Wasn't God save the Queen a similar sort of scenario in the 70's. The Sun doesn't like it because its owned by Murdoch who loves Thatcher.
This is exactly what is going on.
I have no idea if this story is true, but my first thought is that it's an attempt by Murdoch to kill sales, so people won't bother downloading it, therefore it'll lose its chart placing and it will all be forgotten. All done, of course, by someone who, as was pointed out in the other thread on this subject, is an ally of those happy to exploit the deaths of six children for political ends. You can smell the hypocrisy for miles.
If, on the other hand, it is true, it's a major publicity gaffe that will backfire in the most spectacular way. The charts are littered with songs written in protest at politicians and the establishment, 'God Save The Queen' being the most incendiary. Yet 'God Save The Queen' charted and reached the Top Ten. So why can't another song some people choose to buy? And who, in any case, is the Official Charts Company (never mind The Sun) to tell people what should be included in a chart which lists the public's favourites? Are we only allowed to buy a song for certain reasons? Or is the UK actually just China or Syria in disguise?
Good job the police will have their time taken up with the funeral next Wednesday, otherwise they'd probably be told to round up anyone caught singing or whilstling THAT song ... :rolleyes:
The Sun are lying (or mis-informed). The Official Charts Company on Facebook have said the song is at #54 based on Sunday + Monday's sales, which means they are letting it chart (there's other people's versions in the top 200 as well).
I have no idea if this story is true, but my first thought is that it's an attempt by Murdoch to kill sales, so people won't bother downloading it, therefore it'll lose its chart placing and it will all be forgotten. All done, of course, by someone who, as was pointed out in the other thread on this subject, is an ally of those happy to exploit the deaths of six children for political ends. You can smell the hypocrisy for miles.
If, on the other hand, it is true, it's a major publicity gaffe that will backfire in the most spectacular way. The charts are littered with songs written in protest at politicians and the establishment, 'God Save The Queen' being the most incendiary. Yet 'God Save The Queen' charted and reached the Top Ten. So why can't another song some people choose to buy? And who, in any case, is the Official Charts Company (never mind The Sun) to tell people what should be included in a chart which lists the public's favourites? Are we only allowed to buy a song for certain reasons? Or is the UK actually just China or Syria in disguise?
Good job the police will have their time taken up with the funeral next Wednesday, otherwise they'd probably be told to round up anyone caught singing or whilstling THAT song ... :rolleyes:
I agree with you. The music chart is simply a record of which singles achieve the most sales in any given week, and that's all it should be. As that's what it is supposed to be.
Any of this 'but it's in bad taste' shouldn't even come into it. It's simply a weekly report on which songs sold the most, nothing more, nothing less.
Anyone trying to attach any other meaning to the charts other than a list of the most sales has to have lost sight about what the music chart actually is.
Week in week out most of us have to put up with all manner of cack getting to number one in the charts which may be offensive to our ears. But that's just the way it is.
If some crappy single got to number one, then it got to number one. That's just the way it works. Makes no odds if I like it or not.
I agree with you. The music chart is simply a record of which singles achieve the most sales in any given week, and that's all it should be. As that's what it is supposed to be.
Any of this 'but it's in bad taste' shouldn't even come into it. It's simply a weekly report on which songs sold the most, nothing more, nothing less.
Anyone trying to attach any other meaning to the charts other than a list of the most sales has to have lost sight about what the music chart actually is.
I agree with this but what about a song that for example was supporting white supremacy was going to be #1? would you not censor it or should any song be allowed?
I agree with this but what about a song that for example was supporting white supremacy was going to be #1? would you not censor it or should any song be allowed?
As I said, the charts is just a list of the best selling singles.
You can't just deny that a record sold x amount of units if it actually it did.
As I also said, the problem comes when people attach anything more to what the singles chart actually is.
It appears that as a society we probably attach more importance to the charts than it deserves. Perhaps that's the problem in the first place?
If we accept that records come out which appear positive such as a charity single, then maybe we have to accept that some horrible white supremacist record may be number one the following week?
However, I think it might be banned due to being deemed to be a hate crime. The charts itself probably wouldn't need to be involved in banning it.
This charts thing, it's our own fault. Since we were little children we've always been obsessed by the charts and every week anticipating what's number one?
We never obsess over what other luxury items achieve the highest sales in any given week. That's all the charts really are in effect.
I agree with this but what about a song that for example was supporting white supremacy was going to be #1? would you not censor it or should any song be allowed?
If it had to be played on the radio they could censor the song, but it should still chart imo.
And the meanings of songs can be unclear. Someone could write a political song but use metaphors so it seems like it's about something else completely unrelated. You won't know whether to ban it or not. Perhaps the political interpretation wasn't intended by the writer?
Wasn't God save the Queen a similar sort of scenario in the 70's. The Sun doesn't like it because its owned by Murdoch who loves Thatcher.
God Save The Queen was the best selling record, yet gained enormously when the charts were fiddled to prevent it being the official Number One. Nobody gives a toss about the charts these days, but fiddling the books will give it a lasting notoriety.
The OCC have a right to make decisions regarding their chart - it's nothing to do with freedom of speech in that regard. It's their freedom to construct the chart on their own criteria. Other charts are available. If the government were banning it then it'd be an issue.
Even if it does chart, it will probably be ignored by the commercial Itunes based chart and Radio 1. Playing a song in celebration of someone's death is likely to cause offence and thus would potentially breach the broadcasting code.
Sounds quite reasonable to me. Essentially people are buying the song to take the piss out of a grieving family, and it's not really acceptable for the company that runs the charts to validate that sort of behaviour.
It's unlikely that it was just a dream. As with many great works of writing there is a lot of subtext in there. Frank L Baum who wrote it was a very political person.
You can just enjoy it on the surface for a fairtale type film in its own right. But there's more going on under the surface. Some of it which is pertinent to the times when the original book was written.
Even if you find some of the suggestions tenuous, I think that you will find some of the background fascinating or interesting even if you disagree with some of it.
There was a documentary about Frank L Baum on BBC 4 a year or two ago. It's been repeated once or twice since, but I'd keep my eye out for it as it was quite interesting.
I think that the idea that it's a dream offers a clue in itself. When Dorothy wakes up she realises that the characters in her dream are symbols which represent other things in real life.
Good point, I guess it could be allegorical then I think I have the doc on my Freesat box still, I'll have to watch it.
Sounds quite reasonable to me. Essentially people are buying the song to take the piss out of a grieving family, and it's not really acceptable for the company that runs the charts to validate that sort of behaviour.
BIB - if that's genuinely what you think, you are rather wide of the mark.
It's being bought it as a reaction to the passing of a woman who treated some people in this country with nothing short of contempt.
Clearly you weren't one of them, nor can you understand their anger ...?
The OCC have a right to make decisions regarding their chart - it's nothing to do with freedom of speech in that regard. It's their freedom to construct the chart on their own criteria. Other charts are available. If the government were banning it then it'd be an issue.
Even if it does chart, it will probably be ignored by the commercial Itunes based chart and Radio 1. Playing a song in celebration of someone's death is likely to cause offence and thus would potentially breach the broadcasting code.
But how could the OCC ban 'Ding Dong The Witch Is Dead' from the chart when 'God Save The Queen'. 'Ghost Town', 'Maggie's Farm', 'Imagine', 'Give Ireland Back To The Irish' and countless others were all allowed to chart because people bought them? Changing the rules and banning the track - if, indeed that is what is happening - would be the height of hypocrisy and actually create more controversy (about freedom of speech, first and foremost). That isn't the smartest thing to do.
This is market forces, pure and simple - like it or not.
Sounds quite reasonable to me. Essentially people are buying the song to take the piss out of a grieving family, and it's not really acceptable for the company that runs the charts to validate that sort of behaviour.
Oh come on, pull the other one. You know that this isn't the case.
It's just about Margaret Thatcher herself. To state that this is to take the piss out of her grieving family suggests a dishonest view of the situation.
Ding Dong the witch is dead has now entered the official midweek chart at no.10 - they should play it on Radio 1 later. Maybe the thread title can be changed!!
It doesn't look like it's being "banned" anyway, so it's a moot point, but I have to laugh at the claims this is about "freedom of expression". Music charts aren't controlled by government, it has nothing to do with freedom of expression. Especially since nobody would be stopping people expressing themselves by buying the song anyway.
The Official Charts Company is just a private company run by the British Phonographic Industry, an industry non-profit group, and a Entertainment Retailers Association ERA, a group of retailers. These groups would have every right to decide what does and does not chart on their "official" charts. The only reason they're not likely to pick and choose when it comes to this song is that it could discredit their charts.
If they view it as political act or expression, a private company has no obligation to allow or defend such acts. Just try posting political vitriol here for an example. Freedom of expression protects you from the government from stopping you, not private companies.
If this is true, it goes against logic! They cannot presume that every person who bought it did so for political reasons, even if its obviously very likely. Are we living in Iran or something?!
It doesn't look like it's being "banned" anyway, so it's a moot point, but I have to laugh at the claims this is about "freedom of expression". Music charts aren't controlled by government, it has nothing to do with freedom of expression. Especially since nobody would be stopping people expressing themselves by buying the song anyway.
The Official Charts Company is just a private company run by the British Phonographic Industry, an industry non-profit group, and a Entertainment Retailers Association ERA, a group of retailers. These groups would have every right to decide what does and does not chart on their "official" charts. The only reason they're not likely to pick and choose when it comes to this song is that it could discredit their charts.
If they view it as political act or expression, a private company has no obligation to allow or defend such acts. Just try posting political vitriol here for an example. Freedom of expression protects you from the government from stopping you, not private companies.
Yes, but on principle, we shouldn't be having a blase attitude about private companies controlling freedom of expression, especially now that the country is becoming more and more privatised... They should be rightly criticised and made to be very aware that we, as a democratic society, do not approve.
Yes, but on principle, we shouldn't be having a blase attitude about private companies controlling freedom of expression, especially now that the country is becoming more and more privatised... They should be rightly criticised and made to be very aware that we, as a democratic society, do not approve.
The charts do not belong to the country, the Official Chart Company compile it, they own it. Dictating how a private company compiles their chart would not be democratic.
I don't even know why this is still being discussed, it was pretty obvious from that start that what the OP was claiming wasn't true.
It's interesting to note that as of midnight Tuesday night - so about +/- 36 hours after her death - it had sold only 10,600 copies, so it's hardly an un-stoppable juggernaut of a protest. More a trundling tricycle. Wherever it eventually charts - even if it gets to number 1 - it'll be much more indicative of how few copies you need to do well in the Chart these days, rather than a significant protest against Thatcher. Do we really only have 10 - 15,000 students in the UK?
Yes, but on principle, we shouldn't be having a blase attitude about private companies controlling freedom of expression, especially now that the country is becoming more and more privatised... They should be rightly criticised and made to be very aware that we, as a democratic society, do not approve.
BIB - this is a joke, right ...?! :eek: If it isn't ...
Aside from the fact that Thatcher declared there was no such thing as 'society', democracy means that different opinions are allowed. So you might not approve - but you can hardly claim to speak on behalf of a democratic society where freedom of expression is allowed. Clearly some people do approve of this - much as you might like them not to.
Comments
This is exactly what is going on.
I have no idea if this story is true, but my first thought is that it's an attempt by Murdoch to kill sales, so people won't bother downloading it, therefore it'll lose its chart placing and it will all be forgotten. All done, of course, by someone who, as was pointed out in the other thread on this subject, is an ally of those happy to exploit the deaths of six children for political ends. You can smell the hypocrisy for miles.
If, on the other hand, it is true, it's a major publicity gaffe that will backfire in the most spectacular way. The charts are littered with songs written in protest at politicians and the establishment, 'God Save The Queen' being the most incendiary. Yet 'God Save The Queen' charted and reached the Top Ten. So why can't another song some people choose to buy? And who, in any case, is the Official Charts Company (never mind The Sun) to tell people what should be included in a chart which lists the public's favourites? Are we only allowed to buy a song for certain reasons? Or is the UK actually just China or Syria in disguise?
Good job the police will have their time taken up with the funeral next Wednesday, otherwise they'd probably be told to round up anyone caught singing or whilstling THAT song ... :rolleyes:
I agree with you. The music chart is simply a record of which singles achieve the most sales in any given week, and that's all it should be. As that's what it is supposed to be.
Any of this 'but it's in bad taste' shouldn't even come into it. It's simply a weekly report on which songs sold the most, nothing more, nothing less.
Anyone trying to attach any other meaning to the charts other than a list of the most sales has to have lost sight about what the music chart actually is.
Week in week out most of us have to put up with all manner of cack getting to number one in the charts which may be offensive to our ears. But that's just the way it is.
If some crappy single got to number one, then it got to number one. That's just the way it works. Makes no odds if I like it or not.
The song has no merits on politics of today even if The Tories still are a bunch of nasty *****.
I agree with this but what about a song that for example was supporting white supremacy was going to be #1? would you not censor it or should any song be allowed?
As I said, the charts is just a list of the best selling singles.
You can't just deny that a record sold x amount of units if it actually it did.
As I also said, the problem comes when people attach anything more to what the singles chart actually is.
It appears that as a society we probably attach more importance to the charts than it deserves. Perhaps that's the problem in the first place?
If we accept that records come out which appear positive such as a charity single, then maybe we have to accept that some horrible white supremacist record may be number one the following week?
However, I think it might be banned due to being deemed to be a hate crime. The charts itself probably wouldn't need to be involved in banning it.
This charts thing, it's our own fault. Since we were little children we've always been obsessed by the charts and every week anticipating what's number one?
We never obsess over what other luxury items achieve the highest sales in any given week. That's all the charts really are in effect.
If it had to be played on the radio they could censor the song, but it should still chart imo.
And the meanings of songs can be unclear. Someone could write a political song but use metaphors so it seems like it's about something else completely unrelated. You won't know whether to ban it or not. Perhaps the political interpretation wasn't intended by the writer?
Even if it does chart, it will probably be ignored by the commercial Itunes based chart and Radio 1. Playing a song in celebration of someone's death is likely to cause offence and thus would potentially breach the broadcasting code.
Good point, I guess it could be allegorical then
BIB - if that's genuinely what you think, you are rather wide of the mark.
It's being bought it as a reaction to the passing of a woman who treated some people in this country with nothing short of contempt.
Clearly you weren't one of them, nor can you understand their anger ...?
But how could the OCC ban 'Ding Dong The Witch Is Dead' from the chart when 'God Save The Queen'. 'Ghost Town', 'Maggie's Farm', 'Imagine', 'Give Ireland Back To The Irish' and countless others were all allowed to chart because people bought them? Changing the rules and banning the track - if, indeed that is what is happening - would be the height of hypocrisy and actually create more controversy (about freedom of speech, first and foremost). That isn't the smartest thing to do.
This is market forces, pure and simple - like it or not.
Oh come on, pull the other one. You know that this isn't the case.
It's just about Margaret Thatcher herself. To state that this is to take the piss out of her grieving family suggests a dishonest view of the situation.
http://www.officialcharts.com/chart-news/ding-dong-the-witch-is-dead-enters-official-chart-update-top-10-2153/
The Official Charts Company is just a private company run by the British Phonographic Industry, an industry non-profit group, and a Entertainment Retailers Association ERA, a group of retailers. These groups would have every right to decide what does and does not chart on their "official" charts. The only reason they're not likely to pick and choose when it comes to this song is that it could discredit their charts.
If they view it as political act or expression, a private company has no obligation to allow or defend such acts. Just try posting political vitriol here for an example. Freedom of expression protects you from the government from stopping you, not private companies.
Yes, but on principle, we shouldn't be having a blase attitude about private companies controlling freedom of expression, especially now that the country is becoming more and more privatised... They should be rightly criticised and made to be very aware that we, as a democratic society, do not approve.
I don't even know why this is still being discussed, it was pretty obvious from that start that what the OP was claiming wasn't true.
BIB - this is a joke, right ...?! :eek: If it isn't ...
Aside from the fact that Thatcher declared there was no such thing as 'society', democracy means that different opinions are allowed. So you might not approve - but you can hardly claim to speak on behalf of a democratic society where freedom of expression is allowed. Clearly some people do approve of this - much as you might like them not to.