DS Forums

 
 

Principle of the RATM Facebook Group


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 21-12-2009, 12:33
Kirkfnw
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: the f'n UK
Posts: 1,247

This incident has proved that the chart-obsessed public really don't have the first idea of what the RATM campaign was about.

It was clearly a stand against the monopolist cookie-cutter manufacturing agents like Cowell. Joe didn't even write his own song, for gods sake. He even covered a song that was made this year. That's not music, have the inspiration to write songs about what YOU want, don't get some idiot to write them for you. X-factor is ENTERTAINMENT, not music.

RATM are NOT a new band and have been around for 18 years, since the birth of Joe. They got popular for their music, they were not manufactured in competitions like X-Factor.

If you're a good "artist" you can get popular on your own without the help of fat-cats like Simon Cowell. Many bands/singers have done it.

So it didn't matter if the no.1 song was RATM, Michael Jackson, even GARY GLITTER. Music should be about music and that's what the campaign represented.
Kirkfnw is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 21-12-2009, 12:37
trevgo
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Leafy London
Posts: 20,370
Sums it up. Agree 100%
trevgo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-12-2009, 13:27
Turquoise
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 6,833
Very true.
Turquoise is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-12-2009, 13:30
teenagemartyr
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 6,394
Thanks for reiterating what about 100 posters have said before you in 100 other threads
teenagemartyr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-12-2009, 13:32
kutox
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Watford
Posts: 15,815
Thanks for reiterating what about 100 posters have said before you in 100 other threads
so why choose to point that out in this thread?
kutox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-12-2009, 13:34
Gnobe
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 446
Doesn't prove anything.

X Factor type acts will stilldominate the charts in 2010. RATM wont. It was just a hilarious one off. I read on another post that RATM are apparantly 'revolutionary'. Just a good pick from some bloke in essex I guess. 15 mins of fame. Same I for Joe though.
Gnobe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-12-2009, 13:34
mushymanrob
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: derby
Posts: 14,735
...the only flaw is your comment about writing your own material. whilst i fully support original material , you can have a good artist who can interpret tracks that others wrote to great success.... elvis anyone?..lol..
mushymanrob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-12-2009, 13:37
Stiffy78
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 24,116
I can't believe people think Rage are having '15 minutes of fame'.
They've been famous since Joe was born FFS.
Stiffy78 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-12-2009, 13:38
Gnobe
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 446
I can't believe people think Rage are having '15 minutes of fame'.
They've been famous since Joe was born FFS.
They're not exactly a household name....

Where did that song peak in 1993? I'm just wondering because they're meant to be as revolutionary now as the beatles and queen?
Gnobe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-12-2009, 13:38
jokiethjones
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 875
I can't believe people think Rage are having '15 minutes of fame'.
They've been famous since Joe was born FFS.
Its normally the ones under 16 who think this
jokiethjones is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-12-2009, 13:45
teenagemartyr
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 6,394
Its normally the ones under 16 who think this
A quick check at Wikipedia sees that their albums have peaked at 17-4-23-71 and their singles peaked at 25-16-37-8-26-32-43. The last charting album was in 2000, so was the single.

Hardly setting the world alight now or in the 90s...
teenagemartyr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-12-2009, 13:47
Gnobe
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 446
A quick check at Wikipedia sees that their albums have peaked at 17-4-23-71 and their singles peaked at 25-16-37-8-26-32-43. The last charting album was in 2000, so was the single.

Hardly setting the world alight now or in the 90s...
But they're revolutionary now apparantly!

Everyone's just desperate to find another che guevara moment me thinks.
Gnobe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-12-2009, 13:48
ellenpagerocks
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 9,079
They're not exactly a household name....

Where did that song peak in 1993? I'm just wondering because they're meant to be as revolutionary now as the beatles and queen?
I'm going to argue with that, my fav song of all time is stand by me by ben e king, orignally it only got to number 27 when it orignally got released in 61, it only got to number one after appearing in a movie. Sometimes a song becomes more popular after it's released.

Look at the Journey song been hugely popular of late but didn't chart back in the 80's
ellenpagerocks is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 21-12-2009, 13:50
Gnobe
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 446
Look at the Journey song been hugely popular of late but didn't chart back in the 80's
Well anything that comes on the X Factor charts massively the following week, even if it's complete shit.
Gnobe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-12-2009, 13:53
ellenpagerocks
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 9,079
Well anything that comes on the X Factor charts massively the following week, even if it's complete shit.
Shall I give you more examples, Misery Buisness by Paramore when it originally came out only got to number 31 or so, No Doubt - Just A Girl got to 38.
ellenpagerocks is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 21-12-2009, 14:07
gashead
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Bristol
Posts: 9,435
This incident has proved that the chart-obsessed public really don't have the first idea of what the RATM campaign was about.

It was clearly a stand against the monopolist cookie-cutter manufacturing agents like Cowell. Joe didn't even write his own song, for gods sake. He even covered a song that was made this year. That's not music, have the inspiration to write songs about what YOU want, don't get some idiot to write them for you. X-factor is ENTERTAINMENT, not music.

RATM are NOT a new band and have been around for 18 years, since the birth of Joe. They got popular for their music, they were not manufactured in competitions like X-Factor.

If you're a good "artist" you can get popular on your own without the help of fat-cats like Simon Cowell. Many bands/singers have done it.

So it didn't matter if the no.1 song was RATM, Michael Jackson, even GARY GLITTER. Music should be about music and that's what the campaign represented.
In a general sense I'm with you until your last two paragraphs, in which you contradict yourself. Music should be about the music (assuming you mean by that that bands should live or die by their own talent, or lack thereof) and a good artist will become popular on their own. That said, if RATM really are as good as everyone says, whether because they genuinely think that or they think it makes them appear cool (why did these guys attempt last year to get Rick Astley to Number 1 fail, hmm? ), why did it need a well orchestrated Facebook campaign to get the single to Number 1? Without it, we all know it would never have charted in the Top 100, let alone gone in at number 1. The public were manipulated into buying Killing In The Name Of every bit as much as they were The Climb. If this is all about 'the music', I'd expect to see a massive uplift in RATM album sales as people discover, or re-discover, this supposed classic band. Otherwise this purely was a meaningless protest vote that had f all to do with the song, so let's not pretend this will usher in a new era of music.
gashead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-12-2009, 14:16
bunk_medal
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,713
They're not exactly a household name....

Where did that song peak in 1993? I'm just wondering because they're meant to be as revolutionary now as the beatles and queen?
Anyone who's vaguely familiar with rock music in the 1990s knows who RATM are. They've had platinum selling records all over the world, played to huge numbers of people in this country, headlined some of our major festivals, had UK top ten singles/albums, won numerous awards and whatever else. There seems to be an attitude in this country that if a band isn't topping the charts or being played on Radio 1 repeatedly then they don't exist. There are, in fact, countless bands with massive followings who don't make it into the exceptionally limited mainstream music coverage we have in this country (bands like the Pixies, for instance).

A quick check at Wikipedia sees that their albums have peaked at 17-4-23-71 and their singles peaked at 25-16-37-8-26-32-43. The last charting album was in 2000, so was the single.

Hardly setting the world alight now or in the 90s...
Well they split up in 2000 and only recently got back together to play some gigs. However, if the standard for a band to be well known is to have multiple top ten singles/albums then very few rock bands would be able to meet it.
bunk_medal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-12-2009, 14:20
teenagemartyr
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 6,394
They've had platinum selling records all over the world...had UK top ten singles/albums...if the standard for a band to be well known is to have multiple top ten singles/albums then very few rock bands would be able to meet it.
Contradiction?
teenagemartyr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-12-2009, 14:29
bunk_medal
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,713
Eh... no. They've had (that is, before this campaign) one top ten single and one top ten album in this country. Hence they haven't had "multiple top ten singles" or "multiple top ten albums" in the UK.

The point is that for a rock band of the nature of RATM, the sucess they have had in this country is far and above what most rock bands achieve. You seem to be demanding they become all conquering superstars before you'll acknowledge that they've achieved anything.
bunk_medal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-12-2009, 14:48
Stiffy78
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 24,116
They're not exactly a household name....

Where did that song peak in 1993? I'm just wondering because they're meant to be as revolutionary now as the beatles and queen?
They are in every household I frequent.

Chart success is very different from critical success (especially the singles chart).

Well anything that comes on the X Factor charts massively the following week, even if it's complete shit.
Which just goes to show that the morons watching that will buy anything.
Stiffy78 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-12-2009, 14:54
Kirkfnw
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: the f'n UK
Posts: 1,247
A quick check at Wikipedia sees that their albums have peaked at 17-4-23-71 and their singles peaked at 25-16-37-8-26-32-43. The last charting album was in 2000, so was the single.

Hardly setting the world alight now or in the 90s...
RATM aren't anywhere near the best band in the world, but at least they wrote their own material and got popular on the strength of their songs, which is more than any of the X-factor manufactured "artists".

And since when was the chart an indication of setting the world "alight"? Crazy Frog anyone?
Kirkfnw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-12-2009, 15:02
Kirkfnw
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: the f'n UK
Posts: 1,247
In a general sense I'm with you until your last two paragraphs, in which you contradict yourself. Music should be about the music (assuming you mean by that that bands should live or die by their own talent, or lack thereof) and a good artist will become popular on their own. That said, if RATM really are as good as everyone says, whether because they genuinely think that or they think it makes them appear cool (why did these guys attempt last year to get Rick Astley to Number 1 fail, hmm? ), why did it need a well orchestrated Facebook campaign to get the single to Number 1? Without it, we all know it would never have charted in the Top 100, let alone gone in at number 1. The public were manipulated into buying Killing In The Name Of every bit as much as they were The Climb. If this is all about 'the music', I'd expect to see a massive uplift in RATM album sales as people discover, or re-discover, this supposed classic band. Otherwise this purely was a meaningless protest vote that had f all to do with the song, so let's not pretend this will usher in a new era of music.
Whoosh!!!! (That's the sound of you completely missing the point, btw).

I don't even remember Rage being in the chart ever, and it shouldn't matter. As I've already said the song is at number 1 as an act of principle. KITN is a horrible example of an Xmas Number 1, and people bought it to counter the monopolists, we voiced we were bored of the charts and radios playing manufactured tripe. It was a bit of fun and it worked.

Do you think I and some of RATM's fans are shouting about how great they are because they impacted on the chart? No, a band is a band and the music is the music. The fact that millions of people like it doesn't even matter. As for myself I'd barely class myself as a Rage fan as I only own one album, but hell I'd vote for that above another year of Simon Cowell's smug face plastered all over the papers.
Kirkfnw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-12-2009, 15:11
gashead
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Bristol
Posts: 9,435
Whoosh!!!! (That's the sound of you completely missing the point, btw).

I don't even remember Rage being in the chart ever, and it shouldn't matter. As I've already said the song is at number 1 as an act of principle. KITN is a horrible example of an Xmas Number 1, and people bought it to counter the monopolists, we voiced we were bored of the charts and radios playing manufactured tripe. It was a bit of fun and it worked.

Do you think I and some of RATM's fans are shouting about how great they are because they impacted on the chart? No, a band is a band and the music is the music. The fact that millions of people like it doesn't even matter. As for myself I'd barely class myself as a Rage fan as I only own one album, but hell I'd vote for that above another year of Simon Cowell's smug face plastered all over the papers.
So you bought it, even though you don't really like it? You actually spent your own hard earned money to buy something as a protest? You bought a single that you don't particularly like, just because someone told you you should to protest at Simon Cowell?! And you accuse me of missing the point? All you've done is choose one marketing campaign over the other. They were every bit as manipulating as each over; it was just a case of which bullshit campaign would you fall for. If you don't like the music that Cowell puts out there, don't friggin' buy it !! That's the ultimate protest.

BTW - that 'whoosh' sound actually came out of my speakers. How the Hell did you do that?
gashead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-12-2009, 15:13
dave2233
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,190
This incident has proved that the chart-obsessed public really don't have the first idea of what the RATM campaign was about.

It was clearly a stand against the monopolist cookie-cutter manufacturing agents like Cowell. Joe didn't even write his own song, for gods sake. He even covered a song that was made this year. That's not music, have the inspiration to write songs about what YOU want, don't get some idiot to write them for you. X-factor is ENTERTAINMENT, not music.

RATM are NOT a new band and have been around for 18 years, since the birth of Joe. They got popular for their music, they were not manufactured in competitions like X-Factor.

If you're a good "artist" you can get popular on your own without the help of fat-cats like Simon Cowell. Many bands/singers have done it.

So it didn't matter if the no.1 song was RATM, Michael Jackson, even GARY GLITTER. Music should be about music and that's what the campaign represented.
RATM got to number one because of an internet campaign not because of their music, it didn't matter if it was good or bad.

Joe got to number two because of an T.V campaign not because of the music, it didn't matter if it was good or bad.

So Whats the difference ?

Some people do no like cowells control of the charts, fair enough but don't just give the power to some other anonymous internet person.

how about buying a single you like rather that buying something someone has told you to. I find the whole think funny and ironic
dave2233 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-12-2009, 15:45
dave2233
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,190
it's like the sheep that bought to Joe's single

vs

the sheep that bought RATM


It's a joke really, i would have been very happy if a single had beaten xfactor fair and square because it was a great song but not because of a facebook campaign.

It's just worrying how many people can not think for themselves these days .
dave2233 is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply




 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 08:44.