Calvin Harris - stung, or something, by the NME giving him good reviews and then suggesting he might not be all that good after all - applied for a role on the paper:
"Like 'Well, this is bad, but at least it's not as bad as that lanky cretin Calvin Harris and his shitty music'. That's not a direct quote, but you get the idea."
After seeing an ad for staff writers, Calvin decided to apply. "When I got home after a few shandies, I decided to try to even out the balance of opinion on my music," he said.
Calvin was delighted to get a reply from news editor Paul Stokes. It read: "Thank you for your application. We're processing the applications but due to festival commitments there may be a delay. We hope to be in touch in due course."
We're a little puzzled - if he got a good review for the album, but sometimes is used as a synonym for bad, doesn't that mean the balance of opinion is pretty even already? Wouldn't Calvin working for the NME skew it in the opposite direction?
After all, NME history is littered with people whose bands get softer treatment because they're popping in to the offices for the day job. Fabulous, anybody? Campag Velocet?
Now, you and I would spot that the email which Harris has been waving suggesting that he's in with a chance is little more than a standard 'we have seen an email from you, keep treading water' flip-off. It would have been nice if the NME had said so, but instead, they're trying to pretend they were continuing the joke:
"If it was real, I thought it would be funny to keep Calvin in the running for the job." he said. "He didn't submit the ideas we asked for so he might want to send in ideas for news stories.
"But if he's successful, he won't be allowed to review his own records."
Ha ha! Yes, we knew it was him all along so we were stringing him along! Ha! Ha ha ha!