|
||||||||
Principle of the RATM Facebook Group |
![]() |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#1 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: the f'n UK
Posts: 1,247
|
Principle of the RATM Facebook Group
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. |
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#2 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Leafy London
Posts: 20,380
|
Sums it up. Agree 100%
|
|
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 6,833
|
Very true.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 6,394
|
Thanks for reiterating what about 100 posters have said before you in 100 other threads
|
|
|
|
|
|
#5 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Watford
Posts: 15,815
|
Quote:
Thanks for reiterating what about 100 posters have said before you in 100 other threads
|
|
|
|
|
|
#6 |
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
#7 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: derby
Posts: 14,740
|
...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..
|
|
|
|
|
|
#8 |
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
#9 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 446
|
Quote:
I can't believe people think Rage are having '15 minutes of fame'.
They've been famous since Joe was born FFS. 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? |
|
|
|
|
|
#10 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 875
|
Quote:
I can't believe people think Rage are having '15 minutes of fame'.
They've been famous since Joe was born FFS.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#11 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 6,394
|
Quote:
Its normally the ones under 16 who think this
![]() Hardly setting the world alight now or in the 90s... |
|
|
|
|
|
#12 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 446
|
Quote:
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... Everyone's just desperate to find another che guevara moment me thinks. |
|
|
|
|
|
#13 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 9,079
|
Quote:
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? Look at the Journey song been hugely popular of late but didn't chart back in the 80's |
|
|
|
|
#14 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 446
|
Quote:
Look at the Journey song been hugely popular of late but didn't chart back in the 80's
|
|
|
|
|
|
#15 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 9,079
|
Quote:
Well anything that comes on the X Factor charts massively the following week, even if it's complete shit.
|
|
|
|
|
#16 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Bristol
Posts: 9,437
|
Quote:
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. ), 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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#17 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,713
|
Quote:
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? Quote:
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. 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.
Hardly setting the world alight now or in the 90s... |
|
|
|
|
|
#18 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 6,394
|
Quote:
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#19 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,713
|
Quote:
Contradiction?
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
#20 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 24,116
|
Quote:
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? Chart success is very different from critical success (especially the singles chart). Quote:
Well anything that comes on the X Factor charts massively the following week, even if it's complete shit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#21 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: the f'n UK
Posts: 1,247
|
Quote:
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... And since when was the chart an indication of setting the world "alight"? Crazy Frog anyone? |
|
|
|
|
|
#22 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: the f'n UK
Posts: 1,247
|
Quote:
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.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. |
|
|
|
|
|
#23 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Bristol
Posts: 9,437
|
Quote:
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. BTW - that 'whoosh' sound actually came out of my speakers. How the Hell did you do that?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#24 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,190
|
Quote:
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. 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
|
|
|
|
|
|
#25 |
|
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 . |
|
|
|
![]() |
|
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 21:33.




), 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.