Posted December 16, 2009 He's right. It's "a protest to the X-Factor monotony"! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted December 16, 2009 At least X Factior number ones aren't Christmas songs. If they keep people from bothering to write christmas pop songs because no-one else has a chance of getting the number one spot then that's fine with me, I'd rather have some cheesy Cowell number or a crappy cover. what!? thats a bad thing dude.. You gotta have one time of the year where things get nice and cheesy again but no... It's serious music all year round now and I hate it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted December 16, 2009 Tom Morello was on 6 Music today. Taken from NME: Rage Against The Machine guitarist Tom Morello has praised the Facebook campaign to get the band's 'Killing In The Name' to the top of the UK singles chart ahead of The X Factor winner Joe McElderry. Morello said that by buying 'Killing In The Name', fans are effectively voting against The X Factor and other reality TV programmes like it. "The one thing about The X Factor show, much like our own American Idol, is if you're a viewer of the show you get to vote for one contestant or the other, but you don't really get to vote against the show itself until now," he told BBC 6Music. He added that he felt the campaign – which currently has over 800,000 members on Facebook – was a "wonderful dose of anarchy" and "heart-warming". Speaking of the impact the campaign seems to be having, Morello said: "[The] rebel anthem song will transcend the Christmas holidays." Earlier this week, Simon Cowell labelled the Facebook campaign "stupid", "cynical" and "very Scrooge". Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted December 16, 2009 You do get to choose to "vote against" a show. Its called not watching. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted December 16, 2009 You do get to choose to "vote against" a show. Its called not watching. Yeah but this way, the votes get counted. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted December 16, 2009 You do get to choose to "vote against" a show. Its called not watching. Praise to God, someone is making sense!!! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted December 16, 2009 Daft, you're reading far too much into the very limited thought process of the people who created this group. IF the choice of song doesn't matter and you don't need the "Fuck you, I won't tidy my bedroom" attitude of this particular tune, if it really was about "cultural domination", then they should have picked a random song that WASN'T published by the big three companies which have a stranglehold on the industry and control 95% of what we get to hear. In terms of subversion and revolutionary action, this ranks somewhere just below buying a Che Guevara t-shirt from TopMan. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted December 16, 2009 You do get to choose to "vote against" a show. Its called not watching. Crumbs, you beat me to it. Yeah but this way, the votes get counted. Yeah, they don't count the viewing figures on the other channels... Mon sheet! They do! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted December 16, 2009 Yeah but this way, the votes get counted. You understand what ratings are yes? Its a COUNT of all the people that watched a show, ergo you get a COUNT of all the people who don't. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted December 16, 2009 Actions speak louder than not doing something. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted December 16, 2009 Daft, you're reading far too much into the very limited thought process of the people who created this group. IF the choice of song doesn't matter and you don't need the "Fuck you, I won't tidy my bedroom" attitude of this particular tune, if it really was about "cultural domination", then they should have picked a random song that WASN'T published by the big three companies which have a stranglehold on the industry and control 95% of what we get to hear. In terms of subversion and revolutionary action, this ranks somewhere just below buying a Che Guevara t-shirt from TopMan. I'm going to disagree with you. As for the intention of the people who created the group, I'm not sure it matters and I don't think you can assume they have a 'very limited thought process' anyway. You're right to a degree that another more apt song might have been chosen however it really is about subverting norms. The issue of the music industry, and generally the production of cultural capital, is not what this is about. I think a lot of people are confused by this. They really are separate issues. Maybe next year, that might be something that the alternative Xmas song can attempt to address. It's not about that this year, however. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted December 16, 2009 Don't know if this has already been posted. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted December 16, 2009 Is anyone else bored to tears with both sides of this argument? Some people want x factor to be number one, some would prefer that rage were. Others, couldn't give a shit either way. The end. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted December 16, 2009 Advice; stop reading the thread. Might help. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted December 16, 2009 You understand what ratings are yes? Its a COUNT of all the people that watched a show, ergo you get a COUNT of all the people who don't. Ah would that be the same system where they use the fantastically accurate sample group method? Where mine, yours and probably everyone else on heres "vote" is decided by someone completely unrelated to us? I'll stick to buying on song on iTunes thanks. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted December 16, 2009 Ah would that be the same system where they use the fantastically accurate sample group method? Where mine, yours and probably everyone else on heres "vote" is decided by someone completely unrelated to us? I'll stick to buying on song on iTunes thanks. Its about one in every 5,000. Which is still one of the more accurate systems. I just find the whole thing ridiculous really. People who buy the X-Factor song will do so because they like the song, not because they watched X-Factor and ipso facto have to buy it (the extent to which they are slowly succumb to accept it due to exposure is questionable, but do we really want to be relying on 1920's mass culture theories?). Yes its a slimy business tactic but they will have existed before (companies holding off releases for the xmas number one etc), its just more transparent now. But the whole campaign is so hypocritical. Even the banner; "Fuck you I won't buy what you sell me, buy RATM". That's someone selling RATM to you. Yeah it will be the most effective way (against saying "buy something else that you like" which would have no effect on the charts) it just seems like radicalism-by-numbers. Hell the official site has images of Che Guevara who I'd imagine would probably laugh at the pettiness of this whole mess. Its very much raging within the machine. Which is fine, but I hate this notion its counter culture/sticking it to Cowell. And the fact the site says "lets give the British music industry back to the people"...by buying an American song? There's just inconsistencies throughout. Fair enough if you just like the song/think it'll be a laugh but its been over-politicised (and yeah, I'm adding to it. Ironies ahoy ) And I don't understand the whole anti-Cowell thing really. He's no different from Alan Sugar or Martha Steward; he's a self-made individual and a shrewd businessperson. Its interesting; in America its praised as living "the American dream", over here it seems to be seen as deplorable. Or at least that's my interpretation. Why do people hate Simon Cowell so much? (I could even see the whole thing working against it, I wouldn't be surprised if some people buy the X-Factor song out of sympathy. You know how mothers get defensive of little kids they see being attacked but that's neither here nor there ) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted December 16, 2009 I've contributed. I fucking hate X Factor and love Rage. Really hope this makes #1. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted December 16, 2009 Advice; stop reading the thread. Might help. pretty much the same attitude they're implying with the show... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted December 16, 2009 pretty much the same attitude they're implying with the show... ...I don't get you. People who buy the X-Factor song will do so because they like the song, not because they watched X-Factor and ipso facto have to buy it (the extent to which they are slowly succumb to accept it due to exposure is questionable, but do we really want to be relying on 1920's mass culture theories?). What?! 1920s? Do you actually have any idea what you are talking about? This is based in the thinking of Western Marxism which was propagated from the 1960s, initially with Gramsci. Later on people like Adorno and Marcus carried on this thought, Marcus going as far to say that one intrinsic thing that society does to enforce the social contract is create false needs. But the whole campaign is so hypocritical. Even the banner; "Fuck you I won't buy what you sell me, buy RATM". That's someone selling RATM to you. For the third time. It - is - not - about - the - money. My God! I really couldn't have cared less about this but the amount of people who are speaking out of their arse is phenomenal. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted December 16, 2009 I think we interpretted what I said differently. What I was trying to suggest was it could be argued that through constant exposure they are numbed into accepting the song as good and thus buy it, which is the hypodermic needle/Frankfurt approach (simplified). I wasn't talking about false need, I was talking about the possible interpretation of spoonfed desires. And I wasn't talking about money. I was talking about being counter-control but doing so through being controlled. I don't care if they're buying a song or painting their face read and running around in circles, saying "don't be gullible and do as others tell you, do this instead" is hypocritical. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted December 16, 2009 I think some people just love Rage, and would like to see them Number One for Christmas. *nods* If you asked me a year ago if Rage would be fighting eet out for Christmas Number One, I'd have said..."You lie!" or something. But, that's life, and stranger things have happened. It's a great song, and I've been listening to eet for so many years now. I've already posted my thoughts on the subject already, so it would just be pointless if I said it again. (in particular, my response to MadDog's post) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted December 16, 2009 It makes me laugh that people really give that much of a toss, or think it actually matters in the slightest. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted December 16, 2009 I think we interpretted what I said differently. What I was trying to suggest was it could be argued that through constant exposure they are numbed into accepting the song as good and thus buy it, which is the hypodermic needle/Frankfurt approach (simplified). I wasn't talking about false need, I was talking about the possible interpretation of spoonfed desires. The idea of false needs is simply an extension of the idea of culture effectively being spoonfed. You might want to check out Adorno. And I wasn't talking about money. I was talking about being counter-control but doing so through being controlled. I don't care if they're buying a song or painting their face read and running around in circles, saying "don't be gullible and do as others tell you, do this instead" is hypocritical. You've totally missed the point and I can't be farkwarded to explain. ...although if I see another dumb post I might cave. It makes me laugh that people really give that much of a toss, or think it actually matters in the slightest. Nothing matters if you don't want it to. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted December 16, 2009 Perhaps explaining would help because at the moment you're just on your pedestal criticising us stupid peasants. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted December 16, 2009 It makes me laugh that people really give that much of a toss, or think it actually matters in the slightest. It's not worth crying over, I agree. For some, it's a "I love Rage, and think it would be funny to see them number one for Christmas." For many, it's them standing up to the X-Factor winners being given a free run at the Christmas number one. It won't mean an awful lot if Rage don't win eet. Plenty of people will be listening to that song for years to come anyway, so I doubt they'll care much. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
