1 and €100 notes on it. so i just hope this does not distract or detract from the final game
i wasn't an nma fan until the late 80s and even then lost touch a little until the late 90s again. i was a DKs fan and take most of my cynicism from that. when i really took the time to listen to nma based on a mate cutting tapes to listen to, i just fell in love with how my view could be expressed so melodically. norther soul, drum and base, and some real rabble rousing anthems. its hook line and sinker for everyone i have ever taken the time to share nma with.
george lois, the king of marketing, created the I Want My MTV campaign. when the first one went out his phone and that of the mtv station manager didn't stop ringing. they all wanted to be part of it since jagger and lips had changed the face of pop music driven marketing. good piece here on it: http://www.fastcompany.com/1546713/george-lois-mtvs-changes-his-original-logo-less-snookie-more-stones (http://www.fastcompany.com/1546713/george-lois-mtvs-changes-his-original-logo-less-snookie-more-stones)
so this image might just be the reason (http://www.georgelois.com/images/Milestones/milestones%20images/I%20want%20my%20MTV.jpg)
punk and new wave had moved on. ffs i was listening to gene loves jezebel and the cocteau twins. the message, the agitation, the relevance, were all completely overwhelmed by the influx of american sponsored crap to an english speaking country. maggie starts a war to distract about how she was putting the people on their knees. princes of england were flying helicopters, fighting for queen and country. was anyone going to seriously promote a band to mainstream audiences with a name like new model army?
now seriously, who the **** except family is going to stand up and love that in the face of not being cool.
and for artists the amount of people their work reaches is very important. just look at the u2 gobshites nd the talk that bono gave when they announced everyone would get it free the next day on itunes on a stage with the ceo of apple, grovelling to his ability to pay. bono even jokes that u2 didn't give it away free, apple were paying them to give it away free. cunts should be shot.
no, for some artists with a message, and with a practical realisation that their words can help people live a more meaningful life once their eyes are open to the world around them, that they can help see and understand more, is probably a lot more important than records shipped or size of venues.
think about it.....in 200 years time when people look back on this as real distant history, would you rather be remembered as a influencer of poxy fashion or a commentator that gives the history students an insight to how we all felt. we are all part of nma's music, it gives a very clear indication that we agree with what it says about the world today, it will be a contemporary view validated by many followers. most history is devoid of this.
not some ******* pop art crap that gets regurgitated every few years to drive to drive sales of fashion and style
still haven't got a clue who deflated the ball though. and anyway, when was the last time an egg shaped arm torpedo was ever considered a ball
mate
the reason contemporaries of nma in the early days made it big is because the corporations liked what they said. and those stupid bands profess to say what they like. THEY ONLY SAY WHAT THEY LIKE BECAUSE THEIR PAYMASTERS LIKE WHAT THEY SAY. the successful bands can be kept on a leash, controlled, manipulated, too ******* thick to figure it out. in my simple opinion, nma were never prepared to say what they were supposed to, and consequently, most people never heard them say it.
-
If it was as easy as doing what THE MAN says - it would be no prooblem to be a massive band. But its not. So i dont really buy Heno's argument/rant.
-
never said it was easy
-
the successful bands can be kept on a leash, controlled, manipulated, too ******* thick to figure it out.
You're dead wrong on that. Sure, Katy Perry and Michael Jackson and Huey Lewis and the News set out to please the company before they please themselves with their music. They are kept on a leash, controlled and manipulated as you say. But I can name some mega-successful bands that were never on a leash and were bigger than Katy Perry will ever be.
Beatles -- you think the company holding the leash was happy that the Fab Four followed "Sgt. Peppers" with an acoustic driven double album that had no title and nothing but white on the album cover? No. Beatles never were led by a corporate leash. They were successful because they made quality records and singles. A very rare case of quality selling to the masses.
Metallica -- you think that band was led by a corporate leash? Nope. Their success was simply due tp the fact that there exists a large group of young people that do like aggressive music over spandex and teased hair.
U2 -- you think the corporate leash was happy when U2 moved from Steve Lillywhite's stadium friendly production to Brian Eno? No. U2's succes was not due to pandering to the record company. (It was actually due to Bono's pandering to the masses. Waving white flags. Oh, man, when I first saw him do that live I knew this guy was as big a sell-out as Katy Perry could ever be. Waving white flags, lowest denominator crowd pleasing bullcrap was the key to U2's success.)
The Clash -- that band broke big in America without ever following corporate orders. Just give the six-sided "Sandinista" a listen and you'll see that band sure did whatever the hell they wanted and still achieved big success.
Bands can make it and make it BIG on their own terms without following company orders. The fact that NMA didn't play the corporate game does not explain their lack of big time success.
(And if you do win your Patriots bet and I was the bookie, I wouldn't pay you. Until this deflated ball cheating business is sorted out, no way would I pay out any winning Patriot bet.)
-
Sorry but these bands did not have "Vengeance" as an early single.
Plus All but maybe the Clash cooperated more with record companies than NMA.
These bands also were from different backgrounds and eras not really comparable.
You talk as if NMA are not successful, when they have sold out many shows in Germany, the U.K. and one in Sweden last year. It's 35 years into their career and they can still sell out. Just because they did not make it big in America, does not mean they are not successful. They were first of all denied visas and second they did not have connections here. The majority of European bands do not make it big in America. and does it really matter? as long as you like the music and they keep making creating.
-
The question is what "making it big" really means... Having a carreer that long, staying true to themselves and the fans, being able to touch so many people's hearts, being a great live act all along, writing and recording still new great songs after all that time and making it all without any major compromises is more then big to me!
-
The question is what "making it big" really means... Having a carreer that long, staying true to themselves and the fans, being able to touch so many people's hearts, being a great live act all along, writing and recording still new great songs after all that time and making it all without any major compromises is more then big to me!
I agree; there is more to a band than record sales.
-
The question is what "making it big" really means... Having a carreer that long, staying true to themselves and the fans, being able to touch so many people's hearts, being a great live act all along, writing and recording still new great songs after all that time and making it all without any major compromises is more then big to me!
I agree; there is more to a band than record sales.
I guess if you wanted to quantify it, most would say that to have made it 'big', that the members of a band would not have to keep second jobs. Somthing that I don't believe NMA's members have generally ever been able to do sadly (I'll stand corrected of course).
-
I guess if you wanted to quantify it, most would say that to have made it 'big', that the members of a band would not have to keep second jobs.
I noticed last year they were touring that much that there were only few months (2 or 3) when they probably were able to do what they wanted to, meet families etc.
What I know, quite many of the professional artists do some work to other quarters too as a second job: other artists, music industry, compositions, productions, "film" music. If they can be somehow in touch with music in general they'll often choose it.
-
the successful bands can be kept on a leash, controlled, manipulated, too ******* thick to figure it out.
You're dead wrong on that. Sure, Katy Perry and Michael Jackson and Huey Lewis and the News set out to please the company before they please themselves with their music. They are kept on a leash, controlled and manipulated as you say. But I can name some mega-successful bands that were never on a leash and were bigger than Katy Perry will ever be.
Beatles -- you think the company holding the leash was happy that the Fab Four followed "Sgt. Peppers" with an acoustic driven double album that had no title and nothing but white on the album cover? No. Beatles never were led by a corporate leash. They were successful because they made quality records and singles. A very rare case of quality selling to the masses.
Metallica -- you think that band was led by a corporate leash? Nope. Their success was simply due tp the fact that there exists a large group of young people that do like aggressive music over spandex and teased hair.
U2 -- you think the corporate leash was happy when U2 moved from Steve Lillywhite's stadium friendly production to Brian Eno? No. U2's succes was not due to pandering to the record company. (It was actually due to Bono's pandering to the masses. Waving white flags. Oh, man, when I first saw him do that live I knew this guy was as big a sell-out as Katy Perry could ever be. Waving white flags, lowest denominator crowd pleasing bullcrap was the key to U2's success.)
The Clash -- that band broke big in America without ever following corporate orders. Just give the six-sided "Sandinista" a listen and you'll see that band sure did whatever the hell they wanted and still achieved big success.
Bands can make it and make it BIG on their own terms without following company orders. The fact that NMA didn't play the corporate game does not explain their lack of big time success.
(And if you do win your Patriots bet and I was the bookie, I wouldn't pay you. Until this deflated ball cheating business is sorted out, no way would I pay out any winning Patriot bet.)
you were doing ok until you said U2.
the beatles were around for what - 8 years? hahahahaha, nma 30 odd years. which is bigger?
metallica - sure, sure they hit a nerve with a certain type of fan. but not really mass appeal. you are either into that or you are not. do genre specific but not big
U2 - ruined your point even mentioning them and only reaffirms you status of Space - beware - troll alert
the clash - i never bought sandinista to be honest. i had lost faith listening to most of the songs on london calling. didn't they decline rapidly after they released that self indulgent 6 record. and combat rock had a song or two, and then they fade out. and then the rights to pop songs used for tv commercials. taking the mickey if that was intentional?
-
metallica - sure, sure they hit a nerve with a certain type of fan. but not really mass appeal. you are either into that or you are not. do genre specific but not big
Have alook at the venues Metallica play - i reckon playing Wembley *stadium* or headlining Glastonbury is a lot bigger than genre big. Their rise to the top has been well managed though by a heavy duty management company (Peter Mensch - husband of the alluring even-though-she's-a-Tory Louise Mensh). Around the time of the Black album their "look" suddenly went from thrash to very much mainstream rock - as did their sound - it wasnt coincidence.. it is the music *business*
-
metallica - sure, sure they hit a nerve with a certain type of fan. but not really mass appeal. you are either into that or you are not. do genre specific but not big
Have a look at the venues Metallica play - i reckon playing Wembley *stadium* or headlining Glastonbury is a lot bigger than genre big.
Thanks, Johnny M, for pointing out the obvious to Heno. Heno is, I'll be polite, not exactly this board's Einstein. He believes Metallica is simply genre big. A band that plays the biggest stadiums on Earth, is constantly on TV, in the press, sells platinum upon platinum record, makes feature films...Heno thinks they achieve that only because of their genre. Just a niche band.
Heno also states that New Model Army's 30 year career makes them bigger than The Beatles. As I said, not exactly Einstein.
-
Well, at least you are now making a stated effort to be polite Space :)
Better to trade opinions rather than insults ;)
-
IMHO the Beatles may be big but they are static.They are not going to be writing new songs are they? :D
NMA are an on going entity and therefore much more relevant.If you could only ever listen to one bands music,I'm sure you'd soon get pissed off listening to repeats of all the Beatles songs,whereas with NMA there's always the next new song to wait for.Beatles are history,NMA are present and a work in progress
-
einstein? lol man. you've lost me with that reference. i don't think i'm capable of accidentally discovering a revered theory that looks more and likely to be flawed and then spend lots of time helping develop weapons of mass destruction.
i guess my point is that the bands you mention as being big are actually huge. some for reasons of being pioneers of pop music, the worlds first self contained band, and being brilliant songwriters, while others dominate a genre. u2 just play on peoples desire to sing karaoke while bono runs around with a flag.
nma being nma makes them bigger for me space. they have been alongside me on this journey since i first heard them. so yeah, bigger than the beatles every day of the week.
and in a way i am selfishly happy that they haven't gone mega huge yet. means that i got to talk to some of them and got a feeling that they believe in what they do and say. and that the forum isn't overrun with trolls just looking for a reaction. i've been to gigs with less than 50 people. and i've experienced the fact that they put just as much effort into that small venue as they do into the big ones. and a lot of venues they played at their own expense because the number just didn't add up. thats big.
you know, in a way, big is to keep going through the bad times and the tough times. big is pushing on and believing that what you say means something to the people that listen to it. big is having fans engaged enough over 30 odd years and remembering who those fans are. and having a fan base that respect the band. and are always delighted to meet new, and often younger fans, at gigs and welcome them
in all those aspects nma are the biggest band in the world. none to touch them.
-
NMA are an on going entity and therefore much more relevant than The Beatles.
For the first decade of the 2000s, you know who the biggest selling band in the world was? Uhh, it was The Beatles. Wasn't U2, wasn't Metallica, errr, wasn't New Model Army. The band that sold the most records in the '00s was a band that broke up 45 years ago.
And I have news for you. I guarantee you that just this past week The Beatles sold more records than New Model Army did. On what planet are you living in which New Model Army are more relevant than The Beatles? My God, yeah, maybe on your turntable in your bedroom NMA are more relevant; but the world is more than your bedroom, and in that world (we call it Earth) The Beatles are more relevant than New Model Army.
New Model Army are more relevant than The Beatles?!? Man, at first I thought this place was a Motley Crue forum; now I realize it is a Twilight Zone forum.
-
um, NMA are more relevant to people on an NMA Forum...
???
-
um, NMA are more relevant to people on an NMA Forum...
Your "logic" can easily be disproven:
A) I am a people.
B) I am on an NMA forum.
C) The Beatles are more relevant to me than New Model Army.
If you were correct in your logic, C would state NMA is more relevant to me than The Beatles.
It doesn't state that.
Your theorem is invalid.
-
The Beatles - just a band
-
It's a question I've wondered myself, but then it could be applied to any number of artists in a variety of creative fields. There's no accounting for taste and popularity isn't an indication of merit, but often a pandering to the lowest common denominator. Van Gogh sold one painting in his lifetime, the Spice Girls have sold over 85 million records. Perhaps one day NMA will receive a posthumous reappraisal, that spurs massive record sales, though I won't hold my breath.
-
um, NMA are more relevant to people on an NMA Forum...
Your "logic" can easily be disproven:
A) I am a people.
B) I am on an NMA forum.
C) The Beatles are more relevant to me than New Model Army.
If you were correct in your logic, C would state NMA is more relevant to me than The Beatles.
It doesn't state that.
Your theorem is invalid.
I know I said I wasn't going to comment again
But here you are belittling true NMA fans on a NMA forum
It's seriously about time you did one and left us all alone
Go to your Beatles or Motley Crue forum
Goodbye and good riddance
We don't need this shit!!!!
-
um, NMA are more relevant to people on an NMA Forum...
Your "logic" can easily be disproven:
A) I am a people.
B) I am on an NMA forum.
C) The Beatles are more relevant to me than New Model Army.
If you were correct in your logic, C would state NMA is more relevant to me than The Beatles.
It doesn't state that.
Your theorem is invalid.
Friend, I started a thread about 'Beatles vs Stones', I know damn well how much I love The Beatles. Certainly better than those annoying Stones... ;)
I was talking about 'people' on this Forum, not the world in general. There's a whole internet of world out there with many different opinions.
Relevance is, er, relevant to the context upon which it falls on, sir. Here, NMA are more 'relevant' than The Beatles... much as I love John Paul George and Ringo...
Twilight Zone... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ORbseYAkzRM
;)
-
But musical taste is subjective. It's pointless to argue about what is better. I really don't care how many records any band sells as long as I like the music.
-
NMA are an on going entity and therefore much more relevant than The Beatles.
For the first decade of the 2000s, you know who the biggest selling band in the world was? Uhh, it was The Beatles. Wasn't U2, wasn't Metallica, errr, wasn't New Model Army. The band that sold the most records in the '00s was a band that broke up 45 years ago.
And I have news for you. I guarantee you that just this past week The Beatles sold more records than New Model Army did. On what planet are you living in which New Model Army are more relevant than The Beatles? My God, yeah, maybe on your turntable in your bedroom NMA are more relevant; but the world is more than your bedroom, and in that world (we call it Earth) The Beatles are more relevant than New Model Army.
We all know(without your patronising statistics)that the Beatles outsell NMA.Did you really think any of us here thought otherwise????
There's a difference between the words "biggest selling" and "relevant".Since we are on an NMA forum and not a Beatles forum,I suggest NMA are more relevant.
Since,by your own admission,first thoughts can often be mistaken,maybe all those people who bought Beatles albums now regret it ;D
New Model Army are more relevant than The Beatles?!? Man, at first I thought this place was a Motley Crue forum; now I realize it is a Twilight Zone forum.
-
The Beatles - just a band
Minor Freat - just a band.
-
People, stop being childish, arguing about who's more relevant between NMA and the Beatles is like argument about was Da Vinci a greater genius then Tesla or vice versa, makes no sense and makes us all look stupid, and I'd like to believe that we're not. It's clear that there wouldn't be one without the other or the the path of the later ones, in this case NMA, would be a lot different if the Beatles didn't happen two decades earlier... Everything happens for a reason and everything happens in its time.
Just as a matter of coincidence those two are my all time favorite bands. And of course the Beatles mean a lot more to many more people around the world, which definitely makes them more influential, which, on the other hand, does not mean they're more or less relevant, because, as we all know, there might be a band in a garrage next door to your second cousin's summer house that are in fact the greatest band in the world at the moment, but only your second cousin knows it, because he's the only one who has herd them play...
Anyway, The Beatles are big. And NMA are big as well. Maybe for a different reason, but in fact they are. At least they are big to me. And it does count. I hope they're big to you too.
-
I've seen a few interviews where Justin says they play what they like when they like to whom they like
Total artistic freedom to do anything they want to whether we like it or not!
Never mind sell out arena gigs or hugh record sales, that to me is a sure sign they have made it!
As for the Beatles, can't stand them personally....!!
-
People, stop being childish, arguing about who's more relevant between NMA and the Beatles is like argument about was Da Vinci a greater genius then Tesla or vice versa, makes no sense and makes us all look stupid, and I'd like to believe that we're not. It's clear that there wouldn't be one without the other or the the path of the later ones, in this case NMA, would be a lot different if the Beatles didn't happen two decades earlier... Everything happens for a reason and everything happens in its time.
Just as a matter of coincidence those two are my all time favorite bands. And of course the Beatles mean a lot more to many more people around the world, which definitely makes them more influential, which, on the other hand, does not mean they're more or less relevant, because, as we all know, there might be a band in a garrage next door to your second cousin's summer house that are in fact the greatest band in the world at the moment, but only your second cousin knows it, because he's the only one who has herd them play...
Anyway, The Beatles are big. And NMA are big as well. Maybe for a different reason, but in fact they are. At least they are big to me. And it does count. I hope they're big to you too.
Quite agree pjevac. No idea why this topic has slipped into an NMA "V" Beatles debate which would be impossible to judge as they are totally different bands. The topic which "Space deleted went down the same route for some reason.
Personally I like some of the later Beatles stuff and have a couple of albums. I like NMA more, and that's my personal choice, but I refuse to be compelled to dislike the Beatles because of these debates.
-
I have a interview from November 2013 from the Sunday mail (not to be confused with the mail on Sunday lol) where Justin states that he is proud that the band have never had a 'hit' single as it gives the band freedom to play what they want, he mentions chumbawumba and how tub thumping had destroyed the band. He always mentions how back in the day the band were always seen as outsiders and couldn't be trusted to say the right thing The interview is titled we did it like we meant it !
-
Always thought Beatles were ugly looking cars
-
Who cares about big or hit singles. The Spice Girls accomplished both. So as good as the Beatles and better than NMA?
Uhhh.....Nah. My dad however is bigger than yours.
-
i just think its incredible that anyone would place the beatles on such a pedestal when there was so much more going in music before, during and after them. if you look back at the charts they weren't so dominant.
i'm just glad their scouse accents didn't come across in the songs. :o always struggled to watch there version of spiceworld ;D
-
Its an interesting quetsion - is it all subjective? What music you like is obviously very subjective and the result of countless different reasons. But its probably easier to be objective about artistic value. I think you'd be hard pressed to find many people who thought Steps had the same artistic merit as John Coltrane - but then again I dont think John Coltrane would get many mid 90s school disco dancefloors moving!
As for the Beatles - album sales, musicologists, historians, sociologists, and just about any other measure of worth & importance you can think of have constistently put them as the most important group ever. You may not personally like them, but to say they arent the biggest band ever is contradicted by a huge weight of evidence. I personally dont really care for Bob Dylan - but i'd be foolish to deny his artistic & historical worth.
Anyway - can we get back to New Model Army...
-
For the first decade of the 2000s, you know who the biggest selling band in the world was? Uhh, it was The Beatles. Wasn't U2, wasn't Metallica, errr, wasn't New Model Army. The band that sold the most records in the '00s was a band that broke up 45 years ago.
I thought it was Eminem that sold the most records in the 00s. The Beatles had the biggest selling album.
-
Darkness,
I specifically said Beatles were best selling band of the '00s. Eminem sold more records than any solo artist...and he did sell slightly more than The Beatles. That's embarrassing as hell to any musical artists of that time. You are competing against a band that broke up forty years ago and you can't win?!? Only Eminem out sold The Beatles for that decade. Incredible power that band stil has.
Johnny M,
Great post.
I agree. To dismiss something simply because you don't like it is rather absurd. Borders on childish.
And you are right, enough Beatles, let's get back to New Model Army.
I see a huge connection between NMA and The Beatles. NMA's use of both electric and acoustic guitars, well, what band started that and did it better than anyone else? Can you emphatically state that NMA's acoustic tunes are better than their electric or vice versa? No. Equally great. Beatles pulled off that trick fifty years ago. They seemlessly went from an acoustic track to an electric. New Model Army do the same and are carrying on that wonderful groundwork The Beatles laid down.
-
wow, incredible knowledge of music on display here
i suppose the factor that goes against the beatles is that their new compilations boosted their sales by almost 50%. but i guess there are a lot of people that prefer convenience than death by searching their collection
think i'd even plug for m&m before the beatles. happy to say i've never bought or owned anything by either. the odd decent track
-
And you are right, enough Beatles, let's get back to New Model Army.
Phew! Oh sorry my mistake (must learn to read properly) there's more
I see a huge connection between NMA and The Beatles.
-
aha, missed that
but the neck on this lad
Borders on childish.
how does it go
pot
kettle
black
-
Vengeance scared people. It took on a life of its own and unless you were a fan, you only ever heard the chorus. People saw a right wing monster unable to express itself other than through the use of perceived bad language. And then they did Christian Militia on telly. Again, a song whose sentiments can be misunderstood unless you listen carefully. And then they did No Rest on telly, live with that t shirt. So then, they were difficult as well as perceived not very nice. Everything they could have done wrong....
-
Vengeance scared people. It took on a life of its own and unless you were a fan, you only ever heard the chorus. People saw a right wing monster unable to express itself other than through the use of perceived bad language. And then they did Christian Militia on telly. Again, a song whose sentiments can be misunderstood unless you listen carefully. And then they did No Rest on telly, live with that t shirt. So then, they were difficult as well as perceived not very nice. Everything they could have done wrong....
Thats quite a common theme on many of the posts on this thread - but NMA did end up quite popular by the early 90s - so I'm not sure it holds up
-
Vengeance scared people. It took on a life of its own and unless you were a fan, you only ever heard the chorus. People saw a right wing monster unable to express itself other than through the use of perceived bad language. And then they did Christian Militia on telly. Again, a song whose sentiments can be misunderstood unless you listen carefully. And then they did No Rest on telly, live with that t shirt. So then, they were difficult as well as perceived not very nice. Everything they could have done wrong....
Thats quite a common theme on many of the posts on this thread - but NMA did end up quite popular by the early 90s - so I'm not sure it holds up
They did become more popular in the early 90's but they just we're not as 'POPPY' as say the Levellers (see One way). No matter how big they nearly got NMA always felt out of the mainsteam and not as easy as (yes again!) someone like the Levellers.
-
so they stayed true to their beliefs
not saying thats the only reason but it must contribute
there were enough decent pliable and gullible bands to serve as fodder for the labels
-
Vengeance scared people. It took on a life of its own and unless you were a fan, you only ever heard the chorus. People saw a right wing monster unable to express itself other than through the use of perceived bad language. And then they did Christian Militia on telly. Again, a song whose sentiments can be misunderstood unless you listen carefully. And then they did No Rest on telly, live with that t shirt. So then, they were difficult as well as perceived not very nice. Everything they could have done wrong....
This is very good. Great post.
Yeah, NMA may have reached a level of popularity, but because of what peternotbaldyet wrote, the band was NEVER going to be big. First impressions are lasting impressions and the danger early New Model Army posed pigeon-holed them forever. Do you think the band Crass can ever big big? Ever be selling out the Garden, picture on the cover of Rolling Stone, sitting down to chat with Ellen Degeneres on her TV show, playing the MTV video awards show? Of course not. Same thing for NMA. Those early songs and appearances ensured they would never be big.
-
i'd say the worst part of being a troll is when you run out of ideas and in seeps the realisation that you're not going get the gratification you desire.
fuckwit