Slashdot Mirror


Download-only Single Becomes UK Number One

Stuart Gibson writes "As predicted, the Gnarls Barkely single 'Crazy' has reached the number one spot on the official UK charts, based solely on legal downloads. The CD version of the single will not be released until tomorrow. This is the first single to be eligible for the honour as, until last month, download sales would only be counted if the track was also available to be bought as a physical copy."

192 comments

  1. Proof by Eightyford · · Score: 4, Funny

    Now we have proof that crappy music will remain popular regardless of the method of distribution.

    1. Re:Proof by gunpowda · · Score: 1, Informative

      I don't see the humour here - it's a damn good song.

    2. Re:Proof by ScrewMaster · · Score: 3, Funny

      Hey ... with a name like Gnarls Barkley, it's gotta be good.

      Or does that only apply to grape jelly?

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    3. Re:Proof by Propagandhi · · Score: 5, Informative

      And proof that there will always be some idiot will make wild assumptions re: other's musical tastes.

      I bet you don't even know who made this song, you probably think it was some guy named "Gnarls Barkely", nevermind that such a person doesn't actually exist. For your information Gnarls is a collaboration between Cee-lo and DangerMouse. I'm not much of a Cee-lo fan, but DangerMouse is the shit. His Grey Album (half White Album, half Black Album) was as close to bittorrent platinum as an album could be, and DangerDoom (another collaboration, this time with MF Doom) was an awesome hip hop album (you probably hate hip hop, but I guess that's your loss).

      At any rate: forget the past of these two artists, this song is awesome and I'm really looking forward to their album.

    4. Re:Proof by bortykins · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It is a great song. It is also nice to hear something that doesn't sound exactly like absolutely everything else.

    5. Re:Proof by mindstormpt · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Ohhh, if it's Cee-lo and DangerMouse it's an entirely different story. The names are even more ridiculous.

    6. Re:Proof by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny
      [...]Gnarls Barkely[...]Cee-lo[...]DangerMouse[...]Grey Album (half White Album, half Black Album)[...]bittorrent platinum[...]DangerDoom[...]MF Doom[...]

      Are you using some new transcription of Chinese in roman letters, -- or is this twilight zone?

    7. Re:Proof by fbjon · · Score: 1, Insightful
      I don't follow the latest hits, I have no idea who you're talking about, I haven't heard it before, but having just listened to 'Crazy', I think it's pretty good stuff.

      Some slashdotters seem to think: popular song == bad; popular song that makes a lot of money on sales == t3h evil/RIAA(or equivalent)/worthless sell-out.

      On the other hand, the GP does have a certain point, in that popular music will be popular, regardless on distribution method, regardless of vain lock-in. Or rather, popular music will be distributed no matter how locked.

      --
      True confidence comes not from realising you are as good as your peers, but that your peers are as bad as you are.
    8. Re:Proof by arcanumas · · Score: 2, Funny

      Is DangerMouse related to Mighty Mouse or Mickey Mouse? :p

      --
      Slashdot Sig. version 0.1alpha. Use at your own risk.
    9. Re:Proof by rich_r · · Score: 2, Informative

      Dangermouse is his own mouse...

    10. Re:Proof by MacDork · · Score: 2, Interesting
      this song is awesome and I'm really looking forward to their album.

      Unfortunately, according to the RIAA RADAR, "Crazy" by Gnarls Barkely is published by WEA records (German Warner Bros.) making it an RIAA 'property.' It doesn't matter to me how talented they might be, I will make no purchases as long as they associate themselves with the RIAA.

    11. Re:Proof by arcanumas · · Score: 3, Funny

      Yeah, i used to watch DangerMouse when i was a kid. Haven't seen him on TV for years and i was wondering what happend to him. Apparently, he has been very successul in the music industry :p

      --
      Slashdot Sig. version 0.1alpha. Use at your own risk.
    12. Re:Proof by Geno+Z+Heinlein · · Score: 2

      You're both wrong. De gustibus non est disputandum.

    13. Re:Proof by LordOfTheNoobs · · Score: 5, Funny

      Good point `mindstormpt'.

      --
      They're there affecting their effect.
    14. Re:Proof by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      DangerMouse is the shit

      Ooh, crumbs, DM!

    15. Re:Proof by BewireNomali · · Score: 2, Funny

      dude, I'm a fan too. Dangermouse is killer. I'm not as much a Cee-lo fan - but the dangerdoom album was bananas. I'm also a Madvillian fan - basically a big doom fan.

      I'll get this album for the beats, definitely. It'll be hot.

      music is one of those things. the random critiques people make of music they've never heard or music they don't understand never ceases to amaze me. because music is so personal and relative, it seems smart not to judge that which one is not. I suspect that flames will follow your post though.

      --
      un burrito me trampeó.
    16. Re:Proof by Fraew · · Score: 2, Informative

      So i'm guessing all the dudes who have been so blank-faced 'this consarnity new music!' in this thread are unaware of the Adult Swim connection?

      DangerMouse previous recorded an album with brilliant US hip-hop artist MF-Doom as 'Danger-Doom' which featured cameo's by the Adult Swim crew (including Brak, Zorak, Space Ghost - and best of all the Aqua Teen Hunger Force). He seems to be getting really well known in hip-Hop scenes for his collabrative work; really funny stuff.

    17. Re:Proof by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      All parties in the matter of People vs. Propagandhi in the matter of hypocracy, please step forward.

      And proof that there will always be some idiot will make wild assumptions re: other's musical tastes.

      And, 3.5 sentances later,

      you probably hate hip hop

      The people rest, your honor.

    18. Re:Proof by Columcille · · Score: 1

      I'm not much of a Cee-lo fan, but DangerMouse is the shit.

      Isn't that the stuff best sent down the toilet? Guess you agree with the poster that the song is no good?

      --
      I love my sig.
    19. Re:Proof by linzeal · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If you guys want to find new music by comparing to the music you already listen to , check out the link in my sig. Last.fm has reawakened my passion for finding new music to listen to that I thought stopped when I was 25 or so. Now I find that I am buying about 3-4 CDs a month like I used to when I was a teenager. Giggles, ponies!!!!

    20. Re:Proof by Literaphile · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Then how shall it be debated? How can we debate a song (or any work of art) if not from the approach of taste, as you say? That's the only way we can, in fact, since there's no objective idea of "good" art. Thus, any opinion will be based on taste. Linguam Latinam quoque dicere possum, sed ratio mea potentior fit? non sic. Et eloquentia et substantia praesint.

    21. Re:Proof by The-Bus · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Gnarls Barkley is the collaboration between Danger Mouse and Cee-Loo Green. Cee-Lo had one of the most well-received albums of 2004, and Danger Mouse has been involved with a lot of critically acclaimed, succesful projects.

      Just because you (and a lot of others) haven't heard of them doesn't mean they're bad. This is not Suga Babes II.

      You'd think the /. crowd would be more understanding.

      (For the record, I think Gnarles Barkley is just OK so far... I prefer some of Danger Mouse's other work).

      --

      Small potatoes make the steak look bigger.

    22. Re:Proof by DarkVader · · Score: 1

      Says you.

      I could only stand about 30 seconds of it.

      I think "grating" would be a good word.

    23. Re:Proof by __aadhrk6380 · · Score: 1

      And if the majority of Slashdot posters used your logic and thought things through like you did instead of leaping on the first thing they disagreed with it would be a much better forum.

      Like it used to be.

      Or do I just remember it being good in the past?

      I can't really remember any more you RIA GNAA GOATSE gay bi pig.

      All of my base are belong to me?

    24. Re:Proof by From+A+Far+Away+Land · · Score: 2, Informative

      Another Slashdot mentioned pop band came out with a download-for-free album about 8 months ago. http://www.harveydanger.com/ is worth checking out, you've got nothing to lose and I liked it so much I PayPal'ed them some money for the album.

    25. Re:Proof by Kenshin · · Score: 1

      I think it's a great tune, and I HATE most of the stuff that's on the radio.

      Have you even listened to it, or are you just making a snap judgement?

      Oh, wait... this is Slashdot, where people don't even "RTFA" most of the time.

      --

      Does it make you happy you're so strange?

    26. Re:Proof by Geno+Z+Heinlein · · Score: 2, Insightful

      How can we debate a song (or any work of art) if not from the approach of taste, as you say? That's the only way we can, in fact, since there's no objective idea of "good" art. Thus, any opinion will be based on taste. Linguam Latinam quoque dicere possum, sed ratio mea potentior fit? non sic. Et eloquentia et substantia praesint.

      Sorry, I only know the little bit of Latin I picked up watching gladiator flicks with Cliff and Norm. I'm going to presume you said something wittily devastating, stutter and stammer a bit, exclaim "Oh, for crying out loud!", head to the bar and switch to something stronger.

      To answer your question, though, art can't be debated. You can discuss how much you like or dislike something, and you can try to express in words why you feel that way, but you can't ever decide whether something is good or evil. You can't 'objectively' determine that Britney Spears isn't the Almighty Apotheosis of Art (insert trumpety fanfare, change mind, insert catchy pop tune you can bop to).

      This all changes, of course, once you arbitraily declare some premises. If you decide that "good art is art which makes me feel happy", then we could measure your endorphins or dopamine or something like that and announce that certain works are "good art" and "bad art". If you decide that "good art is art which increases the likelihood of reproduction and thus improves the odds of the survival of the species", then you can make the case for Britney Spears being the Greatest Artist Ever(TM) and not genetically engineered by the Disney Corporation to bring western culture to its knees.

    27. Re:Proof by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      "you probably hate hip hop, but I guess that's your loss"

      1. Most sensible people (or, at least, people with any musical taste) don't consider hating hip-hop to be a "loss".
      2. "Crazy" is actually the name of a song performed by country/western singer Patsy Cline back in ancient times (about 50 years ago).

      Most country/western tunes suck just as badly as hip-hop "tunes", but at least country/western singers can actually sing.
      Most hip-hop "singers" have absolutely no talent in the musical department, although I'll reluctantly admit that they probably edge out country/western singers by a small margin when it comes to wielding firearms, and it's a draw as to who dresses more stupidly.

    28. Re:Proof by todd10k · · Score: 1

      offtopic, yes. but damn, best slashdot putdown ive seen in a long time. if only i had mod points.

    29. Re:Proof by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, in the US, popular and "hit" typically means it is well liked by a subset of the teenage crowd, the song is probably played on the radio at least once an hour, and takes up a queue position in the 10-20 song rotation that gets played all of the time on the local regions pop station that is most likely owned by Clear Channel Communications Inc. I don't like 99% of that music so for me, it would be statistically safe to say it sucks even without hearing it. I know where to listen and find music I like so if it shows up or I hear about it in one of those places, I'll judge for myself.
      Taking advice from the general public about a song being good is a waste of your time.

    30. Re:Proof by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Interestingly, a lot of hip-hop is instrumental as well. Anyway, I just thought I'd lodge a bone in your craw by mentioning that I first heard the Patsy Cline song mixed into a hip-hop set.

    31. Re:Proof by ben0207 · · Score: 1

      If only there was a "-1, tragically dorky" mod.....

      --
      cmd-q.co.uk - some sort of stupid fucking internet bullshit
    32. Re:Proof by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your eurocentricity is showing ...

    33. Re:Proof by spectrumCoder · · Score: 0, Troll

      Is that just a lame excuse to rip off music for free?

    34. Re:Proof by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I bet you don't even know who made this song, you probably think it was some guy named "Gnarls Barkely", nevermind that such a person doesn't actually exist.

      My name is Gnarls Barkely, you insensitive clod.

    35. Re:Proof by gowen · · Score: 1

      Pah! Penfold is the real talent.
      DM is just the attractive Milli-Vanilli-esque frontman ... err ... frontperson .... frontmouse.

      --
      Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
    36. Re:Proof by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Looks like the spell-checker is having a rest too!

    37. Re:Proof by moro_666 · · Score: 1

      i have to agree, the song really isn't bad.
      it's not too great either, but for something that you can just
      download it's good. still there's no reason why it should be a #1 single.

      and the quality could be a bit better :)

      this will find a nice place for it in my playlist.

      --

      I'd tell you the chances of this story being a dupe, but you wouldn't like it.
    38. Re:Proof by Mantaman · · Score: 1

      Looking on the plus side it means than anyone who makes a song can put their track online easily WITHOUT any music/distribution/theiveing gits getting their hands on it .. all monies to the person/people who make the music. On another note im not big on the song but its the principle that a download only track can be made No1.

    39. Re:Proof by 3.14159265 · · Score: 1

      And proof that there will always be some idiot will make wild assumptions re: other's musical tastes.
      (...)
      (you probably hate hip hop, but I guess that's your loss)

      Well, to say that hating hip hop is a loss is a wild assumption on it's own.
      Up the irons.

    40. Re:Proof by danormsby · · Score: 1
      > Hey ... with a name like Gnarls Barkley, it's gotta be good.

      If you want an download only single to succeed you have to have a unique name or customers won't find it on Google.

      --
      Omnis amans amens
    41. Re:Proof by Escogido · · Score: 1

      >popular music will be popular, regardless on distribution method, regardless of vain lock-in. Or rather, popular music will be distributed no matter how locked.

      There seems to be a subtle dependency people usually disregard; that, they think that certain music becomes popular and known because it's good and better than the other stuff there is. Well, this is what a free thinking guy would think and this is how it would work in a free world.

      Unfortunately, quite far from that. The very same mafia that is RIAA and Co, is the mafia that imposes a de facto tax on all kinds of artists. You can't just play good music and hope that people know, you need promotion. In order to get played on radio etc. you will need connections and you don't have any, and that's why you have to sell your soul to Sony and company. Their whole business model DEPENDS on their ability to regulate who gets promoted and who doesn't, because why would an artist otherwise want to publish with them?

      Two points follow.

      1. Since the pop music market is not free, but controlled by the mafia, we don't get to hear the best artists and the best music, we can only choose from what they will allow us to choose from. Even worse, it is possible for not-so-talented bands to sometimes basically pay their way into music industry, and get their average production played more often than it deserves, thus getting more attention. And due to the nature of the way humans understand music, it becomes more popular -- but it's a 'rigged' popularity, because for many people there could be any other song in its place if played enough.

      Even worse, the "Sony tax" deters people from actually writing music, and with less competition the quality level drops as well. In fact, that's why their sales are dropping -- the way they do their business makes it inevitable that the material quality drops. And that the losses they've been so vigorously trying to blame on the non-licensed copying actually attribute to the fruits of their own actions.

      2. RIAA and the company do not only oppose the free music because of the possible damages. Their problem is that musicians being capable of promoting themselves undermines their very ability to 'rig' the musical business! In order to maintain their grip on the artists, they need to control all music stations. But they can't control the Internet and people making music availiable in free formats. So they try to make people use such formats and hardware that restrict the ability of users to play music...

      But I'd say, good luck guys, you're going to need it and it's not like it is going o help you any either :)

    42. Re:Proof by neccoant · · Score: 1

      Ha ha. Hilarious.

    43. Re:Proof by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope it is rubbish... a moby rip off; and he was a pretensious sell out vegan.

    44. Re:Proof by VVrath · · Score: 1

      I'm not much of a Cee-lo fan, but DangerMouse is the shit.

      Someone appears to have snuck a superfluous 'the' into that sentence...

    45. Re:Proof by kevin.fowler · · Score: 1

      As well as Getto Pop Life with Jemini (sp)... I think these people are just so reactionary to something hitting #1 that they won't stop to realize that it's not the usual pandered, record-company assembled, carbon copy garbage. Danger Mouse is part of a group of select few hip-hop artists that are not just making posturing gangster-anger anthems, they are reviving a rather stagnant industry.

      The underground hip-hop scene is amazing right now.

      --
      Bury me in mashed potatoes.
    46. Re:Proof by Kasis · · Score: 1

      proof that there will always be some idiot will make wild assumptions re: other's musical tastes
      [....]

      you probably hate hip hop, but I guess that's your loss

      ROFLMFAO

    47. Re:Proof by drsquare · · Score: 1

      It's bland, production line crap that will be forgotton in a week, that only sold because it was plugged on the radio. No different to a CD.

      Also the rules state that it can only get in the official charts if it's released afterwards on CD, so it's not technically download only.

    48. Re:Proof by The-Bus · · Score: 1

      The article and headline clearly state it's a UK single. While in general, the UK is no stranger to rubbish (Spice Girls, Take That, Suga Babes, Pussycat Dolls) their charts usually have a slightly higher amount of decent music (across all genres) in them.

      --

      Small potatoes make the steak look bigger.

    49. Re:Proof by Dretep · · Score: 0
      At any rate: forget the past of these two artists, this song is awesome and I'm really looking forward to their album.
      And yet again... '...we have proof that crappy music will remain popular regardless of the method of distribution.'
    50. Re:Proof by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Steve, is that you?

    51. Re:Proof by maxume · · Score: 1

      'art can't be debated'

      Is that why there are idiots making sculptures out of shit to 'challenge' people? It's not challenging, it's stupid.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    52. Re:Proof by MacDork · · Score: 1
      Is that just a lame excuse to rip off music for free?

      Finding RIAA-free music that I like is easy and free. I even *gasp* buy RIAA-free music too! 8-0

      Now, go away or I shall taunt you a second time!

    53. Re:Proof by Mad_Rain · · Score: 1

      Another interesting service along similar lines is at www.pandora.com. Input a band or song you like, and it picks something that sounds similar, you vote whether you like it or not, and see where it goes from there.

      --
      "What do you think?" "I think 'What, do you think?!'"
  2. Where's the Torrent File? by billstewart · · Score: 5, Funny

    Oh, wait, they're actually counting downloads people *paid* for? :-)

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
    1. Re:Where's the Torrent File? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      You may have been joking but, here it is.

    2. Re:Where's the Torrent File? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think that just about says it all.

      Does DRM work? No
      Does P2P stop people from buying stuff? No

    3. Re:Where's the Torrent File? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No need for any torrent file, you can download it from the website.
      http://www.gnarlsbarkley.com/auzio/crazy.mp3

      Only 96kbit though ;)

  3. Re:And this is on Slashdot why? by wilcosworld · · Score: 1

    So you don't want to know about UK News? Tough, I don't give a rats arse about US news but I still get it delivered to me from news sites. Also, it is entirely justified to post this on Slashdot- if we in the UK count downloads as a "real" method for purchasing music- how long will the traditional sale of CDs last?

  4. Re:And this is on Slashdot why? by Queer+Boy · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Spoken like a true American. "Why should I have to bother with anything that's not wedged sideways up my ass?"

    It may interest you to know there's a pretty substantial non-American Slashdot membership.

    --
    Not since Marie-Antoinette played milkmaid has looking simple and honest been so fake and complicated.
  5. Re:And this is on Slashdot why? by Phantombrain · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    I didn't mean to make it sound like I was against the British. Even if it was a US song I would still be wondering the same thing

    --
    echo YOUR_OPINION > /dev/null
  6. Re:And this is on Slashdot why? by MrSplog · · Score: 5, Insightful

    i think it's relevant as it's another example of the music industry only just catching up with the demand of the public. i'm glad they've decided to treat music downloads slightly more seriously and hopefully this will allow slightly more mature musical tastes to become more prevelant in the media in general. the singles chart has long been a joke to anyone other than 13 year old girls, it's time for change.

    legal downloads of music/film/tv is the way in which music will be sold in the future. the thought of having to go all the way to a shop where there's only an x% chance of finding the album/song you're looking for will seem laughable in a decade's time... at least, it will be should the music industry not drad its feet as it always does... so perhaps we'll still be exactly here.

    the biggest impedement to the music industry is the music industry.

  7. UK charts rigged by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was under the impression that UK music charts were so rigged by the industry as to meaningless.

    1. Re:UK charts rigged by muftak · · Score: 1

      Now they don't even have to bribe people, they just have a shell script that downloads 50000 copies off itunes

  8. It had slight help from the BBC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative


    who used in in one of their BBC radio 1 channel branding idents (which was very cool) where they animated real objects in various real life scenes (street lights , cars , scaffolding, people) to the soundtrack like a VU meter

    very cool effect and it worked perfectly with the track, i remember when it first aired people asked me "have you seen that bbc advert" and "i love this track", played often its not suprising the tune did well, this is just like any other adverts that have cool tunes, if its a good tune people will buy/seek it, good music conquers all

    AJ

    1. Re:It had slight help from the BBC by RichardX · · Score: 1

      Oh! So THAT'S the song on that advert.... and that's the song in this article.
      go figure, I didn't know what either one was, and now I know both are the same :)

      --
      Curiosity was framed. Ignorance killed the cat.
    2. Re:It had slight help from the BBC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      video of the BBC Zane Lowe radio 1 ident

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpdnPva5GRQ

      AJ

  9. Re:And this is on Slashdot why? by WilliamSChips · · Score: 0, Offtopic
    If something is really weird, why is it supernatural?
    Because super means above. It's above nature.
    --
    Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
  10. This song was used for a radio station advert by happyhippy · · Score: 1, Informative

    Radio 1 on the BBC channels (who own the station). Most people would have heard it from the ad and not the terrible station.

    1. Re:This song was used for a radio station advert by Herstal · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Terrible station? what would you prefer Saga FM maybe? Although they air a lot of chart music by day. Radio 1 still remains to be one the most varied and innovate radio station in the UK. Remeber this is the station that bought us John Peel and regularly gives air time to unsigned bands.

      --
      Time is relative like Incest.
    2. Re:This song was used for a radio station advert by drsquare · · Score: 1

      Radio 1 still remains to be one the most varied and innovate radio station in the UK.

      Yeah, you get crap pop music, and... crap pop music. Plus whatever song they want to plug that week (completely breaking the BBC's charter).

    3. Re:This song was used for a radio station advert by Herstal · · Score: 1

      Pop music only? I suggest you look at the web site and check for yourself. Plenty of chart music but plenty of other stuff too. Or are you one of those people that has moved on from the music they listened to when they were a teenager? http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio1/ http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio1/experimental/ http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio1/rockindie/ http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio1/dance/ http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio1/oneworld/

      --
      Time is relative like Incest.
  11. Not all internet hype by LordSnooty · · Score: 5, Informative

    This is the first single to be eligible for the honour as, until last month, download sales would only be counted if the track was also available to be bought as a physical copy.

    Readers must note that download-only tracks are not eligible for the UK chart, the rule is that the physical version must be released within one week of the download version. So, it's just a way to get an extra week in the top ten.

    And, this song's success isn't solely down to internet hype or hoopla over downloads... it was used on an eye-catching BBC Radio 1 advert that received heavy play on the BBC's channels. Sadly I can't find a link to it, but UK readers will surely know which one I mean. Here's a link to a different Radio 1 ad that uses the same technique.

    1. Re:Not all internet hype by MrSplog · · Score: 1

      Solely?

      Perhaps it's also down to the fact that it's really rather a good song? my friend, an avid giles peterson/zane lowe fan sent me this song (oops! who said that?) a while back and i thought it was great. if i paid even the slightest bit of attention to the singles chart then i'd probably own a copy (in digital format) right now.

    2. Re:Not all internet hype by CastrTroy · · Score: 0, Troll

      eye-catching BBC Radio 1 advert

      Wow, that is special. I don't think i've ever had the radio catch my eye.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    3. Re:Not all internet hype by dangitman · · Score: 1

      You might want to try using your brain, or reading comprehension.

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    4. Re:Not all internet hype by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since you appear to be a bit thick, I'll explain it for you. The advert for BBC Radio 1, was a TV advert which was shown on the BBCs TV channels.

    5. Re:Not all internet hype by Archibald+Buttle · · Score: 1

      Readers must note that download-only tracks are not eligible for the UK chart, the rule is that the physical version must be released within one week of the download version. So, it's just a way to get an extra week in the top ten.

      Really? Where did you hear this from?

      I'm CTO at a download store in the UK and we report sales to the chart people, which contribute to the UK singles charts. The only requirement I know of for our reporting is that the track has an ISRC number. As far as I'm aware that's it - no additional requirement that a physical version must be available at all. We've reported sales on numerous download-only products to them.

    6. Re:Not all internet hype by bri2000 · · Score: 1

      Mentions it in the BBC news story. Second paragraph. And the stroy announcing the change. Which site are you involved with? I guess you'd better get on to Chart track, they're going to be p***ed with you... http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/4870150.s tm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/4689838.s tm

    7. Re:Not all internet hype by boxy50 · · Score: 1
      to quote form the UK chart rules:

      "Digital Singles without a physical variant will not be eligible"

      ...think you must be thinking of the UK Download chart, not Singles chart.

    8. Re:Not all internet hype by LordSnooty · · Score: 1

      Yup, sales will need to be reported, for compilation of the download-only chart, but if the rules for the official top 75 or whatever it is today aren't met, a track will be excluded from the chart. They still count the sales, though.

    9. Re:Not all internet hype by Archibald+Buttle · · Score: 1

      OK - that makes things clearer. Since I'd seen the BBC news report this morning I didn't bother to read the story.

      We report sales of all items (individual tracks, albums, singles, and EPs) for which we have an ISRC or UPC/EAN code to the charting folks. This all goes into a single report - the charting people match up the codes with products and work out the charts from there. They enforce the rules for which charts certain material is eligible for - not us.

      The charting folks aren't at all pissed with us. They're happy to get data from us.

      I just hadn't been told that there had been any change to things, probably because there's no change as far as our systems are concerned.

      These revised rules seem a bit silly though. This single has shown that the download charts can account for as many sales as the high street, and segregating out download-only sales creates an artificial division. In the case of this particular track it seems that it was available for sale on at least one download store from the 9th March - 3 weeks. It would be interesting to see their sales figures across all three of those weeks.

      Shame that it's on Warner - as a pure MP3 store we don't it on our site since they're afraid of playing in a DRM-free format.

  12. Hah! Wait until the next single comes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And it'll be called "It's all about the ponies". It'll be a download record amongst the 1.7% of the female readers on slashdot!

  13. Actually, no. by neoshroom · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Oh, wait, they're actually counting downloads people *paid* for? :-)

    They aren't. Nobody paid for the download; its simply available on their website. In fact, if you go there it autoloads and plays, so you get counted toward the total.

    I call that cheating. And its driving me crazy. Driving me craaaazy.

    Hmm...needs more cowbell.

    __
    Elephant Essays - Custom created research papers and essays.

    --
    Big apple, new Yorik, undig it, something's unrotting in Edenmark.
    1. Re:Actually, no. by Sircus · · Score: 1

      In fact, if you go there it autoloads and plays,

      Yes.

      so you get counted toward the total.

      No. Only purchases are counted.

      --
      PenguiNet: the (shareware) Windows SSH client
  14. Tricky Web Page by neoshroom · · Score: 4, Funny

    Anyone else think its a bit tricky how if you go to their website the song autoloads and plays, so you get counted toward the total?

    I call that tricky. And its driving me crazy. Driving me craaaazy. Driving me craaaazy.

    Hmm...needs more cowbell.

    __
    Elephant Essays - Custom-created research papers and essays.

    --
    Big apple, new Yorik, undig it, something's unrotting in Edenmark.
    1. Re:Tricky Web Page by Lewisham · · Score: 1

      The chart only includes paid-for downloads from UK services such as iTunes and OD2, not free plays.

      Basically, they tried to bring up-to-date the chart to include whichever format you buy a single in.

      I personally think it's sketchy that the single must be physically released the next week: this seems more a ploy to keep retail shops on-side with the chart compilers. It shouldn't matter who it is released to or when, only the total number of purchases after that week.

    2. Re:Tricky Web Page by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really Nice :-)
      I didnt go to the site until later, and then ROFL
      Classy.

    3. Re:Tricky Web Page by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Anyone else think its a bit tricky how if you go to their website the song autoloads and plays, so you get counted toward the total?

      If a website can make your computer play music when you just visit it, your browser has a bug and needs fixing.
    4. Re:Tricky Web Page by grahamm · · Score: 1

      Nor should it matter where it downloaded from. Why should a download from iTunes count but (a paid) one from magnatune or from an artist's own website not count?

    5. Re:Tricky Web Page by vistic · · Score: 1

      This is a very long standing bug then... I remember people using the tag back in like Netscape Navigator 2 or 3 to make my PC play MIDI files!

      (And it was slightly less annoying back then, than it is now when you look at someone's Myspace profile and get an earful of crap)

    6. Re:Tricky Web Page by DrSkwid · · Score: 1

      Use your tiny brain to read this :

      while() wget http://www.gnarlsbarkley.com/auzio/crazy.mp3 > /dev/null

      Woooo we're number one

      --
      There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
    7. Re:Tricky Web Page by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      It's not a bug, it's an option and in any sane browser it can be disabled. F12 -> uncheck "enable sound in Webpages" in case of Opera, for example.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
  15. Apple pwnt teh downloads by cubicledrone · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Apple sold one billion songs.

    That's a 'b'

    Billion.

    Nine zeroes.

    Big number. More than a lot. Like, really big number.

    Just before iTunes launched everyone said "who's going to pay for something you can get for free?"

    Then Apple sold one billion songs.

    That's a 'b'

    pwnt

    Next.

    --
    Business isn't willing to pay for products, innovation and careers, so we get brands, mortgage commercials and layoffs.
    1. Re:Apple pwnt teh downloads by Sparr0 · · Score: 1

      No. They sold 1000000000-X songs and gave away X songs. 1000000X1000000000. I know a soda company gave away at least a million songs. And a magazine a million more. Half the MP3 players Radio Shack sold at one point came with free iTunes download cards. I am sure there are thousands of free-itunes-download promotions that I do not know about. I would estimate that X is somewhere in the vicinity of 300000000 (that would be approximately 1 free song per person in the USA).

    2. Re:Apple pwnt teh downloads by Fooby · · Score: 4, Informative

      Not exactly. They didn't just give these downloads away, costing them nothing more than bandwidth. Apple and/or the various giveaway sponsors paid full royalties on these songs. Which is close to a dollar each. Apple doesn't make much if anything on downloads, they make money on hardware.

    3. Re:Apple pwnt teh downloads by Ravear · · Score: 1

      Apple sold one billion songs.
      [...]
      Just before iTunes launched everyone said "who's going to pay for something you can get for free?" Then Apple sold one billion songs.
      That's a 'b'
      pwnt
      Next.


      It took them what ... three years? Napster used to burn through over a billion in 1 month. That hasn't slowed.

    4. Re:Apple pwnt teh downloads by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You say that like it's impressive or something. As best I can remember, my roommate downloaded one billion songs in '97 alone.

    5. Re:Apple pwnt teh downloads by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That article said their were 2.79 billion download in February '01.

      2.79

      BILLION

      Just before napster lauched everyone said "Who's going to download compressed audio files on the internet?"

      Then 2.79 billion in one month alone.

      BILLION

      That's 279 followed by seven zeros.

      B

      in ONE FUCKING MONTH

      prawned.

    6. Re:Apple pwnt teh downloads by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lewl at your 300 million free song estimate. Right.

    7. Re:Apple pwnt teh downloads by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apples third law states:
      For every post that claims Apple loses money on iTMS, there is an equal and opposite post about Apple making money on iTMS.

      Among all those posts which cancel each other out, there is a seperate group that claims Apple neither lost or made money any money on it, but just happened to break exactly even.

    8. Re:Apple pwnt teh downloads by Mindcry · · Score: 1

      on a normal one song download, i believe the artist/musician makes 20 cents (at least according to what i remember from the leaked CD baby contract details). In normal retail they make about a buck off an entire CD.

  16. video here (quicktime) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative


    here you go

    Zane Lowe Gnarls Barkley advert/ident

    very cool, if only more adverts where like this, but then it wouldnt be on the BBC

  17. Re:Huh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I assume you mean the music from when you were a youngster, funny that hey.

    Shame so many people cannot see past the type of music they listened to as a youngster to see all the great music that is still being produced now.

  18. Re:And this is on Slashdot why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Thank you dictionarybot.

  19. RTFA by MustardMan · · Score: 3, Informative

    Crazy by Gnarls Barkley has been tipped to make music history this week by becoming the UK's first number one single based on download sales alone.

    Download SALES. Not downloads. Visiting the website a trillion times wouldn't change the ranking on the charts.

    1. Re:RTFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So people paid for a download when they could have gotten it for free just by visiting their web site?
      Just goes to show how stupid their fans are.

    2. Re:RTFA by meringuoid · · Score: 1
      Visiting the website a trillion times wouldn't change the ranking on the charts.

      On Slashdot, that sounds like a challenge!

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
  20. Meanwhile by dtfinch · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    The book in my sig is already the #1 bestselling book on Amazon, despite having not been released yet.

    1. Re:Meanwhile by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's a pretty blank book, eh?!

  21. Whoever posted this didn't RTFA. by mellon · · Score: 0, Redundant

    The article says that the single *might* hit the number one spot. It doesn't say it *did* hit the number one spot. The person they were quoting said "mid-week sales figures are confidential," which means to me that we don't yet know that this single has in fact topped the charts. Maybe it will, though. Not sure why we should care.

    1. Re:Whoever posted this didn't RTFA. by ed_g2s · · Score: 2, Informative

      Perhaps you should RTF link which is the words "As predicted", implying that article was published *before* the event happended, which was on Sunday afternoon, when the charts are announced. And for reference the midweek number one is almost always the end of week number one. We're supposed to care because it's a landmark event in the growth of online music sales, albeit a somewhat artificial one caused merely by a change in the rules.

    2. Re:Whoever posted this didn't RTFA. by dilvie · · Score: 1

      The change of rules was in response to the increased number of songs doing very well as digital downloads, without a corresponding physical album. It's important, because it's one of the early signs that indicate that the decline in physical sales is due, in large part, to the increase in digital sales. It's an important milestone in a rapidly changing market.

  22. And even more proof -- Re:Proof by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That no matter how far we come along, there will still be people who can't recognize a joke.

  23. Doesn't sound that good to me. by itsah2 · · Score: 1

    Maybe it's just because I'm not British, but I just listened to this song on the group's website and it sounds pretty annoying.

    #1 music is pretty much always crap though...

    1. Re:Doesn't sound that good to me. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Both Cee-Lo and DJ DangerMouse are American Artists.
      It's become big in the UK because it's been played on the radio here since Mid 2005. Also the BBC Radio 1 Ads helped spread it too.
      Usually I'd agree that the British Charts can be ignored (being a Brit myself) as being full of rubbish, but I seem to like this track since it's more my Genre of Music.

  24. Re:And this is on Slashdot why? by InsideTheAsylum · · Score: 3, Funny

    My friend is canadian and he says he makes up 33% of slashdot's international readership. Have you met him?

  25. thanks... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    cause hard as i looked I could not find it on their homepage. Nor on the myspace page it was linked too... the download button would not work for me there

  26. website vs myspace by opencity · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Interesting to hear the audio difference between their home page and their myspace page. Myspace losing the highs.

    Also interesting that when I search iTunes for gnarls barkely I get no returns (?)

    Song's not bad.

    --
    Physics is like sex: sure, it may give some practical results, but that's not why we do it.
    1. Re:website vs myspace by Shag · · Score: 1

      The track is only available from the iTunes UK store at present, I think. Google found links on Phobos, but iTunes said they were UK store, not US.

      --
      Village idiot in some extremely smart villages.
    2. Re:website vs myspace by opencity · · Score: 1

      Assuming for the moment that I don't care and that I went and heard the sample off the myspace page anyway: (flame intended for Apple not parent)

      Shouldn't this be crossposted to 'Apple about to lose market share'?
      I glanced at the iTunes home page and didn't see: Switch to UK store. It may be there but you've now lost the people who:

      Are still a little confused by this interweb.
      Will google 15 minutes for 'javascript bug safari 1.3.2' and null for Englands latest pop sensation

      --
      Physics is like sex: sure, it may give some practical results, but that's not why we do it.
    3. Re:website vs myspace by Shag · · Score: 1

      *shrug* I'd have to vote for "Record label doesn't let Apple sell song on US iTunes store that's not for sale in brick-and-mortar UK stores yet, for whatever reason."

      And then I'd go back to not caring, I guess, since the US store had Trans-Siberian Orchestra's album "Beethoven's Last Night" when I looked for it this afternoon.

      --
      Village idiot in some extremely smart villages.
  27. Re:And this is on Slashdot why? by w.timmeh · · Score: 1

    You go to the record/video store with a particular album/film in mind? I much prefer to have a look and see what treasures reveal themselves.

    It's likely that legal downloads will make up a significant proportion of purchases of film/music products in the future, but the stores themselves won't necessarily die.

  28. who? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Knarls Barkeley sounds like what basketball star Charles Barkley would name his dog.

    1. Re:Who? by electrichamster · · Score: 2, Informative

      Remember DJ Danger Mouse, who made big waves in the music industry for his mashup of a Jay-Z's "Black Album" and the Beatles "White Album"? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Grey_Album)

      It's him, under another pseudonym.

    2. Re:who? by aapold · · Score: 1

      The Round Mound of Rebound would make for a much better single IMO. Just cue a clip of him shouting "Ginobili" over some dance track...

      --
      "Waste not one watt!" - CZ
    3. Re:Who? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jesus, just type Gnarls Barkley into wikipedia you lazy bastard.

  29. Re: "" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm not much of a Cee-lo fan, but DangerMouse is the shit.

    I think you misspelt the empty string :P

  30. Re:And this is on Slashdot why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "My friend is canadian and he says he makes up 33% of slashdot's international readership."
    Man, that's one *big* Canadian!

  31. April 2 by towsonu2003 · · Score: 0

    No news to see here, move along...

  32. Apple the new Record Label? by mythz · · Score: 5, Interesting

    There is a *very interesting* article on Joel on software (http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2005/11/18.ht ml) on how it is essential for the Record labels to be able to control the popularity of its songs:

    "...Here's the dream world for the EMI Group, Sony/BMG, etc.: there are two prices for songs on iTunes, say, $2.49 and $0.99. All the new releases come out at $2.49. Some classic rock (Sweet Home Alabama) is at $2.49. Unwanted, old, crap, like, say, Brandy (You're A Fine Girl) -- the crap we only know because it was pushed on us in the 70s by paid-off disk jockeys -- would be deliberately priced at $0.99 to send a clear message that $0.99 = crap.

    And now when a musician gets uppity, all the recording industry has to do is threaten to release their next single straight into the $0.99 category, which will kill it dead no matter how good it is. And suddenly the music industry has a lot more leverage over their artists in negotiations: the kind of leverage they are used to having. Their favorite kind of leverage. The "we won't promote your music if you don't let us put rootkits on your CDs" kind of leverage.

    And Apple? Apple wants the signaling to come from what they promote on the front page of the iTunes Music Store. In the battle between Apple and the recording industry over who gets to manipulate what songs you buy, Apple (like movie theaters) is going to be in favor of fixed prices, while the recording industry is going to want variable prices."

    1. Re:Apple the new Record Label? by linzeal · · Score: 1

      No one in this generation is going to pay 2.49 for 1000's of songs like they paid .99 for 1000's of songs. My music collection pry cost me 10k over my lifetime so far, there is simply no way I am going to pay that amount for 1/4th of what I have now.

    2. Re:Apple the new Record Label? by 16K+Ram+Pack · · Score: 1
      I respect Joel for his writing on computing, but I've never heard anything that backs this up, that price reduction is used as a power move.

      I often find myself waiting for certain old albums to be in the "sale" before I buy them, so for me, record companies reducing the price would get a sale that they simply won't get otherwise (like I'll pay £7 but not £17).

    3. Re:Apple the new Record Label? by ivan256 · · Score: 1

      The labels already do control the 'popularity'. The top 10 lists weight radio plays the same as sales. Play counts far exceed sales, and the number of times a song is played is directly proportional to the amount the label 'paid' the broadcaster to play it. Thus the charts are organized exactly how the labels paid to have them.

    4. Re:Apple the new Record Label? by demonlapin · · Score: 1
      Brandy (You're A Fine Girl) -- the crap we only know because it was pushed on us in the 70s by paid-off disk jockeys

      If this could only be so. Unfortunately, my local moldy-oldies station continues to play this abortion. It's one of the worst things I've ever heard. (If they would play it just before or after Afternoon Delight, I think the world would end.)

  33. Who? by JettaHominus · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Never heard of him.

    --
    Read the Story of Commodore Computers www.commodorebook.com
  34. I've been waiting thirty years for this revelation by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

    I never could figure out who was Number One in The Prisoner. Now we know: Patrick McGoohan's nemesis was none other than ... Gnarls Barkely. Cool.

    --
    The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  35. Worst year for April Fools. by spudchucker · · Score: 2, Funny

    Not to mention a day late. Seriously, where is the good song?

  36. Re:And this is on Slashdot why? by Columcille · · Score: 1

    My friend is canadian

    You come to /. and you still only have one friend?

    --
    I love my sig.
  37. What's up with the tags? by Espectr0 · · Score: 1

    whocares, stupid, slownewsday,gay...

    Is the public taking revenge at Taco et al for having us tortured with PinkDot yesterday?

    1. Re:What's up with the tags? by Senjutsu · · Score: 1

      The tags have been at the mercy of bias and trolls since the beta started. Every article even remotely critical of Microsoft has been consistently tagged as "fud", for one thing.

  38. Internet is an amazing delivery mechanism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Many have undermined the potentiality of Internet as an amazing delivery mechanism. Peer-to-Peer (P2P) like BitTorrent brings this to an unprecedented level. Today it is possible to distribute very large files at a negligible cost. This was evident with new comers to Linux world such as multimedia Tomahawk Desktop and their world reach via BitTorrent. This is a model, try it before you buy and places a great trust on you.

    A recent survey found P2P music download is in the geographical area where most people buy legal music. What this means? It is try it before buy mentality. P2P and Internet downloads are not an evil or bad for business, its a great opportunity not to be missed.

  39. Re:And this is on Slashdot why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It may interest you to know there's a pretty substantial non-American Slashdot membership.

    You mean there are terrorists, north koreans, and other towelheads reading slashdot? I thought their letters were different and stuff.

  40. What people like != what they buy by vik · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I hope this is a step along the way to allowing songs into the charts that are heavily downloaded and - legally - not necessarily paid for. Until that happens, the charts remain an indicator of how heavily pimped a song or artist is.

    Vik :v)

  41. I just heard it, it sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't know what the big deal is. My kid can sing better.

  42. Didn't that chart also have 'Crazy Frog' as #1? by IronTeardrop · · Score: 1

    If so, it's hardly an accolade. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crazy_Frog in case you were lucky enough to avoid it.

  43. Re:And this is on Slashdot why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Then again, it may not.

  44. Re:And this is on Slashdot why? by bm_luethke · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Spoken like a true Anti-American - unable to even notice that they have something loged sideways up thier ass. At least we know we do.

    The guy figured that "number one song" isn't really news for nerds and such (I would tend to agree, though not enough to warrent a post - been here long enough to know it's not my opinion that matters).

    It might interest you to know that we know very well there are other people and the world doesn't revolve around you any more than it does us.

    You might want to look in the mirror before you post like this again. You immediatly jumped to the "American are self centered idiots who don't think about *me*!" idea.

    --
    ------- Sorry about the spelling, I suffer from two problems. Dyslexia makes it difficult to spell well, lazy makes it
  45. are u nutz by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    we'd have to give up being able to complain about the younger generation being losers.... ...and fix that nail or whatever it is in your nose it's crooked, and do something with the second pink stripe in your hair, clashes with your tats...kids..no sense of style or artistry...

  46. downloads obey physical laws! by hogghogg · · Score: 2, Funny
    ...was also available to be bought as a physical copy.
    Hey, downloaded copies are still physical copies. The internet still obeys physical laws, even when it doesn't obey the DMCA.
    --
    David W. Hogg -- assoc prof, NYU Physics
  47. why dont they count download-only songs? by jonwil · · Score: 1

    Whats the difference between a popular download-only song and a popular song that you can buy on CD?

  48. Pity... by trawg · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It is a pity that it is still easier to type 'gnarls barkley +crazy +mp3' into Google to pirate it than it is to actually buy this online - at least in Australia. They're playing it a lot on a local radio station here and I quite like it, and this article finally gave me the artist so I could look it up to buy it.

    As always I tried Googling it first to see if it was iTunes - which it was; I got a handly link to the iTunes store, which opens iTunes. I was then politely told that this track is only available in the iTunes store in the UK.

    If the labels are ever going to take this Internet thing seriously they're going to have to readjust their way of thinking. They can't rely on their old system of having area-based licenses - it just doesn't make any real sense in the era of digital content.

    1. Re:Pity... by drspliff · · Score: 1

      In terms of digital 'licensing' for a specific country or even licensing to a handful of online shops, this is the 'old' way of doing it.

      For example, most of the online mp3 shops that cater for DJs will usually ship mp3 versions either at the same time or before it comes out on vinyl/cd. If somebody releases a track in Chicago, I can have it playing at a club night in London - the same day!

      And considering that many labels are selling them through 10 or more sites at a time, and all of them are DRM free I honestly cant see why this isn't catching on with the bigger companies, I rarely see any piracy either.

  49. Re:And this is on Slashdot why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So maybe a percentage of "nerds" would not rate this a "nerd" worthy story. Wether or not it is or is not nerd worthy has nothing to do with the country of origin.

    Just because you're paranoid, it doesn't mean they aren't out to get you.

  50. Re:And this is on Slashdot why? by subtropolis · · Score: 1

    It's some Canadian he met on a BBS in '87.

    --
    "Our interests are to see if we can't scale it up to something more exciting," he said.
  51. Danger Mouse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Gnarls Barkley actually features Danger Mouse. The same Danger Mouse who released The Grey Album on the internet a while back. http://www.illegal-art.org/audio/grey.html That alone should buy GB some slashdot-news-worthiness points.

    1. Re:Danger Mouse by pandrijeczko · · Score: 0
      Not as much news-worthiness as Linus Torvalds who released The Great Kernel on the internet a while back.

      Remember, this IS Slashdot...

      --
      Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
  52. Re:Karma Dispenser Post by pomo+monster · · Score: 1

    Oh please, you're just gonna modbomb the first one to reply. Nobody's dumb enough to fall for that.

  53. Re: "" by Yamhill · · Score: 1

    hohohooho
    ahahaahhaha
    *dance dance*

  54. And to whoever tagged it with 'riaa' by RJabelman · · Score: 1

    Calm down. You haven't annexed us yet.

  55. Re:And this is on Slashdot why? by zoloto · · Score: 1

    Eh.. You seem to have something lodged far up your ass. This is a U.S. centered/stationed/hosted site to begin with so it will be U.S. centric. We get a few news things about other countries and that's not a big deal. Don't make life harder for yourself by bitching about other's bitching.

    You could always host your own slashdot.co.uk if you wanted to but.. *OOPS* a domain squatter is already there. QUIT yer bitchin.

  56. Re:Huh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ie. I'll be more interested when some music that isn't so black gets to #1

  57. Dear Music Industry... by pandrijeczko · · Score: 0, Troll
    The good news is that I can categorically give you my 100% assurance that I will not be pirating the Gnarls Barkley single.

    However, the bad news is that I will not be buying it either as it's yet another example of cobbled-together, formulaic music designed for the plastic, designer mobile-phone generation who are too insecure to venture into a deeper exploration of music that extends beyond the 40-or-so CDs on sale in their local supermarket.

    I'm sorry but I wouldn't know "Cee-Loo Green" if he/she passed me in the street but "Danger Mouse" is a superb & wonderful character of whom I have the utmost respect and admiration - although I did sometimes consider him to be a little hard on his mole sidekick, Penfold, in the British cartoon series of the same name.

    In my day, when an artist "featured" another guest artist, we generally knew who one, the other or both are as musicians. However, these days such is not the case as I wouldn't know "Snoop Doggy Poop" from "Rampant Moggie Mangler" if they past me in the street.

    May I also remind you that in my day, recording engineers were obviously better trained due to the fact that they mixed their music correctly the first time without having to reissue subsequent endless "remixes" of their music, For GOD'S SAKE, why can't you just TRAIN these people properly the first time so they get it right the first time? And why do you not have a decent Quality Assurance department that checks the "mix" quality before sending CDs out to the record stores. Why, we never heard Led Zeppelin (Featuring James Page) saying "Ooh, I don't think Robert quite got the 'Oooh-oooh-oooh' quite right on Stairway To Heaven that time. Can we please have another go at it?"

    In summary, therefore, may I offer a few suggestions which, I feel, will go a long way to improving the quality of music in today's pop charts:

    1. Suggest to some of your musicians that their hard-earned money might be better spent on singing/instrument lessons rather than baggy, badly-made jeans where the crutch hangs down at the knees. If nothing else, imagine the trouble these poor people would have trying to run outside of a burning studio - the damned things are a fire hazard!

    2. Please throw in the occasional guitar solo - after all, guitar solos never did His Almighty Majesty Ozzy Osbourne any damage, now did they?

    3. Allow your musicians to spend some time learning with Michael Flatley & "Riverdance". I find this constant "hand jiving" and finger gesturing by these artists most off-putting. I'm sure Mr Flatley will be able to teach these musicians how to keep their arms gracefully be their sides at most times.

    4. Please ask some of your artists to have a quick look in the mirror before venturing out onto the stage or in front of a video camera. It is most disturbing to see so many young men with their baseball caps on backwards & if they took a little more time over their appearance, we would all feel much better.

    --
    Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
    1. Re:Dear Music Industry... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      May I also remind you that in my day, recording engineers were obviously better trained due to the fact that they mixed their music correctly the first time without having to reissue subsequent endless "remixes" of their music, For GOD'S SAKE, why can't you just TRAIN these people properly the first time so they get it right the first time? And why do you not have a decent Quality Assurance department that checks the "mix" quality before sending CDs out to the record stores. Why, we never heard Led Zeppelin (Featuring James Page) saying "Ooh, I don't think Robert quite got the 'Oooh-oooh-oooh' quite right on Stairway To Heaven that time. Can we please have another go at it?"

      "Remixing a song is like admitting you were wrong"

  58. My world is desintegrating by mwvdlee · · Score: 1

    Download sales of music outnumbering CD single purchases?

    Could this mean the RIAA and such have been wrong all those years?

    I know everybody in the world has said they were, but they were so sure of themselves; even trying to ban it.

    Now I don't know what to believe anymore!

    --
    Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
  59. cool tune by pele · · Score: 1

    indeed. follows rules, sounds melodic, ok production.

    and uk being the birthplace of good music I don't see what all you liverless-geeks brag on about?

  60. lies as hype by iariar · · Score: 1

    i've seen it in the shops here(UK) as a 12" vinyl!!!!!!!!!!!!

    1. Re:lies as hype by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it's been out on white for quite a while

    2. Re:lies as hype by iariar · · Score: 1

      i've seen it as a proper official packaged 12" release

  61. viva la difference by BeardsmoreA · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Rant, rant, young people today, rubbish, nothing but shouting, rap, etc...

    All you just said is "I feel old and close minded, and/or this isn't my prefered genre of music." Guess what, I like my classic rock as much as anyone, and you're more likely to catch me with a Floyd album than the latest 50 pence track, but this is obviously a catchy pop tune (hear it once or twice and I defy you not to be humming it the rest of the day.)

    Idiot... or did I just get properly trolled?

  62. Im not a fan of the song .. by Peter_JS_Blue · · Score: 1
    .. but I quite glad to see downloads becoming the prefered method of music distribution.

    I wonder what the MPAA will make of that ??

    --
    Art Makers Just an excuse to show photos of naked women !!
    1. Re:Im not a fan of the song .. by Peter_JS_Blue · · Score: 1

      Oops, I mean RIAA, not MPAA !! - need more coffee !

      --
      Art Makers Just an excuse to show photos of naked women !!
    2. Re:Im not a fan of the song .. by Run4yourlives · · Score: 1

      Same shit in all but name anyway.

  63. Re:And this is on Slashdot why? by Tim+C · · Score: 1

    Well now, read any story about DRM, the DMCA and its (mis)use, the RIAA suing people and such like, and you'll see scores of comments bemoaning the RIAA's lack of technological progress, and calling on them to change their business model and embrace downloads, or die.

    Well, here's the first song (in the UK) to make it to the top of the charts based solely on legal downloads.

    Don't you think that this provides some sort of proof of what so many people here have been saying? That it *is* possible to make a viable business model out of downloadable tracks? This is bigger than ITMS passing a billion downloads - this sends a message that downloads of specific songs (not just music in general) is a viable model.

    Seems a little strange not to want to have the proof to back up our assertions, but then again, this is slashdot, where anecdotal evidence and prejudgements are taken as gospel.

  64. Link to TFC by chenjeru · · Score: 1
    Link

    Link

    To YouTube with the commercial in question.
    --
    Even if you're on the right track, you'll get run over if you just sit there. - Will Rogers
  65. Penfold was a hampster by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    not a mole.

  66. AMERICA by W33B · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    America, fuck yeah!
    My god you lot are so ignorant of the rest of the world it is unreal...Off topic I know but OMG sort yourselves out guys...there is life outside of the US you know.

    1. Re:AMERICA by LeeMeador · · Score: 1

      Sorry ... can't hear you . Please repeat.

  67. Odd, but I kinda dig it. by Errandboy+of+Doom · · Score: 1

    My favorite punk band just told everyone to respect hip hop.

    We just got this album at KJHK this week. Incredible stuff. I've got all new respect for Cee-Lo, he's amazingly talented, and his vocals really pull all this together, really complementing DJ Danger Mouse's production.

    & Propagandhi: if you haven't, check out Dead Prez and Immortal Technique, and Mac Lethal's "Pass the Ammo."

  68. There's a better club version by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't really like the original, but there's a fast breakbeat remix (possibly a bootleg / white label) that's not bad at all. Bear in mind I was pretty high when I heard it though :)

  69. wtf? by neersign · · Score: 1

    who would ever want to listen to music by Charles Barkely? O wait, that's a 'GN'?

  70. Re:And this is on Slashdot why? by Thing+1 · · Score: 1
    I pre-read in my head after the fourth word.

    "My friend is Canadian and he loves having things wedged sideways up his ass, you insensitive clod!"

    --
    I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
  71. Re:And this is on Slashdot why? by bm_luethke · · Score: 1

    "Don't you think that this provides some sort of proof of what so many people here have been saying? "

    Not so much, as others pointed out it was more a marketing thing and is a single song. I would bet with the correct marketing you get get a number one song to be sold only in a cereal box.

    I figure the proof is more along the lines of iTunes - much broader and much less harder to argue with. It's long term, broad, and profitable.

    IMO fine for the special sections of slashdot, probably not up to main page. But, as I said, I've been here long enough to know it's their show, they decide, and they don't care what we think (and, to note, were I doing this website I would most likely have the same opinion).

    It should be noted the whole thing you are replying too is an aside and a weak one at that. My point (which I figured would be modded to -1, anti-Americanism is popular here) was that the anti-american post was doing exactly what he was accusing Americans of doing. Didn't figure it would do any good, but was bored so posted anyway. I tend to find it more amusing than anything.

    --
    ------- Sorry about the spelling, I suffer from two problems. Dyslexia makes it difficult to spell well, lazy makes it