Slashdot Mirror
Facebook Campaign Decides UK Christmas Music Charts
uglyduckling writes "A grassroots Facebook campaign has pushed the 1990s Rage Against the Machine song 'Killing in the Name Of' to the top of the British music charts for Christmas. The campaign was planned to prevent the X-Factor winner from charting Christmas number one, as has been the case for the past four years. It was supposedly a kick against the commercialism of Christmas and commercial dominance in the music scene, although Rage and the X-Factor winner Joe McElderry were actually signed to the same label. Despite this minor detail, it's interesting to note that this is the first song to reach the number one spot through downloads alone in the UK, and is a testament to the organizational power of social networking sites like Facebook. The Facebook group also asked for donations to charity, and has raised £70,000 for the homeless charity Shelter."
Rage against the machine are signed to Epic, whereas the X-Factor winners are signed to Syco. Both are owned by Sony, but really ... who cares? This campaign was never about the money, it was about doing something to stop the tediousness of X-Factor chart domination.
It was worth it all, just to hear someone swearing on Radio 5.
"a testiment to the organisational power of social networking sites like Facebook"
I think that might be going a bit far. What it is testament to is that we're all fed up of shitty pop.
Previously, we've all been too fragmented, "I don't like shitty pop, but I do like cool jazz" (etc.) so (as with many democratic systems) the thing that the largest people like (which also happens to be the thing the largest number of people also dislike) ends up getting branded "good".
What happened here was that, pretty much by accident, someone found something that everyone sort-of likes (Killing in the name of) and were able to use as a banner behind which to mass to express how much we dislike bloody x-factor. I, myself, have been not buying X-factor records for many years and have had absolutely zero effect on anything, This year I bought two copies of Killing in the name of (I song I like) (and the second one was a mistake, bloody iTunes) and now can delude myself into thinking I might have had some small influence on Simon Cowell.
Next time he's putting together an identikit pop star perhaps he'll pause for a moment and think "Should I make this one staggeringly hopelessly bland? No, I'll raise my game and just make it very bland". Which is, at least, a step in the right direction.
And (back to the point I started with), they tried this game last year, but chose Rick Astley. And even with the "organisational power of social networking sites like Facebook", they failed.
I think Facebook was probably fairly low down the list of causes for this. I think the real things that helped here are:
1) Wide spread public anger
2) Choosing the right song
3) The BBC (where I heard about it)
In a way, but it was more the fact that the previous 4 years' Christmas Number Ones had been X-Factor winners. It's slightly disingenuous to say that the Facebook campaign was a "kick against the commercialism of Christmas"...
"Commercial dominance" ever was a factor in the race for christmas number one in the UK, but at least it was a race, not a foregone conclusion. Like when the Spice Girls went up against Chef and his Chocolate Salty Balls. The trend in recent years is for the X-Factor winner (whoever it is, it doesn't matter) to win. This is just a big "fuck you, I won't do what you tell me"...music lovers taking back the Christmas #1 slot.
(Either that or it's a cynical ploy by Sony BMG to sell 500,000 records that they wouldn't have sold otherwise...)
> I am amazed that so many people are willing to vote for X-Factor and who should be no1 in the Christmas charts but will not vote for who runs the UK!
>
> That's like totally horrifying.
The difference is that these two songs are polar opposites. When it comes to the General Election, you're voting for one bastard over another bastard, both with essentially the same policies.
Why bother voting when the result is the same?
As I walked into the Yamaha shop in Ginza an hour ago there was a CD player whacking out bloody Susan Boyle massacring John Stewart's Daydream Believer. There should be a law, there really should.
It was supposedly a kick against the commercialism of Christmas and commercial dominance in the music scene
Supposed by whom?
All it was, was a couple of people saying "wouldn't it be cool if {classic rock song with apt band name} were Christmas number one instead of the pappy ballad that's supposedly a foregone conclusion. It was an idea with memetic fitness, so it took off.
Each individual's reason for buying is their own. Whether it's a perceived statement against capitalism, just a kick against the man, or even really liking the song and somehow not already owning a copy.
FWIW, my reason for taking part was that I thought it would be funny and cool if it worked, and the outlay was 29 pence. If it sends a message to Sony that there's good money to be made promoting non-manufactured bands, so much the better.
Slight nitpick, but although there may have been no materials cost, don't forgot that Sony would have had to pay for the 1.43 terrabytes (500,000 x 3GB) worth of data that people used to download it.
It may be cheaper than producing and shipping a product, but this is Slashdot and we shouldn't be getting into the mistake of assuming that a digital download doesn't cost anything.
Avantslash - View Slashdot cleanly on your mobile phone.
I used to take this view that people didn't "really" like mainstream film/music/whatever, they only "think they like it".
Then I realised that was the worst kind of condescending attitude. Lots of people like mainstream media output, and that's what makes it mainstream.
It undermines the claims that piracy is responsible for the declining sales firstly because it shows that a *lot* of people are prepared to pay for music after all, so clearly not everyone is a "freetard" who just downloads everything via P2P. Not only that, but it also shows that they are so fed up with the recycled Pop/R&B performances that labels churn out over and over again, that they are prepared to pay for a song quite a few of them probably won't even listen to in protest. Put the two together, and I think it's pretty reasonable to assume that at least part of the sales decline is actually due to the labels neglecting a sizable chunk of their potential customers taste rather than just P2P.
The problem as I see it isn't so much that the quality music isn't there, because it is. The real problem is that if an act doesn't fit the cookie-cutter Pop/R&B model then they'll get next to no marketing support from the studios, making it all but impossible for potential fans to find them amidst all the dross that's also out there in music's long tail. Frankly, I think that the music industry has got so caught up in its "War against Piracy", that it's forgotten just how wonderfully diverse music can be and that not everyone likes to hear nothing but Pop and R&B.
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!