Just why are UK way behind releases |
Track this thread - Email this thread - Print this thread - Download this thread - Subscribe to this forum |
Aug 12 2014, 10:12 PM
Post
#21
|
|
BuzzJack Enthusiast
Joined: 7 March 2006
Posts: 1,496 User: 55 |
A few points to note (some of which have been alluded to above):
1. It isn't as big a deal as several years ago, as now we have Youtube, illegal downloads, fake versions, streaming etc, whereas in (say) the 1990s you pretty much had to wait until the record was released (unless you could get an expensive import copy). 2. Making everything on-air-on-sale would slow down the chart (and lead to many songs not charting as high), which would lead to people moaning that the chart is too slow and wishing things would go back to the old days. 3. A lot of held-back releases do still hang around on the chart for a decent amount of time, suggesting that they don't lose too many sales due to the release delay. 4. It is somewhat harsh to blame this situation on 'UK record companies', given that most of the (mainly non-UK) artists involved are signed to global record companies/labels. If the current situation is to change, I believe at least one of the following will need to happen: 1. I-Tunes announces a strict 'no discrimination' policy i.e. any track available in one country will also be made available in every other country. 2. I-Tunes removes all pre-orders from their chart. Perhaps they could even promote fake versions of unreleased tracks, especially if those who download fakes generally download the 'proper' track on release (I-Tunes would get 2 sales instead of 1 this way). 3. The OCC disqualifies pre-orders from the chart (especially those that are downloaded automatically on release). 4. Artists allow another record label to release any song that their main record label does not wish to release. This situation is slightly similar to what happened in 1969 (yes, I know things were somewhat different back then!) when Fontana deleted Je T'Aime ... Moi Non Plus just before it was set to hit #1 (possibly because they were embarrassed), at which point Major Minor said 'thank you very much', released the track on their label, and got a #1 in 2 weeks. |
|
|
Aug 12 2014, 11:16 PM
Post
#22
|
|
I'll just stick around and do some more damage
Joined: 14 February 2009
Posts: 115,050 User: 8,300 |
4. It is somewhat harsh to blame this situation on 'UK record companies', given that most of the (mainly non-UK) artists involved are signed to global record companies/labels. I think this is just semantics - it may not be actual British labels but it's the labels dealing with British releases. |
|
|
Aug 13 2014, 06:33 AM
Post
#23
|
|
BuzzJack Legend
Joined: 22 December 2009
Posts: 30,300 User: 10,275 |
Rented? well, sadly, it is rented, you don't own it, and the artists don't get nearly as much cash from it as sales according to those that have spoken up. The record companies seem to love it though, the cheques must be pretty convincing. But one can also think that listening to a song over and over again on Spotify might bring the artist more money in the long run. Buying a song is bigger investment at once but the profit for artist ends immediately after the payment. But this is a bit off topic here.. This post has been edited by SKOB: Aug 13 2014, 06:35 AM |
|
|
Aug 13 2014, 02:14 PM
Post
#24
|
|
UKs Biggest European Music fan
Joined: 20 March 2006
Posts: 3,831 User: 285 |
This makes record companies a dictatorship as they are trying to tell us what we should or shouldn't buy or listen to.
|
|
|
Time is now: 20th April 2024 - 02:43 AM |
Copyright © 2006 - 2024 BuzzJack.com
About | Contact | Advertise | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service