I've kind of taken somewhat of a dissenting viewpoint on the campaign, but I wasn't sure why the whole thing niggled at me so much. Over the last two days I've had the following Twitter conversation:
Sunday, 20th December, around 7pm
Sigh, everyone gets this number 1 thing wrong. In a normal week people who want a song buy it. Once. And no-one buys a song to get it to number 1. In this instance, people bought a song as a protest, to make a point. All they've managed to do is PROVE is that the charts don't represent their buying habits unless they make a conscious decision to artificially alter them. Outcome - yeah, you CAN orchestrate a campaign to get a single to the top. However, without the multiple purchases and organisation, Joe would have walked it because people like his track. Not me, but a sizeable majority of the music buying public.
I love your podcast, I love that one track by your band that I’ve heard, I have a great deal of respect for you, and like you in as much as it is possible to like a person you don’t really *know*. But I’ve got to say, when it comes to the whole RATM for christmas #1 thing, you’re talking out of your arse.
Which is no terrible thing, we all do it now and again, I do it myself a lot. A *lot*.
See though, here’s the thing: the sales bump for Rage’s Killing In The Name is indeed artificially generated; but you seem to be under the impression that the X-Factor single’s sales *aren’t*. The X-Factor single reaps the benefits of the entire X-Factor PR machine; as such it’s had several weeks of prime-time advertising, in the shape of an hour-long TV show every Friday and Saturday night; It’s been the subject of tabloid centre spreads and gossip rag scandal features; it’s been thoroughly and deliberately pushed into every corner of the British media since months before it was even recorded, before it was even decided who would be singing the damn thing. That’s not artificial? *Really*?
Yes, Rage’s christmas number one is an artficially generated hit. Of course it is. That’s the *point*.
This morning, when I actually got round to reading David's message and responding, I replied with this:
Heh, I know most people don't agree with me - my main point is that most times the number 1 is there due to a certain number of people buying it ONCE each - if you buy multiple times all you prove is that that's what was necessary to achieve a number 1.
I know x-factor has an inordinate amount of advertising, although I wouldn't say an unfair amount - that would imply it was free, whereas the Xmas single really doesn't make them any money - it's designed to be the best possible launchpad for the winner of the show, and from a business POV this makes sense, since the rest of the year nobody cares who is at the top of the charts anymore, but everyone is aware on some level of the Xmas number 1. Overall, people are painting this as a victory for REAL MUSIC over whatever sort of music they think Joe McElderry sings. In reality it shows that the Internet, and social media in particular, can be galvanised into ACTUALLY doing something. We just need to figure out how to get that 'something' to be significant, and not just a petty chart squabble.Imagine getting those people to Vote in the next General Election, or to give directly to charity! We live in exciting and interesting times - I just think we can do better than getting a sweaty record to the top of the charts. How about this for optimistic: we, the people of the Internet, are going to exercise OUR will to effect some of the social change that is demanded in the songs of Rage Against The Machine, rather than use our time getting one of their songs played on Christmas Day. Now that would be a campaign to be proud of.
(edited to fix an iPhone auto-correct error, and to correct a flub that actually says the opposite of what I meant. Look, I fixed it to make me not sound like a dick, ok?)
(I know, I'd need to delete myself from the internet to achieve that)
So that's my position on the whole thing, and why I didn't participate - I'm not really a 'joiner', especially for anything where the campaign centres around subjective notions of 'real music'. I don't care about the charts, whether it's my favourite band in the world at the top or The Ketchup Song - it's meaningless in the grand scheme of things. However, I'm fascinated by the way people were able to get such a large number of participants to repeatedly buy something they already owned. The sense of ownership in the outcome for participants was palpable at 7pm last night - most people were claiming that 'We' did it, and indeed 'We' did - it almost definitely wasn't the idea of Rage Against The Machine to attempt a coup of the Christmas number one, nor did they really engage in the PR campaign that would be required to get to the top position in a regular week, let alone this one.
It really is a victory then, but not for RATM, and definitely not for 'real music', a concept so woolly and elitist that it's obviously full of shit.
I have a problem with the notion that many put forward though, including myself, that this is a turning point in the importance of social media. I actually, honestly, truly believe that people care more about music than they do politics, famine, racism, war, the environment, poverty, disease... you name it. It's probably not possible to get the same swell of support for these causes as a non-committal, just-for-a-laugh musical one. And that's pretty sad.
Shelter will benefit by around £70,000 from this year's British Number One, mainly down to the initiative of the RATM campaign organisers who asked people to donate when they bought the track. Rage Against The Machine have also pledged to donate some of their royalties, though it remains to be seen how much that will be. However, if all the purchases of Killing In The Name, which people could clearly afford, were actually cash donations for the smallest amount you could pay to get the track, i.e. 29p, that would have translated into double the benefit to the charity - £140,000. OK, it does't sound like much when you put it like that, but it would make a huge difference to Shelter. But Joe McElderry would have been on TOTP on Christmas Day celebrating being Number 1, and for some people this is a Darfur-like injustice that can never be permitted... To his credit, he's accepting defeat a lot more gracefully than I think the RATM supporters would have had the result been different.
In contrast, the X-Factor released a charity single, a cover of Michael Jackson's You Are Not Alone, in October. The figures aren't in yet for the amount raised, but last year's charity single, a cover of Mariah Carey's Hero raised over £1 milliion for Gt. Ormonde Street Hospital, so it's kind of pernicious to claim the moral high-ground when, in this instance, Cowell and the X-Factor are seemingly better at organising fund-raising for charities than the RATM Campaign.
I've nothing else to rant about, really. I understand that most people's reasons for supporting the campaign are mischievous or based on some sort of misguided belief in a 'real music' ideal, and these feelings don't translate to supporting charity or social change...
I'm just a wee bit jaded by the whole thing.
