http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/8423340.stm
Rage Against the Machine is this years Christmas no 1!!!
well, fuck me sideways . . .
This is vaguely better than Simon Cowell, I must admit.
Barely.
This song is a disgrace for Christmas, apparently. I wonder what kind of people will be signing this one - http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/getrageoffnumber1spot/ (http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/getrageoffnumber1spot/)
Daily Mail readers.
I'm starting to warm to it, if it is going to annoy people.
Trolling the pop charts. Assembly line pop = pwnt!
Also, compared to any xmas no1 in the last 10,000 years or so, i quite like this one.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkuOAY-S6OY
best xmas no 1 evar!
According to BBC news last night Simon Cowell's perfectly formed (and bland as all hell) turdling and RATM are both signed to Sony.
I laughed my god damn ass off.
This irritated me. The song is an over-indulgent, pseudo-anarchist abortion of a piece of music, and quite frankly I preferred Joe McPlastic.
And yes, Rage Against the Machine's Killing in the Name is a Sony BMG catalogue track, and SyCo are a subsidiary of Sony. In terms of the protest against Simon Cowell, it's sort of like boycotting your local Tesco Express and going round the corner to a big Tesco supermarket.
i think it was mostly to prove a point that the public can choose what the charts show and also proof to the internet community that their influence now extends to the 'real world'.
Slade for christmas #1 next year!
Um. The public do choose what's in the charts. That's sort of the point of them.
The only thing it proves is that a few dumb British Twitterspags and a facebook campaign can actually do shit. Oh, and it spawned a couple hundred new facebook groups "LET'S GET X TO CHRISTMAS NUMBER ONE 2010." Hardly an awesome victory, really.
Ach, the only way I would have been terribly impressed was if they had managed to limit the sales of Joe Who?'s tat to the absolute minimal baseline of UberFanGirls and Desperate Middle Aged women.
THAT would be influence of real life events.
True. I mean, he still got number two, which isn't really that much of a defeat.
Thanks to the movie "Love, Actually," I actually know wtf you lot are on about. Americans don't have a #1 Xmas song.
Quote from: Jenne on December 21, 2009, 02:07:15 PM
Thanks to the movie "Love, Actually," I actually know wtf you lot are on about. Americans don't have a #1 Xmas song.
Hee hee. I love that movie.
And that was truly a #1 xmas song.
I imagine RATM are just happy to have a semblance of relevance again. Deserved or no.
Quote from: Payne on December 21, 2009, 12:28:34 PM
According to BBC news last night Simon Cowell's perfectly formed (and bland as all hell) turdling and RATM are both signed to Sony.
I laughed my god damn ass off.
I did wonder about this.
He's done that two years running now.
Quote from: BDS on December 21, 2009, 01:54:45 PM
Um. The public do choose what's in the charts. That's sort of the point of them.
HAHAHAHAHAHA
no.
He's right.
If by choose he means "radio stations all over the country are given a highly limited selection of music made by the Big Three who basically control the entire industry and you, the consumer are allowed to choose inbetween this range for the songs you like the most."
In that sense, people have a choice. Kind of like how everyone has a free and fair choice at elections, despite the only parties which have any chance of winning all being, essentially, the same party with minor variations.
Hurrah for freedom of choice! You can choose anything you like, so long as it doesn't matter.
and, dunno how it's in the UK, but buying airplay doens't even need to cause consumers to buy the singles, as in the Netherlands charts are also rated on airplay itself in addition to single sales.
Guess I'll have to grant em it's more efficient that way.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the British charts are decided by how many people buy the single, based on downloads and physical sales. Now you can attach to that whatever bullshit you like, but as far as I'm concerned, that means the public decide what's in the charts.
But yeah, Cain's right. The only songs that have a hope in hell are those played on mainstream radio stations, and the only songs chosen to get played on there are pretty much the exact same. But still. Some people like all that pop shit.
Yeah, airplay isn't taken into account here.
As for radio stations...lets put it this way. I can get about, oh, 15 FM radio stations around here. Four of those belong to the BBC, and the rest belong to three companies. It's pretty much the same all over the country, and its pretty obvious if you travel, because each company has its own playlist, which stations are never allowed to deviate from. One specializes in modern pop and "R&B", one specializes in sort of 80s/90s stuff which might include a few alright songs, but otherwise sticks to the pop songs from that period, and the third used to do dance music, but its been ages since I listened to them and they might have gone out of business by now.
And that's it. Oh, Radio 1 (owned by the BBC) might play a few unheard of tracks in the evening and on their specialist shows...but listening to the latter usually means staying up until 3am.
I reckon the iPlayer and similar online catch up things have done wonders for the unsigned/specialist shows though, you can listen to them whenever you want.
But yes, your point still stands. Radio stations are generally the suck.
Here's how it works:
The industry decides how many discs to press for each act. The act with the most number of discs pressed is no.1
The radio is then told which discs had the most pressed.
The media informs the public which discs are populartm
The public then buys the correct number of discs.
Much moar efficient than allowing the public to decide for themselves and guessing how many discs to press.