Why is NMA often labeled political when most of the songs are not?

[Rusco]

Is there a history behind this? Did the band create this image or was it the music press?

I'd say there is a history about it. I think Joolz have summed it up well in some interviews concerning the band, and actually about how this group of loyal followers, called nowadays the Family was originated. There was slagging by the press and music industry and then these devoted fans stood up on behalf of the NMA. As a side note, even some other notable politically active 'hard line' bands in the 80's noted NMA; (like f.e Conflict).

But if the message, lyrics etc. were something uncommonly new thing in the 80's, I'd say the reactions brought something that is still present today, and have followed with them always: New Model Army are often considered as something like "intellectual post punk", truely underground and modern rock band. So, they who still keep wondering why they aren't as popular as some of the main stream acts - well I think this is the cause. They aren't any scene or genre where all of the bands are copies of each other - but a group that are their "own scene".

[Shush]

Interesting points Rusco. I suppose some reasons why NMA are labelled the "Political Band", is what else can you call them ? The are famously hard to categorise. Not the punk band, new wave, post punk, folk, rock, alternative, Goth, none seem to fit , so it is easy just to say NMA, the Political band, a title they have been given since the 1980's.   

[Johnny Appleseed]

Another interesting thread.

It's funny how bands get labelled. I'm a Billy Bragg fan, but most of his songs are not political (in terms of political with a capital 'P' at least). For every Political song he has, there are three or four love songs, etc. The Clash, another favourite of mine, had just as many love songs, social commentary songs, and so on as overtly political songs. I think it just happens to be that NMA, Bragg, The Clash (amongst many others) occasionally speak their minds on an issue that genuinely moves them, the miner's strike being a classic example, and that is what they are remembered for...and which is no bad thing in my book.

All the best,
Johnny

[Master Ray]

Why are NMA labelled 'political'?

Because most music journalists are lazy.

I'll give you an example.  The Cult (a band I'm very fond of) got a big, six-page spread in Q magazine a little while ago.  Now, that was an enjoyable album that they put out, but it didn't have a fraction of the critical acclaim or fan-love that BDAW got.  So why didn't NMA get that attention and, more obviously, those glossy six pages?  Because it isn't as easy as an article about 'hedonistic drug-addled rockers ain't dead yet'.   

What would Q magazines hook be?  'Yeah, there's this band who were big a while ago and they were sorta like The Levellers... no wait, a bit like The Clash... they're a bit untrendy...  people are still listening to them?  I can't process this... I have no frame of reference... can we find another old rock band?  Does anyone want to read about these fuckers?  What is Axl Rose doing nowadays?  Have we had a Noel Gallagher cover recently?'

NMA are far too divergent for the usual music press to get a grip on, therefore they are ignored.

As long as us lovely folks keep showing up to the gigs, they won't be regarded as something as basic as 'political'.  Or, indeed, 'ignored'.

 

[Space]

NMA are far too divergent for the usual music press to get a grip on, therefore they are ignored.

I feel your point is made absurd by two words: The Beatles

Yes, what you say about NMA being impossible to define is true. Are they rock, punk, political, folkies, hippies...? But why would that lead to the band being ignored? Can you honestly define what The Beatles were? The string quartet of "Eleanor Rigby" sure doesn't sound like the balls out rock of "Revolution" or the folk of "Hide Your Love Away" or the psychedelia of "Strawberry Fields"....  Beatles were impossible to define in a word or two, but they obviously got tons of media coverage.

Why NMA are more or less ignored has a bit to do with the band themselves. They didn't push for any acceptance...so the journalists readily obliged. It kind of is that simple.

[Master Ray]

*sigh*...

The Beatles are amazing.  Love 'em.  They truly re-wrote music.

But by the time NMA came along, everything had been done before.  You can't compare the two.  The playing fields are vastly different.

[Amandistan]

The Beatles are nearly the opposite in terms of media coverage.
The longevity of the band was what? less than 10 years and got a massive amount of media attention.

NMA is on the 35th year and seemed to be ignored by the music press.


Maybe someone should make a Beatles vs NMA thread. It could be interesting. 

[Pol]

So glad nma aren't anything like the Beatles

[Amandistan]

So glad nma aren't anything like the Beatles

As am I.   I like some of their songs but most are not my thing. I think they are overrated to be honest.

[Space]

So glad nma aren't anything like the Beatles

Uhh, they actually are.

- The seamless mix of electric guitars and acoustic guitars in a rock band is The Beatles creation and trademark and it is the signature sound of NMA.

- The wide variety of musical styles is The Beatles creation and trademark and it is an NMA trademark, too.

- The mix of personal and political lyrics is The Beatles calling card, NMA do that too with their lyrics.

Seriously, how can you possibly say NMA "aren't anything like The Beatles."

[Darkness]

I feel your point is made absurd by two words: The Beatles

Can you honestly define what The Beatles were? The string quartet of "Eleanor Rigby" sure doesn't sound like the balls out rock of "Revolution" or the folk of "Hide Your Love Away" or the psychedelia of "Strawberry Fields"....  Beatles were impossible to define in a word or two, but they obviously got tons of media coverage.

I'm no expert but weren't The Beatles early LPs very similar? I always got the impression that their diverse sound happened once they were a very established band getting lots of media interest. So I don't really think Master Ray's point is absurd.

[Space]

I'm no expert but weren't The Beatles early LPs very similar? I always got the impression that their diverse sound happened once they were a very established band getting lots of media interest. So I don't really think Master Ray's point is absurd.

No, no, no. Very early on The Beatles were displaying wild diversity. They were a rock and roll combo and yet on their first two albums they were doing Isley Brothers songs, Burt Bacarach songs, Motown, and Broadway show tunes! The Beatles' sweet "Till There Was You" (from THE MUSIC MAN) sure is a lot different than the racous rock and roll of "Roll Over Beethoven." Beatles were diverse from the get go. They played what they liked and were capable of playing the various styles of music they liked.

[Rusco]

I feel your point is made absurd by two words: The Beatles

Can you honestly define what The Beatles were? The string quartet of "Eleanor Rigby" sure doesn't sound like the balls out rock of "Revolution" or the folk of "Hide Your Love Away" or the psychedelia of "Strawberry Fields"....  Beatles were impossible to define in a word or two, but they obviously got tons of media coverage.

I'm no expert but weren't The Beatles early LPs very similar? I always got the impression that their diverse sound happened once they were a very established band getting lots of media interest. So I don't really think Master Ray's point is absurd.

I have the same view as Darkness. During their early era the style became known as Mersey beat which flushed all those kids with an earlier interest to so called Skiffle groups from 50's.

There are many books for sure to read more about it. I'd recommend The Black Knight: Ritchie Blackmore by Jerry Bloom, and Lemmy - White Line Fever by Janiss Garza. There's some in depth information about the era.

[Darkness]

Must just be me because their early albums just sound like rock n roll  Diverse influences maybe, but not a diverse sound.

[Space]

I have the same view as Darkness. During their early era the style became known as Mersey beat

Yes, of course they played rock and roll mostly in their first year (1963) of making records; but a good portion of their material that first year was of varying musical forms that weren't rock and roll. (I listed those forms above.)  And by year two (1964) along with their rock they were doing folk stuff and even Spanish guitar stuff ("And I Love Her").
By year three they were using a friggin' sitar!
Early in their careers The Beatles could not be categorized as just a rock combo.

Nor can NMA be categorized simply. They touch on a number of different styles. Which brings us back to the main point here. Bands are not ignored because of their varying array of musical styles as someone here suggested. The Beatles are an example of a band that touched on an insane amount of musical styles yet they sure were not ignored.