I've never been concerned with the charts for years, since the late 1990s when I was in my teens.

But I notice that hyped-up nobody really, X Factor winner Sam Bailey has the Christmas Number One.

Well, for me, the Christmas Number One means nothing now. People rush out to buy that Sam Bailey record, they probably don't like it or care about it anyway.

Record buyers today are programmed. It used to be called propaganda - now it's called marketing.

No wonder Simon Cowell is laughing all the way to the bank.

Me, I'm not laughing at the brain-washing of people. Sad really.

There's no account for taste.

If a singing dog had won X Factor, it would be Number One too.

To be honest, I don't think number 1 means anything now regardless of the time of year.

You sound like one of those brain washed oldies that have to hate everything younger than you.

PBS Idea Channel has a very interesting video about this sort of thing.

Basically asking the question "is the general public is tricked into liking pop music?"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ApaGQGrGjr8

To be honest, it's either the X Factor's winners single which actually does mean something to that winner

OR

a track which is just as generic as the rest of the music from the year. Imagine if Avicii got number one?

I'd much rather have the X Factor number one.

Perhaps some people genuinely like the song?

Yes, I've watched this guy before.

The most important point amongst many good ones is how does pop music gain its meaning and what does it mean? And part of that meaning is concerned with the production processes and the agents involved in it.

Number 1 means nothing these days. The acheievement is doign well with an album, and Beyonce has clcoked onto this. She said in her documentary...nobody makes albums anymore, it's all about promo, single, promo, another single, release an album, another couple fo singes and then end the era. She talked about how albums used to be body's of work and viewed as a whole...it wasn't all about singles. For example, Michael Jackson's Thriller album...it was an event. That's why she released the album the way she did...with all of the videos and no lead single. I doubt she'll get any number one singles as everyone will have the album, however, she will end up with huge sales of the album and that's what artists really want. There's no money in number one singles anymore. It's so easy to get a number one now...you hardly have to sell anything.

To be honest I'd rather Avicii got Christmas Number 1. At least a it's memorable track. I've heard that Skyscraper track a few times, and still can't remember how it goes.

To be honest I doubt it means very much to the winner, as it is almost a given that it will get to number 1 (has there ever been an x factor winner that hasn't got to number 1 with their first single release?)..her next single will probably mean a whole lot more.

Things haven't really changed that much over the years.

In the 80's it was Stock Aitken and Waterman clogging up the charts.

So because you don't like it, you assume no one must? Would you have preferred it if a song you did like got to number one because Facebook told people to buy it? Today's music buyers aren't any more or less sheep than we have been ever since music became a lucrative industry.

The amount of time I see these phrases repeated over and over again makes me think that the ones complaining about people being brain washed our the ones who have been programmed by conspiracy theories and the Daily Mail...

I find it sad that the song in question is a cover of which the original is only 3 years old - and this cover doesn't do anything much different to the original. It seems a really lazy release to me.

Three years is positively ancient! I think the covers from the previous two winners were released within two years of the original.

Every X Factor winner song, every year?

Sheep have better taste.

I resent that. I am a big music buyer and I am no sheep. I couldn't tell you who is in the charts these days (apart from the way too publicised Christmas number one).

I buy what I like and no record label or TV executive is gonna change that.

I'm in my mid 20s and I despise the X Factor, I was 15 or 16 when the first series was on and I hated it then. On the other hand I know of people in their 40s and 50s who watch the X Factor, they're also Sun readers. It's television that appeals to the lowest common denominator, pure populist TV in every sense of the word. In my experience intelligence has more to do with the kind of people it appeals to than age (although both play a part to some degree and there are exceptions).

And who does she define as "nobody?"

There are plenty of genres where the album is the defining format of the genre.....

I would say the real sheep are those who avoid the charts and shows like The X Factor and slate them at every opportunity because they are apparently "uncool".

These same people are usually the ones who only like guitar-playing artists and think the charts are beneath them. A sentiment propagated by an ill-informed collective and inherited by these "sheep".

Music is music, no matter where it comes from. I don't see the need to identify or limit myself to one type of music. If I like it then I will listen to it, no matter where it comes from.

That's strange considering the number of albums I bought last year

I don't really take the charts seriously anymore, I like some of the music it contains but I certainly don't rely on it.
It does get surprising when you come across people who have never ventured outside of what's right infront of them.
I think it's healthy when you get to a certain age to try new things and experiment to find out what you really like and what you don't like.
I don't think I could ever stick to chart music alone, or even just one genre. As it's like stating that you only have one frame of mind or have just one personality trait.

I avoid the charts and X Factor because I don't like them, not because they are 'uncool' (what does that even mean?). I like what I like and sod the rest. Also, why should X Factor be immune to criticism? It is a question often asked about religion so let's ask it about X Factor.


I like music made on musical instruments, all musical instruments. Yes, I am a massive fan of guitar based rock so someone like you would probably assume that my favourite instrument is the guitar. Not so, my favourite instrument is the alto saxophone. I just think musical instruments will always be better for making music than computers.


That, I agree with.

Or could it be simply that those like me who avoid the charts and shows like X-Factor simply don't like the music?

Yes I like guitar-based music, and I couldn't care less if you have a problem with that, and the bands I like don't release singles. That is nothing to do with me being a 'sheep', it is down to my taste in music.

What interest is there in the likes of the X-Factor for me? None whatsoever.

And who is this "ill-informed collective" you speak of? The ill informed are those who only take their taste in music from the singles chart, there are far better artists around to discover if you open your ears and search it out.

Truer words never spoken. I am so sick of people listening to the charts and then complaining that there is no good music anymore. It's bollocks. There is any amount of good music if people would just open their eyes and ears and expand their horizons a bit.