AC/DC for Xmas number one campaign.

13»

Comments

  • CBFreakCBFreak Posts: 28,602
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    _elly001 wrote: »
    Then buy it now?

    Why should I? I want it as a Christmas present to myself.
  • _elly001_elly001 Posts: 11,937
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    CBFreak wrote: »
    Why should I? I want it as a Christmas present to myself.

    Surely if you like a song and want it in your music collection, you would simply buy it when it was available to you? (In this case, now.) You can still listen to it over Christmas, there's no expiry date on it.

    Sorry, I just genuinely don't understand why you'd wait to own a song that you like unless you only buy music once a year or something. :confused:
  • Glawster2002Glawster2002 Posts: 15,189
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Thrombin wrote: »
    Well Bruce Dickinson, whoever he is, is wrong. It's quite evident that the vast majority of contestants love music with a passion and want to devote their lives to it.

    As for whether winning means you've earned a number one single, of course it doesn't!

    The thing that should earn you a number one single is if more people want to buy your single than any other single currently on the market. These campaigns subvert that fundamental criteria. They attempt to force the most popular single from winning on the basis of who they don't want to win instead of who they do want. It's not even about which song you prefer - many people in these campaigns haven't even heard either song and don't care which is better.

    It's like somebody sabotaging Jessica Ellis in the Olympics because they don't like Britain or its policies :rolleyes:

    IMO, anyone contributing to these things should be ashamed of themselves.

    Bruce Dickinson is the lead singer of a band called Iron Maiden, you might of heard of them. :rolleyes:

    What he says is entirely correct, even though it is probably an unpalatable truth to you. This year's winner will be the shiny new toy, dropped as soon as next year's shiny new toy comes along just as last years winner's "career" is about to end.

    If any of those contestants really were passionate about singing, why aren't they in bands playing in pubs and clubs, getting support slots on other bands tours and working their way up? They see this as a short cut to fame and nothing more.
  • ThrombinThrombin Posts: 9,416
    Forum Member
    oilcat wrote: »
    If you believe all that...........would you like to buy some magic beans?

    Why, are you selling?
  • ThrombinThrombin Posts: 9,416
    Forum Member
    No, the word foist implies that this event is forced upon us and, as a result, adversely affects us. My point is - it's just the Crimbo number one; nobody over the age of 14 cares. Or should. Other than to pee-off Simon Cowell.

    Some people are keen on chart watching are happy when their favourite artists get to number one. If you are a fan of an artist you want them to do well and being number one is a way to measure their success. Being Christmas number one is a coveted spot. If it wasn't why is there so much umbrage about who gets that spot?

    Whether you personally care or not is irrelevant. Saying that nobody cares flies in the face of all evidence. I guarantee that the artists care.

    As for what 'foist' means, we are not forced to listen but that's not what I said. I said the number one spot is forced on us. The campaign is intent on altering the natural course of events in order to ensure that the campaign's nominated artist gets the spot rather than anyone else. The use of the word is perfectly justified in the context that I used it.

    There is no coercion in these campaigns - just a lot of people who, quite rightly, hate Cowell and Sony and all they stand for. As for Jessica Ellis, whoever she is, the US government did just that in 1980 - pulling out of the Moscow games for political reasons.

    What does coercion have to do with it? Vandals aren't coerced into vandalism they do it for fun. Doesn't make it right. My Nephew contributed to the Rage Against the Machine campaign because his friends were doing it and he thought it would be a laugh. He didn't hate Simon Cowell, he didn't care about any of the issues that the campaigners cared about. I don't think he even watched X-Factor. He just thought it would be a laugh.

    There is nothing "quite right" about hate and there is nothing right about spoiling some perfectly innocent contestant's dream just because you are bitter about one of the producers whose talent show they happened to come to prominence on. It's even less right if you're just doing it for a laugh like my Nephew.

    I'm sorry but there's no excuse and no amount of attempts to correct my grammar or spelling (should have been Jessica Ennis) is going to change that.
  • ThrombinThrombin Posts: 9,416
    Forum Member
    Bruce Dickinson is the lead singer of a band called Iron Maiden, you might of heard of them. :rolleyes:

    So I get a rolleyes because I can't name the singers in Iron Maiden? I can't name the singers in most groups. I can only name two of the singers in Take That, none of the singers in West Life or One Direction. So sue me :rolleyes:
    What he says is entirely correct, even though it is probably an unpalatable truth to you. This year's winner will be the shiny new toy, dropped as soon as next year's shiny new toy comes along just as last years winner's "career" is about to end.

    Nothing to do with palatability. How would this Bruce know? Does he watch X-Factor regularly? What about Xtra Factor? How many industry legends love the show and actively support the contestants? Michael Bolton wants to tour with Sam Bailey and we're only half way through the show!

    I see with my own eyes these people's backstories. Just because there are a lot of cynics out there doesn't change the fact that most contestants aspire to become musicians and artists.

    Nobody gets dropped if they do well. What would be the sense in that? There have been international stars made out of this show. Not always from the winners. It's a show which provides the opportunity but it's still up to the artist to capitalise on that.
    If any of those contestants really were passionate about singing, why aren't they in bands playing in pubs and clubs, getting support slots on other bands tours and working their way up? They see this as a short cut to fame and nothing more.

    A lot of them are. Do you not watch this show? Abi gigs in pubs all the time. Sam Bailey sang on Cruise Ships, one of the other kids used to busk. That's just the few I've heard mention it on Xtra Factor, it could be all of them for all I know.

    There are a lot of barriers to success in the music industry. Sometimes it's just a matter of luck, who sees you and how many other people's demos are queued up on their desks. These talent shows are not exactly easy. You are competing with hundreds of thousands and you not only have to win the approval of the music moguls but also the public. That's not the sort of accomplishment that deserves all this snobbery.
  • misslibertinemisslibertine Posts: 14,306
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Thrombin wrote: »
    So I get a rolleyes because I can't name the singers in Iron Maiden? I can't name the singers in most groups. I can only name two of the singers in Take That, none of the singers in West Life or One Direction. So sue me :rolleyes:

    I wouldn't let it worry you, I know who Bruce Dickinson is and I can't say its enriched my life in any way.
  • David_MorganDavid_Morgan Posts: 1,513
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Thrombin wrote: »
    I'm sorry but there's no excuse and no amount of attempts to correct my grammar or spelling (should have been Jessica Ennis) is going to change that.

    I've made no attempts to correct your grammar - you used a word and I took it at its usual meaning ignorant of the fact that you had cleverly repurposed that word; now don't I look the fool.
    Some people are keen on chart watching

    Young people. Or at least it was in my day. I, honestly, have not cared about the charts since I was in my early twenties; perhaps even earlier. This is, at least in part, because the music I like tends not to appear in charts or if it did it was forty years ago. Virtually every music fan I know did care about chart music in their teens and then turned their backs on it. I'm currently listening to some Allan Holdsworth, who I doubt has ever troubled the pop charts.
    are happy when their favourite artists get to number one.

    Clearly, but why? To my mind, these people are seeking affirmation - they lack faith in their musical judgement and need the approval bestowed by popularity. In other words, young people.
    If you are a fan of an artist you want them to do well and being number one is a way to measure their success.
    Why would I care if the artists I like are successful - unless that lack of success means they quit music making. Usually, that isn't going to be the case as a band needs to be pretty successful in order for me to even know they exist, as I'm not exactly "plugged in" to the Zeitgeist.
    Being Christmas number one is a coveted spot. If it wasn't why is there so much umbrage about who gets that spot?

    Back when I cared, back in the 70s, it was certainly highly desirable to get the Crimbo number one. This was because many more records were bought in the run up to Christmas and, so, being number one meant you were shifting shedloads of product. There was also the extra publicity afforded the Christmas number one which probably translated into even more sales in the New Year. I doubt things have changed and so getting to the top slot is bound to be important.

    I'm really not sure what you mean by "umbrage" here.
    Whether you personally care or not is irrelevant. Saying that nobody cares flies in the face of all evidence. I guarantee that the artists care.

    Of course the artists care - it appeals to their ego and their bank balance. But I didn't know any disinterested adults that care.
    As for what 'foist' means, we are not forced to listen but that's not what I said. I said the number one spot is forced on us. The campaign is intent on altering the natural course of events in order to ensure that the campaign's nominated artist gets the spot rather than anyone else. The use of the word is perfectly justified in the context that I used it.
    How can something as abstract as the "number one spot" be forced upon us. As I said, I am totally, blissfully, unaware of what track is number one so you must be doing something I'm not; you must be seeking out this knowledge in some way. As it seems to be a source of annoyance to you, perhaps you should stop.

    I'm also loving the idea of a "natural order" to the pop charts - they were conceived to help shift product by introducing the element of competition. They have a long history of being skewed by the deliberate malfeasance of record companies.



    What does coercion have to do with it? Vandals aren't coerced into vandalism they do it for fun. Doesn't make it right. My Nephew contributed to the Rage Against the Machine campaign because his friends were doing it and he thought it would be a laugh. He didn't hate Simon Cowell, he didn't care about any of the issues that the campaigners cared about. I don't think he even watched X-Factor. He just thought it would be a laugh.

    Many different types of coercion, read Gramsci
    There is nothing "quite right" about hate and there is nothing right about spoiling some perfectly innocent contestant's dream just because you are bitter about one of the producers whose talent show they happened to come to prominence on. It's even less right if you're just doing it for a laugh like my Nephew.

    The contestants may be innocent, but what about Cowell. Doesn't his success mean less choice for punters? That's what the original campaign was about - the dominance of Cowell means that people aren't exposed to music with a measure of artistic integrity.
  • InsomniacParadeInsomniacParade Posts: 1,938
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    The contestants may be innocent, but what about Cowell. Doesn't his success mean less choice for punters? That's what the original campaign was about - the dominance of Cowell means that people aren't exposed to music with a measure of artistic integrity.

    But this is BS, mostly.

    Cowell does not dominate the charts at all. 3 of the current top 40 are X Factor acts, just a few weeks ago it was 0. If the other 37 are not songs with enough "artistic integrity" to live up to your standards, that is not Cowell's fault. Your superiority complex must have been intolerable when SAW actually were dominating the charts in the late 80s.
  • ThrombinThrombin Posts: 9,416
    Forum Member
    I've made no attempts to correct your grammar - you used a word and I took it at its usual meaning ignorant of the fact that you had cleverly repurposed that word; now don't I look the fool.

    You took the word foist to mean forced. As it happens it doesn't mean forced at all. More importantly, it seems to me that you applied the word to something I had never applied it to. I do, however, apologise for using the word 'grammar' incorrectly, you got me there :)

    Again, however, I reiterate the complete irrelevance of worrying about individual words which have no bearing on the discussion. It's just point scoring and it doesn't advance your argument at all.
    Young people. Or at least it was in my day. I, honestly, have not cared about the charts since I was in my early twenties; perhaps even earlier.

    So young people don't count? You don't care so it doesn't matter if others do? I refute that, for a start!

    And, for the record, I'm 51 in a few weeks and I enjoy watching the chart shows and am particularly happy when artists I like, particularly X-Factor artists, as it happens, are successful. It tends to put the lie to the people who say they're going to disappear without a trace shortly after the show :)
    This is, at least in part, because the music I like tends not to appear in charts or if it did it was forty years ago. Virtually every music fan I know did care about chart music in their teens and then turned their backs on it. I'm currently listening to some Allan Holdsworth, who I doubt has ever troubled the pop charts.

    Why are you telling me your likes and preferences? What does that have to do with the argument. Is it ok to vandalize an art gallery because you have no interest in art? Your own personal likes are irrelevant.

    Clearly, but why? To my mind, these people are seeking affirmation - they lack faith in their musical judgement and need the approval bestowed by popularity. In other words, young people.

    I'm struggling to work out how to respond to that without sounding rude. I really don't want to be rude but, honestly, IMO, that's the more ridiculous thing I've ever heard in my life :eek:

    Why would I care if the artists I like are successful - unless that lack of success means they quit music making. Usually, that isn't going to be the case as a band needs to be pretty successful in order for me to even know they exist, as I'm not exactly "plugged in" to the Zeitgeist.

    And again, why would I care that you care? The point is that others care and these campaigns affect those people. More importantly they affect the artist in question which is what I find the most reprehensible.
    I'm really not sure what you mean by "umbrage" here.

    um·brage (mbrj)
    n.
    1. Offense; resentment:

    People resent that the X-Factor winner keeps getting the Christmas number one, they resent that Simon Cowell is getting rich under what they consider false pretences. Hence the motivation for these campaigns. At least, as far as I understand it.
    Of course the artists care - it appeals to their ego and their bank balance. But I didn't know any disinterested adults that care.

    You do know that's a tautology don't you? You may as well say you don't know any disinterested adults who are not disinterested!

    Many of the artists in these shows do not have big egos. In fact a lot of them suffer from a lack of confidence. Saying they're all mercenary is, again, a ridiculous generalization that in no way reflects the vast majority of the contestants I have seen on these shows. I really have to question if you actually watch X-Factor at all? People with big egos tend to not get voted for, for one thing. Something which can't be said about the artists you would no doubt consider more legitimate.
    How can something as abstract as the "number one spot" be forced upon us. As I said, I am totally, blissfully, unaware of what track is number one so you must be doing something I'm not; you must be seeking out this knowledge in some way. As it seems to be a source of annoyance to you, perhaps you should stop.

    You're the one saying foist means forced. I never used the word:

    foist (foist)
    tr.v. foist·ed, foist·ing, foists
    1. To pass off as genuine, valuable, or worthy: "I can usually tell whether a poet . . . is foisting off on us what he'd like to think is pure invention" (J.D. Salinger).

    2. To impose (something or someone unwanted) upon another by coercion or trickery: They had extra work foisted on them because they couldn't say no to the boss.

    3. To insert fraudulently or deceitfully: foisted unfair provisions into the contract.

    I'd say there were elements of all three meanings in these campaigns.

    More to the point, like I said in an earlier post, if nobody cares about who is Christmas number one why are these campaigns so intent on preventing the X-Factor contestant from becoming Christmas number one? What point would it prove if nobody cared?
    I'm also loving the idea of a "natural order" to the pop charts - they were conceived to help shift product by introducing the element of competition. They have a long history of being skewed by the deliberate malfeasance of record companies.

    Well two wrongs don't make a right, do they? The companies skew them so that means we can too? I don't hold with that either.

    As far as I'm aware the charts reflect sales. Sales usually occur because people want to listen to the music they buy. That is the natural order of the charts. You can affect these things with promotion, playing stuff on radio a lot, or releasing the single at a strategic time after many weeks of TV exposure but, at the end of the day, people won't buy it if they don't want to listen to it (or give it as a gift to someone who wants to listen to it).

    Unless, of course, someone decides to buy a single as part of a protest campaign specifically designed to prevent someone else from getting to number one. That's just childish, immature and spiteful. Like I said, there is no excuse.
    Many different types of coercion, read Gramsci

    I'm guessing this is point scoring again. If you want to make a point you need to make it in a way that people can understand it. You told me there was no coercion, I had never said there was, so why make a point that something isn't coercion when it was never part of my argument?

    The contestants may be innocent, but what about Cowell. Doesn't his success mean less choice for punters? That's what the original campaign was about - the dominance of Cowell means that people aren't exposed to music with a measure of artistic integrity.

    I happen to think that the campaigners argument is nonsense but, even if I agreed with it, that first sentence is all that is needed to make my point. The target of this campaign is an innocent victim of these people's dislike of Simon Cowell. They have no right to spoil his or her moment like that. It's just a petty and vindictive childishness that, given the tendency for people to jump on the band wagon just for a laugh, proves nothing and achieves nothing.
  • highland paddyhighland paddy Posts: 672
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    AC DC are crap.
  • LED93LED93 Posts: 109
    Forum Member
    AC DC are crap.

    I know, who could possibly prefer AC DC over today's top 40 acts:D
  • noelw1969noelw1969 Posts: 936
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    rbdcay wrote: »
    How droll and childish, unless my favourite doesn't win then I don't care. But these campaigns are tedious. They should get there on their own merits and not be forced just because you want to make someone angry.

    You are correct. However, you must remember that X Factor winners have their singles released 1 week before the chart shuts down to give them an almost certain Christmas No.1 position. X Factor bosses are forcing the issue every bit as much as these campaigns.
  • noelw1969noelw1969 Posts: 936
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    AC DC are crap.

    AC/DC are one of the true innovators of modern day music and are recognized as pioneers of modern day heavy metal. From the day they started, no-one has been able to copy or match their truly unique style that took Rock and Roll to a completely different level and to a completely new audience.

    They have sold well in excess of 200 million albums and Back In Black is listed as the second highest selling album of all time, behind Jacksons Thriller.

    I've seen a few bands live in my time and, with the exception of Pink Floyd (Earls Court, 1994), they have put on the best show I have ever seen, headlining the Monsters of Rock in Modena, Italy in 1991.

    No too shabby for a "crap" band.
  • jock_fjock_f Posts: 1,689
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    noelw1969 wrote: »
    AC/DC are one of the true innovators of modern day music and are recognized as pioneers of modern day heavy metal. From the day they started, no-one has been able to copy or match their truly unique style that took Rock and Roll to a completely different level and to a completely new audience.

    They have sold well in excess of 200 million albums and Back In Black is listed as the second highest selling album of all time, behind Jacksons Thriller.

    I've seen a few bands live in my time and, with the exception of Pink Floyd (Earls Court, 1994), they have put on the best show I have ever seen, headlining the Monsters of Rock in Modena,
    No too shabby for a "crap" band.

    Malcolm was offended when I suggested they were a metal band. He told me they were a ROCK band.
  • jock_fjock_f Posts: 1,689
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    There are musical snobs and there are grammar snobs. Looks like we've got a bogof on this thread.
  • David_MorganDavid_Morgan Posts: 1,513
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Thrombin wrote: »
    You took the word foist to mean forced. As it happens it doesn't mean forced at all. More importantly, it seems to me that you applied the word to something I had never applied it to. I do, however, apologise for using the word 'grammar' incorrectly, you got me there :)

    You actually quote a dictionary below - the second definition is "to impose" and that mean to force. Your original use of the word "foist" was as part of the phrase "foist upon us" which, by common usage, emphasises that "impose" meaning. I don't know why you keep dragging this up, but you used a phrase which means forced upon us. It is not arguing semantics to say I disagree that the anti-Cowell campaign is forced upon us. Sure, we are made aware of it, but we are not coerced into taking part.
    Again, however, I reiterate the complete irrelevance of worrying about individual words which have no bearing on the discussion. It's just point scoring and it doesn't advance your argument at all.

    The entire discussion is composed of individual words stitched together to form meaningful sentences. Change the meaning of those words and the discussion vanishes into a semiotic hell-hole.

    So young people don't count? You don't care so it doesn't matter if others do?
    Young people are still establishing the boundaries of their taste. They haven't been exposed to a lot of different styles of music and so they honestly don't know what they like. They will often make aesthetic evaluations based on youth cult membership - in my day if you were a punk you hated disco. So, given that they don't actually know what they like themselves, why should I give any weight to the opinions of the young on matters of taste? Do I think young people have rights? Of course I do. Am I concerned about what they think looks or sounds good? No. There may be individual exceptions - I'm sure there are some pretty cool kids out there, but are a rule of thumb I don't trust the opinions of the young when it comes to music.
    I refute that, for a start!

    OK, let's read it then.


    Why are you telling me your likes and preferences? What does that have to do with the argument. Is it ok to vandalize an art gallery because you have no interest in art? Your own personal likes are irrelevant.

    "Irrelevent" - agreed. I merely mentioned to give credence to my claim to not knowing the constitution of the chart.

    I'm struggling to work out how to respond to that without sounding rude. I really don't want to be rude but, honestly, IMO, that's the more ridiculous thing I've ever heard in my life :eek:

    It's not ridiculous at all. Why would people take an interest in the success of a stranger unless it somehow helped them bond with the fellow human beings? It's nice when you find somebody with tastes similar to yours.


    And again, why would I care that you care? The point is that others care and these campaigns affect those people. More importantly they affect the artist in question which is what I find the most reprehensible.
    I honestly didn't think adults cared about the pop charts. Maybe as a bit of fun, in the manner of those - Britain's 100 Best Flan Recipes - that Channel 4 fills its schedule with, but not seriously. You tell me you do - so sorry.

    As for affecting the artist - I think part of the aim is to help break the stranglehold a small number of producers and distributors have on the music industry. Get rid of the likes of Cowell and his big yacht and massive promo budget and maybe a few more acts will get a place at the trough. There might be more music choice for everybody and so the general amount of happiness would increase. Everybody knows the campaigns won't work - which is why I described them not as subversive, but "cocking a snook". This seems fair to me - no harm done.

    um·brage (mbrj)
    n.
    1. Offense; resentment:

    I don't know what dictionary you are quoting there, but "umbrage" does not mean that. "To take/give umbrage" means to take/give offence, but "umbrage" on its own most assuredly does not. It's why I remarked on it.
    People resent that the X-Factor winner keeps getting the Christmas number one, they resent that Simon Cowell is getting rich under what they consider false pretences. Hence the motivation for these campaigns. At least, as far as I understand it.

    In part - Cowell is a smug figure of hate for many. But the main thing is that the success of XF means that other acts don't get a look in. Thanks to the huge amount of publicity provided free by ITV the XF winner is guaranteed success and that means the main radio stations will play ever more bland pop. The dominance of commercial music is strangling the rest of music.
    You do know that's a tautology don't you? You may as well say you don't know any disinterested adults who are not disinterested!

    I wrote "disinterested adults who care". Disinterested means not having a stake, being outside, unbiased. To paraphrase what I wrote - I don't know anybody who is not making money out of the charts who cares who the number one is. For it to be a tautology "disinterested" would have to mean the same as uninterested; which it doesn't.

    Many of the artists in these shows do not have big egos. In fact a lot of them suffer from a lack of confidence. Saying they're all mercenary is, again, a ridiculous generalization that in no way reflects the vast majority of the contestants I have seen on these shows. I really have to question if you actually watch X-Factor at all? People with big egos tend to not get voted for, for one thing. Something which can't be said about the artists you would no doubt consider more legitimate.
    I didn't just mean XF contestants, I mean all musicians who release a record. If all they cared about was the music, they'd make their music and that would be it. Releasing a record means you want other people to listen to you - if that isn't egotistical I don't know what is.

    You're the one saying foist means forced. I never used the word:

    foist (foist)
    tr.v. foist·ed, foist·ing, foists
    1. To pass off as genuine, valuable, or worthy: "I can usually tell whether a poet . . . is foisting off on us what he'd like to think is pure invention" (J.D. Salinger).

    2. To impose (something or someone unwanted) upon another by coercion or trickery: They had extra work foisted on them because they couldn't say no to the boss.

    3. To insert fraudulently or deceitfully: foisted unfair provisions into the contract.

    I'd say there were elements of all three meanings in these campaigns.

    We've looked at the word foist already.
    As for the campaigns - I don't know if they are deceitful or not, but the first campaign seemed to me pretty straightforward and honest. It certainly was not orchestrated by RATM, a band with impeccable, right-on, credentials.
    More to the point, like I said in an earlier post, if nobody cares about who is Christmas number one why are these campaigns so intent on preventing the X-Factor contestant from becoming Christmas number one? What point would it prove if nobody cared?

    Again - to break the stranglehold a small number of companies have on popular music.

    Well two wrongs don't make a right, do they? The companies skew them so that means we can too? I don't hold with that either.

    But the campaigns could only influence chart position by encouraging real sales. The record companies have influenced chart position by nefarious means - not just plugging, but bribing shop keepers in the counted shops and worse.
    As far as I'm aware the charts reflect sales. Sales usually occur because people want to listen to the music they buy. That is the natural order of the charts. You can affect these things with promotion, playing stuff on radio a lot, or releasing the single at a strategic time after many weeks of TV exposure but, at the end of the day, people won't buy it if they don't want to listen to it (or give it as a gift to someone who wants to listen to it).
    If an artist doesn't get recorded because he isn't the type of product that teeny-boppers are buying then that skews the chart too. Even if that artist is picked up by an Indie label s/he'll never get the promotional budget of an artist on a major. To many people this results in the charts being filled with artistically compromised material.
    Unless, of course, someone decides to buy a single as part of a protest campaign specifically designed to prevent someone else from getting to number one. That's just childish, immature and spiteful. Like I said, there is no excuse.
    We're not taking about Banksy spraying your garden wall. The worst that happens is you get to hear an artist you probably wouldn't otherwise have. RATM is very different to your typical XF winner and it would probably be pretty challenging for some listeners. The John Cage piece is silent - it raises questions about what is music? I didn't know if this work was played on Top of the Pops, but it would have been brilliant if it was; introducing some interesting topics to a wider audience. So, not just no harm done, but some real good.

    I'm guessing this is point scoring again. If you want to make a point you need to make it in a way that people can understand it. You told me there was no coercion, I had never said there was, so why make a point that something isn't coercion when it was never part of my argument?
    Gramsci is a bit of personal hero of mine - so not point scoring, more just name-checking. And I said there was no coercion in the campaigns - there is certainly coercion in the way the major record labels operate, but it is subtle; which is why I referenced Gramsci who wrote about how the powerful shape our societies.

    I happen to think that the campaigners argument is nonsense but, even if I agreed with it, that first sentence is all that is needed to make my point. The target of this campaign is an innocent victim of these people's dislike of Simon Cowell. They have no right to spoil his or her moment like that. It's just a petty and vindictive childishness that, given the tendency for people to jump on the band wagon just for a laugh, proves nothing and achieves nothing.

    Oh diddums. The XF winner will still sell as much product, maybe more and so won't suffer.
  • David_MorganDavid_Morgan Posts: 1,513
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    jock_f wrote: »
    There are musical snobs and there are grammar snobs. Looks like we've got a bogof on this thread.

    buy one get one free?
  • David_MorganDavid_Morgan Posts: 1,513
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    But this is BS, mostly.

    Cowell does not dominate the charts at all. 3 of the current top 40 are X Factor acts, just a few weeks ago it was 0. If the other 37 are not songs with enough "artistic integrity" to live up to your standards, that is not Cowell's fault. Your superiority complex must have been intolerable when SAW actually were dominating the charts in the late 80s.

    So you are saying that almost 10% of the currently most popular acts are under the control of one A&R man? Do you not think that's a bit high? And what about Sony music - they own SyCo - are there any more Sony acts in the charts?

    And their not my "standards" - I was simply advancing an argument, a popular argument. You are aware that some people are very disparaging of commercial music (the same people usually hate on MacDonald's for similar reasons). You may not care about the properties of music that they hold dear, but you have to accept that they have a right to like something about music that, perhaps, you don't care for, or maybe even notice. As for me - my tastes are eclectic, I love the XFactor, but I'm currently listening to some mid-20th century microtonal music. I think that if the record companies lost their control there would be more choice for everybody and the music charts would be more diverse.

    As for SAW - I honestly believe they were the embodiment of evil. It can be no coincidence that SAW came to prominence in Thatcher's Britain.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 7,888
    Forum Member
    It worked once. Trying to get the hype up again will not work.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 50
    Forum Member
    You have to be a cretin to pick a track that is only available for download on iTunes.

    The organiser is a cretin.
  • Sun Tzu.Sun Tzu. Posts: 19,064
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Why does anyone care about the Christmas no 1 spot? Who cares?
Sign In or Register to comment.