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."
And RATM are giving the proceeds to Shelter too, good for them:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/8423340.stm
I'm not sure which one is worse for the Christmas, Mankind and Intelligence, though,
Maybe Computers will never be as intelligent as Humans.
For sure they won't ever become so stupid. [VR-1988]
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)
It was radio 5, not radio 1
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.
At least protest for a something worthwhile - e.g. against clause 11 of the "Digital Economy Bill"http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200910/ldbills/001/10001.13-19.html Essentially gives Lord Mandelson complete control of what is published on Internet and unrivalled power and "interpretation" of copyright law.
You can join petitions here: http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/list/open?cat=758
Then again Simon Cowell wants to "X-Factor" politics http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1236002/The-Politics-Factor-Simon-Cowell-unveils-plan-launch-election-debate-show.html This mentality scares the crap out of me!
You can listen to the whole show here. They shout "Fuck you, I won't do what you tell me!" 16 times in a row at the end of the song which is the climax of the song. How the FUCK they could expect them to do what they told them is beyond me.
My other account has a 3-digit UID.
Firstly, you should at least google "Rage Against The Machine" before saying something so incredibly ignorant. Secondly, what the protest group was trying to do was to stop some bland, middle-of-the-road, one-hit-wonder from getting #1 when it should be going to someone who at least has the where-with-all to write their own goddamn songs. Your "mass marketing" straw man no place here.
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.
it's interesting to note that this is the first song to reach the number one spot through downloads alone in the UK
Umm, no it isn't. Crazy by Gnarles Barkley was the first song to reach number one in the UK on downloads alone. This was the first song to be the Christmas number 1 on downloads alone.
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.
Sony have profited to the tune of 500,000 digital downloads on the RATM track [...] I think it only fair that they make a gesture in kind and make a sizable donation to Shelter as well.
I presented your idea to Sony's CEO, and here's what he told me:
"Fuck you I won't do as you tell me!"
(He repeated that until fading out)
its not decided by anyone
third parties, if successful, either replace one of the dominant two, like the whigs in the 1800s in the usa, or one of the dominant two parties coopts the third party's message, relegating the third party back to maginalization, like with ross perot in the 1990s
furthermore, the similarity of the two dominant parties is not a weakness of democracy, but a strength. two parties compete for the moderates of the country, this forces them to moderate their own message in order to win votes. this leads to the parties being a better representation of the moderate middle, which leads to greater social stability: parity between the leaders of a country and its citizens
if the party has a strong zealot streak, such as currently in the usa with the teabaggers on the right, this is a good thing for the left, because by forcing an ideological litmus test on right-leaning candidates, the teabaggers force right-leaning candidates further right, thereby weakening their appeal to moderates, thereby weakening the right's showing in elections. if you are left-leaning in the usa, you should thank the stars for the appearance of right wing zealots like sarah palin and rush limbaugh on the landscape: this helps the left by giving moderate votes to left moderate candidates
meanwhile, if you believe that two similar parties is a weakness, or under some shadowy force's control, you are either a paranoid schizophrenic, or you simply don't understand that marginal, fringe parties should never dominate a country. because no matter how progressive your beliefs, the purpose of a government is to provide stability, first and foremost. the government should reflect the great moderate middle as much as possible, and this is what two parties achieves, and this goal is far more important than any other you can put forth
finally, third parties merely siphon votes off from their more moderate cousins, and therefore perversely empower the party most opposite you and your beliefs. its simple math
two parties the ultimate natural evolution of all democracies, and this is a good thing, despite you and your fringe beliefs, whether far right or far left. your marginalization is a benefit to the stability of your country
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Some interesting things about that site:
* It was not set up by the same people who set up the main facebook campaign group
* It was set up after the campaign became popular and got coverage in the mainstream media
* It is not linked to from the main facebook group
* It does not link to the main facebook group (it links to its own facebook page, which is inactive in comparison to the actual campaig group)
* It seems to exist only to sell t-shirts (10% to charity but I bet they still make a profit)
I see no evidence that this has anything to do with the main facebook campaign and plenty that hints that it is just someone's attempt to cash in. If that is the case then it doesn't suprise me that someone who used to work with Simon Cowell is involved.