RATM Vs. X Factor for Christmas Number One 2009

[Rawr]

You do realise the same company back both records? Yeah SIMON won't get anything out of RATM, but Sony, who back both records, gets the proceeds of BOTH sides, so all this is doing is give extra money to Sony.

 

Clap, clap, ragers. Now how abouts you support a genuinely independant artist with a better Christmas song than either X Factor or RATM has ever come up with and get Tim Minchin's song up there?

 

Well I think Rage's song is better than Tim Minchin's, it's my personal opinion and preference, hence why i want a song i like to be at number 1 in the charts for once, not that i truly care about chart positions, but it would be nice to make a change rather than the norm of a christmas number 1 spot. I wouldn't mind if Minchin got to number 1 as it would obviously represent a good change either way.

 

The content of the song and nature of the band is that we won't do what people tell us, so we see the advertising everywhere and are bombarded with the hysteria of shows like the X Factor, which naturally makes the single more likely to hit number 1. Whereas a band of RATM's origin is less likely to receive such exposure, so it's great that people want to make a difference to music at this time of year.

 

RATM has never 'come up' with an intended christmas song either, this was released way back and the band have even been inactive for a lengthy period of time until recently. That's why it's great, as a large proportion of people have backed this song for a lot of reasons because of what it says. So in a way i think it would be a fitting number one.

 

I don't think it matters what 'label' an artist is on, the bigger the label, the more chance the band has to get a message out, whatever that is, so Rage's message is a rather funny and ironic commentary, considering the label isn't it? I'm pretty sure that Zack De La Rocha isn't too concerned about lining his pockets.

Edited December 17, 2009 by Rawr

[ned]

[Nollaig]

Killing In The Name Of was cool when I was about 14 and starting to say 'no' to my parents.

 

Anyone who otherwise falls for the hype of things like X Factor.... well lets just say it's not making a point to anyone worth making a point to - the people worth making the point TO are the ones making the point. And it's a good point, but use a nice song.

 

Oh and regarding Tim Minchin - there are 50 other weeks in the year when the UK and Ireland don't have Christmas no. 1s. Forgive me for suggesting an actual Christmas song should have the benefit of one of the two weeks (one in either country) where it would actually fit. Killing In The Name Of can be number 1 for the other 50 weeks for all I care, but I'm into Christmas and to me Christmas is about what Tim's song is about, and what Band Aid's song was about, and what The Darkness' song was about - those are the KINDS of songs which should be number 1 at Christmas.

Edited December 17, 2009 by Nollaig

[Rawr]

I do agree, it is a very repetitive and simple song but i think that's their point. I know everything is a matter of taste but sometimes it's nice to see change in the norm.

[Nollaig]

I edited my post.

[Rawr]

I agree with the point the song would make and i agree with the timing of which it would hit number 1 regardless

 

This is what claiming christmas back is to a lot of people on the same level that such other songs are about imo.

 

edit: I think we can agree that it would be nice to just see something with a real message at the number 1 spot at a time when people do pay a lot of attention to what stands there.

Edited December 17, 2009 by Rawr

[BigWords]

This thread makes me realize just how much I miss Top Of The Pops, even though I didn't watch it for the last couple of years of its' existence. I don't think that the artist who reaches #1 on Christmas automatically gets a bump in sales like they used to (with the increased focus on downloading and USB-singles), so the hype about who gets the top spot seems beyond me. There used to be fairly limited terrestrial exposure, but with Freeview being pushed so hard in the last couple of years the focus will be diluted. #1 doesn't even mean what it did five years ago, and the record companies are too busy worrying about profit margins to lavish gifts on the artist with the hit single - anyone else remember stories of singers getting cars as gifts? That is all over with these days.

[ned]

The record companies have nobody but themselves to blame for poor sales, they have shamelessly ripped people off for years and have gotten away with it. When you think that it costs about

[ned]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/8418158.stm

 

RATM enrage Radio 5

[Rawr]

The video is a great interview with the guys too.

[Nollaig]

There's a fun irony in asking Zach not to swear during Killing In The Name Of, given the actual line.

 

Having said that, the only thing worse than a teen-esque song about a rebellious attitude is actually adopting that attitude while performing the song. Granted, the radio station shouldn't play it if they're not going to play it properly, but the band shouldn't agree to it and then swear. That's childish - just refuse to do the live performance.

[Rawr]

It's called expression, countless bands have done it and will continue to do it. It's not really targeted to teenagers, it's targeted for people - anyone who gives a damn about certain ways people run the world and want to express their distrust, anger and positivity about making themselves heard, that they agree and feel what the performer feels. Young people tend to connect more as they generally have a lot less in their lives, but it doesn't mean they are just rebellious kids. The BBC were asking for it, they wanted the band to perform but expect them to censor their own music, that would basically be playing into the other side of things, of how they are apparently the focal point of this demonstration against the whole x factor parade, yet co-operate with censoring themselves. So either way it's bound to provoke reactions haha.

Edited December 17, 2009 by Rawr

[Nollaig]

It's called lying.

 

I don't agree with radio censoring at all, I think the station should just NOT play songs they deem offensive rather than cutting them. And if Rage had said, 'no, we're not going to play it unless we can play our full version' I would (somewhat ironically) say fair f**ks to them for standing by their song.

 

But to say they won't swear, which presumably they had to do when asked repeatedly not to swear, and then to do it, is not expression, it's lying and making yourself look bad.

Edited December 17, 2009 by Nollaig

[ned]

As much as i want thisto beat Joe, if these guys wanted to be Rock and Roll about it then they wouldn't be promoting it. The "cool" thing to do would be just to be indifferent to what was going on and show that you don't give a sh*t.

[Nollaig]

That's a good point, but when it's going to charity it's kinda good that they're promoting it.

[Rawr]

It's a platform for a far wider audience. If they are asked to perform and showcase their song on a BBC broadcast, it's bound to reach those who might be curious as to who this band who have seemingly come out of nowhere to some people is, then why not? These guys have done far more provocative things to get a message across before, so i don't think they are too fussed or concerned whether people care about swearing in a song. Young people are exposed to a lot worse things in the general media and culture these days than a few swearwords in a fitting musical context.

 

If the guys were being rock and roll, they could have just thrown in a couple of 'Hey everyone, how the f*** are ya doing???' straightaway, like some bands have done just to aggravate the broadcasters and whatnot

Edited December 17, 2009 by Rawr

[Nollaig]

I hate people acting 'rock and roll' though. Usually it's a bunch of ponces acting cool when they're really not.

 

Most people grow out of the 'saying bad words to provoke a response' thing when they hit about 9 or 10 years old, if not younger. If you're still doing it at 39, then you're not cool, you're sad.

 

Being cool is actually being very respectful of other people despite not necessarily agreeing with them, if you're in their environment. Like debating a topic maturely, rather than screeching your case over the top of the other person.

[Rawr]

I despise people performers who feel the need to act rock and roll in any shape, as if they are some kind of god or amazingly talented supremo above all. I think modesty and realising you're one and the same with your audience and fans is the real way to connect with people on an artistic level.

[Nollaig]

Which is completely contrary to saying you won't swear on day time radio, and then swearing on day time radio.

 

Glad we're in agreement

[ned]

I despise people performers who feel the need to act rock and roll in any shape, as if they are some kind of god or amazingly talented supremo above all.

 

Donny Tourette is the number 1 culprit

[Rawr]

I've heard of that guy, man, he seriously irritates the hell out of me, there are many incarnations of that guy about too. It's terrible

[Nollaig]

SRSLY

 

Okay Mod-Noll time: Joe vs. Zack discussion only henceforth.

 

[ned]

I liked when he was on Buzzcocks a couple of series ago. Simon Amstell just ripped him apart.

 

"Oh my God! Donny is smoking now. I can't believe that he is actually smoking a ciggarette that you can legally buy in the shops. I'll try my best to go on with the show but this has really shocked me."

 

Oops, just seen above post, ammmm, Dermot O'Leary presented Buzzcocks, he also presents X Factor in which Joe won on Sunday and is now locked in battle with RATM.

 

Yeah!! Brought it back

[Rawr]

HAHA yes i saw that ^

 

Maybe they should merge the two bands together. Like i say, i know Joe can sing and i admire people who have talent, but again, i hope Rage does win, but if not, then the war will continue either way

[Nollaig]

Good lads.

 

Tim to win.

 

I mean... what?

 

I'd love if someone else did usurp the title at the last minute though