More stuff that’s still true
5) The charts are rubbish
While there is a certain degree of cultural significance accorded to the fact that Michael Jackson had the most number one singles off one album — or (let’s say) that Madonna was the only woman to ever knock herself out of the top ten on a Thursday, or that songs by George Michael occupied all of the prime numbers for 3 months in 1987 — the charts themselves have always been meaningless in almost every important respect.
This has not only always been true — it’s now especially true.
There was, at least, a marketing purpose to it in the past: you could maybe get seen on Top of the Pops, or played on Casey Kasem’s show (though arguably it’s the broadcast rather than the chart position that’s important here).
It’s also often true that a lot of people like things because they are popular, rather than the (far more sensible) other way around.
But, for the most part, being number 18 for a week has never had any real genuine value.
I know people who have appeared on Top of the Pops, and who do not in any way consider themselves to be successful musicians. Nor are they rich or famous.
Chart success (particularly of the far more common ‘fleeting’ variety) has little or no bearing on the income of the label or the artist in question. A song that sells 5000 copies in a week makes no more money than a song that sells 1000 copies a week for 5 weeks — but only one of them will get in the charts.
Statistically speaking, charting is no guarantee of fame either. You might be in the charts and you might be famous.
You want music industry success? Aim for longevity and a lasting relationship with your fans. You may get into the charts and you may not. Celebrate when you do, but understand that it’s not the point of the game, just one of many measures — and not an especially meaningful one.
__________________
UPDATE: Since writing this brief truism, friends of mine who manage a band have had all of their hard work frustrated because they’ve been booted out of the singles charts.
For me, this is the litmus test for smart management in the new media environment.
Midas — no longer a top-20 act
My friends Gary and David have gone to a lot of effort and have been quite innovative and tech-savvy in ensuring chart success for the band in their care. One of the ways they’ve gone about this is to stack up the pre-purchases, so that when the single is released, they flick the switch, the sales are registered all together and the band hits the big time all in one go.
Standard practice, pretty much.
Last week, they entered the chart at around number 16, just shy of the Kaiser Chiefs. The celebratory emails and text messages abounded (is that a word?).
However, this week, the OCC (for which, read BPI) have decided they don’t like that kind of carry-on when it’s not one of their lot pulling the stunt, so they’ve deleted Midas from the charts altogether.
My take on it?
1) Midas should absolutely have been kicked out of the charts.
I don’t care how you look at it — pre-selling, whether in record stores, via mobile downloads, by giving away SIM cards as these guys did, or however else you want to do it is just cynically playing the system.
Collecting up all the sales over a period of time and then only processing them on a set date so you can count them all as a contemporaneous purchase is dishonest, purely and simply.
Sorry guys, you deserve what you get.
2) So should everyone else. Everybody cheats.
Midas are hardly the only band that have attempted to defraud the public by making them think that all of these people paid money for that particular song in that particular week. In fact, it would be the rare exception where a label, management company or artist did not do everything possible to stack the odds in their favour.
Midas are not doing anything beyond the ethics of the record industry (such as they are), they’re just finding new and interesting ways to do the same kind of cynical and dishonest crap that everyone else is doing.
Personally, I’d kick the lot of them out.
3) The problem here is that it seems to matter to them
As noted above, the charts are rubbish.
Midas makes no extra money and gains no extra advantage by having all the sales they made squeeze into one week so their name can appear on a sheet of paper that nobody other than their competitors read. The worst that could happen right now is for Midas’s management to interpret this situation as a bad thing.
If Gary and David spend a cent of the band’s money challenging the decision, they should be sacked on the spot. If they’re smart, they’ll simply use it for PR milage. Because…
4) This is probably the best thing that could happen to Midas
Why do they want to be in the charts? Not to recognise or measure sales — that’s what Money is for.
It’s purely marketing leverage. What happens when the underdog gets unfairly treated by the nasty big boys? That’s right: a great PR story.
The OCC are unfairly picking on Midas because they are an independent act. That’s something the Guardian, Observer Music Monthly, New York Times, Channel 4 News, BBC Midlands Today, CNN, MTV, BoingBoing, the Digg community and bloggers around the world will all find interesting.
If these guys are smart about it.
5) I’ve never understood why they’ve been so chart-orientated
Perhaps Midas simply want to be famous, signed to a major label and spend a few years with all of the trimmings they think that might get them. If so, then I kind of get why everything that seems to be done around them seems so focused on getting into the charts, rather than longevity, income, export or establishment.
But I think I’ve only ever met one band that was solely focused on those more fleeting things (watch out for Viva Machine this time next year).
If suddenly not being in the charts is genuinely an outrage (rather than an outrage for the sake of a good PR story) then I think that’d be kind of sad.
After all, the charts are rubbish.
I’m genuinely hopeful that Gary and David are smarter than they are pretending to be. If they are, then forget Koopa. Midas will be ‘unsigned band’ story of the year.
______________________
This fairly unorthodox position on the charts unfailingly gets me into an argument. Feel free to rip me to shreds in the comments.
35 Comments, Comment or Ping
Pete Ashton
But hang on a second though just a minute chum.
When I order a book or CD on Amazon that isn’t out yet they take a record of my card details and, once it’s officially released, process the sale. This sale is recorded as happening on release day rather than weeks before.
Harry Potter is pre-sold in the millions online but the sales can’t register until publication date because there’s nothing to sell until then.
Why should this be different for digital sales? I could presumably pre-order the CD single on Amazon weeks beforehand and have that register with the charts - why not a download?
As for the charts being rubbish, yes they are, but they serve as a handy filter for people who don’t have the time or inclination to think about music too much, ie the masses who make up most of the customers. It’s like the Booker shortlist. People can’t cope with choice - this is a traditional way of removing that trauma. So if you want to appeal to the Coldplay market then getting in the charts isn’t a bad idea.
Aug 31st, 2007
Dubber
No, you’ve missed my point. You’re using the whole ‘well these guys do it, so why isn’t it okay for us?’ argument. I don’t think anyone should do it.
Pre-orders to enable enthusiastic punters to secure limited copies are fine of course — but pre-orders as a strategy to inflate time-restricted sales figures in order to hit bestseller lists is lying. Or is it just marketing?
And apart from the obvious, books and digital music are different in another important way. Nobody overhears a book then finds themselves humming the plot.
People are actually fine with choice for the most part — but while some readers might buy a book from a bestseller list nobody selects music unheard from the chart. Not customers — and not even radio, these days.
People who don’t have the time and inclination to think about music too much are not consulting the charts. They’re listening to radio, watching TV and hearing music that their friends like.
Coldplay are on the charts, but it’s not why people buy their music. They hear it, and they like it. They get far more of an opportunity to hear it than they do the music of other people (for a whole range of important reasons), but nobody consults a list, sees that Coldplay have a single in the charts and thinks ‘well, it’s on the list, so I’ll probably like it’…
Aug 31st, 2007
Pete Ashton
I still don’t think pre-selling is wrong. It’s not that “everyone does it so it’s okay” - it’s actually a quite empowering mechanism for the consumer. Why should they have to wait and remember to buy the single when it comes out? Why shouldn’t they be able to place an order beforehand and be pleasantly surprised when it arrives? I don’t think this is inflating sales. The product is unavailable until a certain time so they can’t “sell” it until then. But whatever.
People do “overhear” books. Word of mouth is very important and, when it comes to serieses, the plot of previous novels is non unlike a tune. Especially with those crime novels.
As for the charts, they’re important if you want to play the traditional game in many ways. Say you’re repping the band to a retailer (online or off). “Here’s this new band, Midas. They recently charted with their first single in the top 20″. The people who make the decisions at a retail level don’t give a shit what they sound like. They just want to know if they’re worth the shelf / promo space. Stats like that (along with previous sales, capacities of gigs, critical reviews) are make or break. I should know, I used to be a buyer.
Aug 31st, 2007
Dubber
Delighted to be proved wrong on this stuff. It would be a shame to think (as I do) that such a central feature of the music industry is a waste of everyone’s time and energy.
But I think we’re going to have to agree to disagree on some of it. Your examples are entirely correct, but the principles they’re trying to back up don’t necessarily follow.
I can’t help thinking that pre-sales are a valuable mechanism for the retailer, rather than the consumer. It’s nice to have things turn up on the day of their release, sure. But my problem is with cynically leveraging pre-sales to get into bestseller lists when that skews the data so deliberately and obviously. Let them pay in advance if they want to — but don’t pretend they all came into your shop and bought it on the same afternoon.
Word of mouth is fantastic for books and music alike — but that’s not overhearing in the way that you hear a tune and get to love it so much you want to go and buy it. That’s not the issue though. My point is simply that bestseller book lists and music singles charts serve different functions. Or rather, that one serves a function that the other doesn’t.
I’ve never been a buyer at retail, so I’ll have to bow to your superior wisdom, but I’d have thought that the same effect could be had by saying ‘their last single sold 5,000 copies’ (or whatever).
I’d love for the charts to be a worthy measure of quality — or even a reliable predictor of future success — but it seems to mostly be a ranking in order of whose company spent the most money on marketing this week.
Aug 31st, 2007
Pete Ashton
“Let them pay in advance if they want to — but don’t pretend they all came into your shop and bought it on the same afternoon.”
I think this is the nub. A record, even a digital-only record, has a release date. Before that date nothing can be “sold” but sales can be taken. So it all comes down to when the release date is.
Thinking about it, Amazon do the system you’re suggesting, with Harry Potter books at the top of the bestseller lists months before they’re actually published.
As for retail buyers (and I’d add the people who decide on front page placements at Amazon / eMusic / etc to this) it’s all about impressing in the quickest amount of time. Numbers are meaningless, but a shorthand (”charted in top 10 when unsigned”) goes a long way.
Face it, hardly any of the entertainment industry is aimed at the end consumer - it’s all about insider bullshitting. This is why they’re all doomed.
(In other words we probably agree that this stuff is pointless but you’re wrong as to why it’s pointless. Or something.)
Aug 31st, 2007
Dubber
Good points all. We generally agree, but differ on points of detail (You’re not wrong about it, per se — we just differ).
However, it raises one interesting detail that would otherwise have been overlooked:
“Even a digital-only record has a release date” — but only for marketing purposes (such as chart-stacking strategies) and not for any logistical reasons of physical availability.
It’s an unnecessary and artificial construct that is in widespread use simply because ‘that’s the way it’s done’ and it can be leveraged for coordinating a promotional campaign.
I’m not saying it’s a bad thing, but just pointing out that records don’t simply ‘have’ release dates, they are ‘assigned’ them.
Aug 31st, 2007
Sophie Smith
It’s fine to argue about the symantics surrounding the general issues, but I don’t changes the fact their are rules there that Midas have followed, yet they’re being penalised. It’s fine to criticise the whole system, but if the majority of companies are able to benefit from it (even if it’s only a perceived benefit) then it seems hypocritical when people are singled out for punishment.
Whether Dubber agrees or not, the ‘industry’ as a whole are still obsessed with the charts. As Pete mentioned, measuring success tangibly is still something that retailers, radio stations, journalists etc etc like to me able to do. There are very few people who are willing to make decisions based on whether a song is good anymore (all hail John Peel!) but always seem to talk about ‘the plot’, especially in commercial radio.
It’s interesting to read the article in Music Week - http://www.musicweek.com/features/feature_page.asp?featureid=15267. I presume this is your friend David speaking here Andrew? Can an artist get to the position where they can support their career completely indepedently, or is the DIY concept a foiled one?
Aug 31st, 2007
Dubber
Yep, that’s him. But the DIY concept is hardly a foiled one, unless you’re trying to use it to become Robbie Williams, as the article suggests.
I may not have the insider experience on the record shop floor, but I know radio. Let me tell you something about radio: nobody cares about the charts. They care about audience research, which is a completely different cesspool.
You seem keen to point out that Midas were just following the rules. They weren’t. They were making up new ones, based on the same principles as the old ones. The problem was not that they broke the rules, but that the new rules they invented showed up the all flaws in the other ones.
Yes you could make a good case that it’s ‘unfair’ that they were kicked out of the charts — but in fact, what really happened was they were prevented from making it as unfair in their favour as everyone else in the charts.
It wasn’t an injustice — it was just such a tiny piece of fair in a whole world of wrong that it looks so out of place.
But the most important thing to remember here is that suddenly not being in the charts anymore is far more valuable to Midas than being in the charts was in the first place.
If it ever turns out that David actually engineered the eviction by pushing hard enough at the boundaries, he deserves the New Music Strategies award for tipping over the applecart.
Aug 31st, 2007
Sophie Smith
Would anyone be brave enough to try and push the boundaries that far deliberately? That would be quite a risky publicity stunt!
Aug 31st, 2007
Stef Lewandowski
This seems similar to the tactics that Arctic Monkeys used when they launched their first album.
They set pricing and units-per-order, and made exclusive deals with only the biggest retailers, cutting all of the independent shops out of the first week of sales.
Why?
Because the independent stores (which you would think would be the core market) don’t register their sales as effectively as beep-beep at the checkout to stock check to same day sales reporting.
They priced really aggressively, shipped in large numbers to Tescos, all with the aim of getting the maximum number of sales in Week 1.
The strategy paid off, and once everyone heard about the release, the long tail effect was magnified. Simple.
So it worked for them, I guess Midas were trying to do the same thing.
Aug 31st, 2007
Ant
Loving this debate, and while I have nothing much to add of any real significance just simply to say that its clear that Midas do have a strong regional fan base and and having seen them a number of times (including the gig with the headliners Shiny Toy guns and interestingly the Viva Machine, incidently teh support bands stole the night!) I wish them all the very best.
As for the charts they mean little but it seems they set some kind of a bench mark that bands aspire too.
I guess not important how many sales or pre-orders Midas actually generated. I witnessed the HMV instore where they sold 250 or so CDs in 45minutes - great headline but not so surprising when you consider it was their local home crowd - that said many Fans were left outside unable to get their hands on a copy? The band and crowd seemed genuine and had a great time - fantastic to see.
The trick for Midas (if its what the band want) is to take their music further a field and get a similar response elsewhere - good luck to em watching this space with interest.
Lets see the OCC treat all bands big or small in the same way I agree with the tiny piece of fair comment…but its the OCC / BPI that have allowed the creation of the whole world of wrong - they can’t have it both ways or cry foul because some lateral thinking has been applied. They did not as suggested give away SIM cards they had to be purchased at the time - a subtle difference.
Aug 31st, 2007
Jonh Ingham
Since my record company days were back in rude youth when singles were selling 25,000 a day, I keep wondering whether I’m missing something. When a Number One single sells maybe 25,000 total, who cares? Everybody I know is getting music based on a wide ranging system of recommendations - blogs, friends, social nets, strangers, music in cafes…no-one cares if it’s Number Anything - they care if it’s good. The charts just looks like another pile of dinosaur bones in the Dakota landscape. Am I missing something?
Ian Hunter of Mott The Hoople told me that when they appeared on TOTP the single went down in the charts.
Buffin of Mott The Hoople told me that one American hit record will clear ALL your debts.
Cause and effect.
Aug 31st, 2007
Nick
I agree. Charts have a very limited marketing value, but they do help artists feel good about themselves…little else.
Bob Lefsetz said it well when looking at concert tour grosses…Check out Nelly Furtado & Taylor Hicks…Both high in the charts at the time of the shows but hideous attendance rates at most shows.
Chart position is the product of good marketing, not loyal fans.
Aug 31st, 2007
Nick
sorry, here’s that Lefsetz link:
http://lefsetz.com/wordpress/index.php/archives/2007/07/18/872/
Aug 31st, 2007
Pete Ashton
Just a small comment on release dates.
“It’s an unnecessary and artificial construct that is in widespread use simply because ‘that’s the way it’s done’ and it can be leveraged for coordinating a promotional campaign.”
Yes it’s a construct but an essential one. You have to decide when to release something and you might want to take all manner of other issues into account such as a tour or press interview. Nobody’s going to get rich from a single - it’s part of a marketing plan and timing is important there.
For example, you could have published this post when you wrote it but you scheduled it for the “future”. Sure, it’s a construct but it has a purpose. In effect you’re using your power to create scarcity and demand, a rare thing in this internet age.
Aug 31st, 2007
Sophie Smith
Oooh yes, that’s a point. I had to buy my sim card from Midas. I didn’t get given it - I’m happy with the principle of paying for my music.
Aug 31st, 2007
Elena Tomkins
find it a little hard to beleive as a fan of the band that its one rule for one one rule for another. the band outsold the twang in the birmingham hmv instore due a stronger local fanbase….who are the chart company to penalise an unsigned band because sales dont add up to their proportionate media profile. nationally midas cant compete without serious pr behind them to raise awareness but regionally they can.
they wont get reinstated but they deserve recognition.
el
xx
Sep 1st, 2007
Jane Spealer
Forget the OCC midas, lets face it your getting a lot more being said about you from the fact that you were pushed out of the charts then you hitting top 40 and being another Koopa. I do find it strange that the OCC did submit a copy of the charts with Midas in it on Sunday then reassessment moments after and issues a new one. The place was 60 - from what i hear about the success of Red shoes (and that it bettered their previous single don’t dance by quite a way)there is no way they would have charted this low…was that a message from the OCC…? “dont worry about this band they didn’t even get near top 40″
It is very true, concentrate on your fans, those are the ones that will stick by you.
J
Sep 1st, 2007
John
It does seem that this whole incident has been helpful to Midas; this thread alone is an example to the facat. How much are we, and other sites, discussing the band compared to their last release dont dance. That one charted and this one didn’t. Im sure there’s still a future for these lads!
Sep 1st, 2007
Ant
There is perhaps another interesting twist in all of this?
Is this about Midas and their music or about the effectiveness of their management and their ability to set the agenda and test out their ideas and push the limits?
So far I guess this debate seems to suggest - that the charts, its rules and so on are pretty meaningless to some not directly involved or affected the musing of posters certainly generate lots of talk, comment.
We are perhaps missing the point, young bands like Midas enjoy what they do and leave it to others to pass judgment; no one could forsee the current turn of events? I am sure the band did not; we should not forget that it is the responsibility of Managers like Gary and David to advise, guide, steer Midas; thats why serious bands are either approached by or seek out proffessional management. The more I read this thred the more I think this point is missed?
Its interesting that when more “negative” comments about rules being broken or new ones being set set all credit goes to MIDAS, and not the guys advising them?
Dubber says
“….You seem keen to point out that Midas were just following the rules. They weren’t. They were making up new ones, based on the same principles as the old ones. The problem was not that they broke the rules, but that the new rules they invented showed up the all flaws in the other ones”.
“…Yes you could make a good case that it’s ‘unfair’ that they were kicked out of the charts — but in fact, what really happened was they were prevented from making it as unfair in their favour as everyone else in the charts.”
“..I’ve never understood why they’ve been so chart-orientated
Perhaps Midas simply want to be famous, signed to a major label and spend a few years with all of the trimmings they think that might get them. If so, then I kind of get why everything that seems to be done around them seems so focused on getting into the charts, rather than longevity, income, export or establishment.
But I think I’ve only ever met one band that was solely focused on those more fleeting things (watch out for Viva Machine this time next year).”
I’ve never understood why they’ve been so chart orientated - so you have met and spoken with them then?
I have and they have never come across in this way ever,ask those that have and have gone on record (Kerrang Radio/BBC Coventry/Notts/WM the list goes on, you should do your research….this is your view and totally unfounded in my opinion!
The Viva Machine like Midas are great chaps (and good friends of Midas) and like Midas from very similar backgrounds; Viva Machine have been around longer than Midas (name change and rebranding aside) and also have close links those other Welsh boys The Automatic & their back room people deserve recognition. But to introduce these guys into this thread is like comparing apples with pears Viva Machine write great music and have a big team behind them, but don’t kid yourself and think they do not crave chart sucess; or perhaps you met with them and discussed this too? Pure speculation on your part?
On the other hand the more “positive” stuff
Dubber also says
“I’m genuinely hopeful that Gary and David are smarter than they are pretending to be. If they are, then forget Koopa. Midas will be ‘unsigned band’ story of the year”.
“If it ever turns out that David actually engineered the eviction by pushing hard enough at the boundaries, he deserves the New Music Strategies award for tipping over the applecart”.
Thoughts?
Sep 3rd, 2007
Dubber
Some clarification: when I said I’ve never understood why they’ve been so chart orientated, I was talking about Gary and David and their approach to managing Midas. I don’t know the band, only their managers, and so I can only assume that their goals are in alignment. A lot of my experience of Midas has been through observing the tactics of their management. It’s those tactics that seem so chart-orientated, not the band themselves.
But then, a good manager is, in effect, part of the institution that is the band. Apologies for the confusion, but I wasn’t really making a distinction between the band and their management. In my head, they’re all one team. So when I say Midas have been very clever in using new technologies, I should point out that it’s not just the collection of musicians I’m referring to.
And I don’t think bringing Viva Machine into the discussion is like comparing apples and oranges. Here’s another popular independent band with their eyes set on the big time and a management team behind them trying to make sure it happens.
I spent an afternoon with them last month for a research project I was working on, and one of the things that struck me was exactly how all about the major label deal, the stadium tours and the charts they were. Very focused and ambitious.
Upon questioning, it came around to being about wanting to make music and make a sustainable career out of it, but there had never been any question about this not being the way forward.
It struck me as surprising and noteworthy, but probably far from uncommon. It’s just that they were actually doing it, and will probably be huge as a result. It’s not a criticism.
But stylistic differences aside (slight though they may be), it does seem that Midas and Viva Machine are trying to take a very similar path, though Midas’s management are doing some new and interesting things to make sure that happens.
I prefer the music of one of those bands, and so the other one will probably be more successful and/or famous. That’s how these things seem to go.
Sep 3rd, 2007
Ant
Thanks for the clarification, lets hope that both bands do well and their respective management team help make it happen. They could start by getting them on the same bill again - they both put on a great show last time! Have a word with em’ Mr Dubber.
Sep 3rd, 2007
Jonh Ingham
Dubber - from your comments re interviewing the bands and management mentioned, there seems to be a single-minded dedication to signing with a major label. Is this so? Have they/did they consider other alternatives? I’m surprised that managers still place such value on signing to a major, with all the loss of control over your career, as well as the loss of copyrights, this entails. A friend of mine manages a very-well known band - they recently signed a deal with Universal, took a half-mill advance and recorded in a great studio (Basing St.). He has no illusions that they will see any royalties. His view is that all deals now are based on the advance and forget royalties. What chance of a new signing ever seeing a royalty cheque after they’ve paid for the recording, the video, the marketing, the stylists…not to mention the A&R or Marketing guy (probably the latter) deciding the album needs a remix or a re-recording so that it will “test” better.
Is this their carefully chosen path when so many alternatives exist? Or just lust for limos?
Sep 3rd, 2007
Sophie Smith
John makes an interesting point! I guess it depends on your contract. There’s a lot of talk about record companies becoming entertainment companies, and engaging artists in 360 deals - records, publishing, touring, merch, endorsements etc etc. You can see why they’d want to do that when it’s nigh impossible to make money from flogging overpriced pieces of silver plastic, but you’re still expected to spend hundreds of thousands on marketing and promoting it. And you can see why a record company would be a bit pissed if the band was making loads from their touring (as seems to be the case now) but were still expected to give tour support as an advance.
So I’d say, if you’re never going to recoup, and a company is still willing to give you a load of cash up front then why not take advantage of it? The irony is that your initial contract matters a lot if you get past your first 3/4 albums, but it doesn’t matter at all if you only have one hit album!
Sep 3rd, 2007
Stretch
There’s nothing wrong with pre-sales.
It’s a standard part of selling music. It messes the charts up a bit as all the pre-sales go through on the release date and if there is no ongoing momentum for sales of that band’s track, the track / band will drop straight out of the charts the following week. But so what? Why should we expect a track to sit in the chart for weeks and weeks? That’s the old way.
The new way is for a faster turnaround of music.
What is wrong, however, is trying to manipulate a track into the charts by buying it yourself. It’s always been possible (and has almost certainly happened with CD sales) to buy lots of copies from the right stores to make a dent in the charts.
With the current state of sales and with the purchase of downloads through various channels it is now much easier to fool the charts because a.) less sales are needed to get into the charts (a few hundred and you’ll probably be in there somewhere), b.) it’s cheaper to ‘hype’ than it was (tracks are as little as 77p now) and c.) there are more ways to purchase a track - so it’s easier to hide the buyer’s identity.
Our band is trying to do it the right way - by people actually liking the music and therefore then buying the track. We don’t expect it to happen overnight. It’s a gradual process. We are releasing singles. Each one sells more than the last. We’re not looking for a record deal as we have set up our own label - and we will share any future revenues from all activities. Chart ’success’ might be nice - but it’s not necessary - except as a public measure of success.
Publicity - however is the key. If people haven’t heard of you - then there’s no way they can get to like the music …
And in view of the publicity gained by ‘cheating’ the charts I’m wondering whether being the ‘good guys’ is the right approach.
Maybe it is more rock’n'roll to cheat …
http://www.Dastards.com
Sep 3rd, 2007
Eddie Johnston
Its all lover my head - but it makes an interesting read would just like to say as a Midas convert I think they are a great band….and just discovered a couple of the guys go to UCE!
Sep 3rd, 2007
Ant
Good points from Stretch, but if any band were intent on manipulation it would be very easy to hide as you say..so that very fact that Midas have not done any of this can not be ignored.
Think about it, their approach was covered in detail prior to the release date in “Music Week” for me suggests they have been nothing but completely open.
No matter what the approach; everyone is learning as things develop “mistakes” or errors of judgement will be made. But is it right to blame 5 young musicians for this?
The OCC rule makers who should get it right but do themselves get things wrong have to hold their hands up too and not hang the band out to dry. They are not chasing instant success - these guys have been around a few years now.
Given the fact that the Midas approach was well documented and in the public domain its a pitty that the OCC were not more procative in giving their advice; reacting after the event discredits everyone.
I do not think Midas had to cheat to gain attention - with Dont Dance I think the majority of regional and perhaps National stations will be familiar with the name,(see myspace the guys have regional and national pluggers) the frequency of gigs and numbers they can attract to gigs can not be ignored (not many can fill the barfly brum/baracademy brum/little civic wolves/stourbridge rock cafe… in Birmingham) - all of which has been reported; again in the Music Week industry journal and The Times on Line; because venues and promoters critics recognised what Midas are doing.
You can argue that this current situation is helping the band - but my guess is they would rather none of this was happening. Midas are the good guys, just doing their best and until now probably enjoying everyone moment including the hard slog of playing the toilet circuit, travelling up and down the country and so on!
So Stetch your band is trying to do it the right way - whatever that means and good luck to you; remember their is one acid test and thats the quality of your music, no amount of hype can make you sound better. Its the same for Midas and every other band. 10’s of thousands is spent on effective promotion or hyping is that cheating too?
On a slightly controversional note, I could argue that you have very cynically seized a “golden” opportunity to give your own band a plug via this MIDAS related thread - have to question your motives here I am afraid maybe you are not so good after all?
But perhaps jumping to conclusions is something we are all guilty of?
Sep 4th, 2007
Stretch
I didn’t ‘plug’ our band. I just put a link on to prove that we did actually HAVE a band - and so not to appear as an anonymous critic.
This is not a solely a Midas related thread - and I didn’t mention them - it’s about the charts. However, I don’t think the OCC would have acted in this instance without good reason - knowing how bad it would look for them if they were wrong.
I’m sure this story - particularly the debate about whether trying to have chart success is worth it - will run and run, and just goes to show what turmoil the music business is in.
Sep 5th, 2007
Harrison Galaxy
“The charts are rubbish. Discuss” Sounds like a cracking topic for one of your tutorial groups
My tuppence worth would be to ensure our definitions are aligned, ie: we’re talking about the Smashy & Nicey Sunday rundowns, and confirm by ‘rubbish’, that we mean something like ‘wholly inappropriate as a measure of popularity’.
If students engaged the typically taught structure of separating each vested interest to discuss from their viewpoint, I’d mark them down. The winners would, for a huge chunk of their x-thousand words, talk about this solely from the perspective of the fan. After all, without focus on the ‘consumer’, all endeavours slide.
I contend that charts as a mechanism are essential. I’d like to see music 2.0 pioneers promote new ways of charting. A new level of transparency would be beneficial using an amalgam of stats from myspace plays, ringtone downloads, facebook ilikes. Yet one stark truth remains: without fully accounting for when someone puts their hand in their pocket and trades their hard-earned for a song, any chart credibility is surely shot.
Sep 6th, 2007
Christopher Woods
I caught onto this topic quite late, but it’s made a fascinating read.
FWIW, I think that if they were indeed breaking a rule then they should have been penalised - but then, only if the OCC was then going to go and unearth all the other cases of rule-bending and slightly naughty things, and punish all people at fault equally. I hate having that feeling that the charts are almost deceiving people on a weekly basis (which I guess they’ve been doing for years and years, thinking about it) but there’s not much anybody can do about it until the practice is stopped worldwide.
Like that’ll ever happen, though…
Sep 7th, 2007
Peter Rabbit
Aside from their management posting here on the various pseudonyms to try and protect their blundering there are way too many things wrong with this situation.
Lets have some Myspace addys then can we please, “Sophie Smith” “Jane Spealer” etc etc, please come forward.
Except you cant can you?
This whole thing is a fake. Fake sales to try and conjour up fake fans and a management it seems to behind the times that they spent their lifesavings trying to gain a chart position.
There were NO people selling sim cards at gigs and this has been confirmed by several people now.
So thats the first problem.
The HMV instore was apparently a joke with people buying around 5-10 copies of the CD themselves. ( Only 3 per customer count anyway, so this is more blundering )
Through other message boards its become apparent that their management are posting under various names to try and get people talking about this.
So how comes on their Myspace no one has commented for days, or mentioned anything about this for around a week, and even then it was around 20 people, none of which mentioned buying Sim Cards at gigs.
If the OCC didnt step in then they would have been doing a very poor job.
Sep 8th, 2007
Dubber
You know, I can’t help but think that the onus of proof here is on someone who goes by what I can only assume is a pseudonym, and whose handle links to an unrelated business with the same name as the band in question…
Throwing mud anonymously undermines the veracity of your claims. I mean… is this just David Kuczora trying to start a firestorm online by playing both sides?
Sep 8th, 2007
Ant
Peter - “so how comes on there myspace no one has commented for days…..” for goodness sake, who knowns its hardly relevent. Perhaps they have contacted the band via alternative means; how long exactly do you think they should be posting about this? What is an acceptable number or how long should they continue post?
People visit myspace and post, openly or message privately none of us can predict what they will post about.Most will not post at all. Just think it a bit lame trying to count the number of posts on the band Myspace means very little and measures not a lot. Maybe the cahrts should be dictated by this particular benchmark?
Whats with the HMV stuff again? Not throwing mud here but by your maths Midas should have sold well in excess of the 300 available on the day- they did not so your comment does seem strange…apparantly a joke is a rather crass statement and for me undemines your own credibility. I am sure that Midas and Melting Ice are well aware of multiple purchasing rules - that does not mean they can control how many people buy..but again your suggestion does not hold water based on numbers of people at the launch.
Fake fans is an insult to every ones intelligence and to those of us that pay good money to go to their gigs; have you actually seen this band and for instance they response they get…..ask the promoters dont accept my word. Unfounded speculation by you does nothing to add weight to your arguement and actually puts people off from commenting on forums such as this.
Just to be clear I am not saying that the OCC were wrong but on balance I remain to be convinced that all the relevant information was factored in. Your points only serve to convince me and maybe others reading this thread.
Sep 10th, 2007
Reply to “More stuff that’s still true”