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."
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.
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.
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."
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.
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.
:v)
Vik
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.
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?