What you you think about the phemonena of opportunistic cover versions coercing record companies into premature single releases?

Personally, I think it's a good thing...

 

1. Because it takes power away from record companies

2. It's discourages piracy by allowing fans to buy music ASAP

Don't give a $h!t to be honest. If record companies want to lose sales to fakes and pirates by not releasing early that's their fault.

From the view of music buyer I think it's a good thing, obviously because I get the opportunity to buy the release earlier.

 

From the point of view of record label... I guess it's bad because they lose the power (kind of) and are forced to change their schedule.

It's a good thing obviously - music should be released as it is sent to radio (like in America).

 

Delaying it's release only encourages illegal downloading - and I've got to say that I side with the consumer on this one. Record companies need to stop using sales models from 1998.

Don't give a $h!t to be honest. If record companies want to lose sales to fakes and pirates by not releasing early that's their fault.

 

I'm guessing you ticked my slightly milder 'don't care' option, then. :P

It's a good thing, most of the covers don't chart anyway, and it makes artists to rush release their original tracks, instead of delaying it even further.

I'm guessing you ticked my slightly milder 'don't care' option, then. :P

 

Yes, I did. :kink:

Wouldn't care really as sales are more important than chart positions sometimes. But on a positive note, it's a good thing.

Agree with others it's definitely a good thing. It's left to be seen if Bruno Mars will get to no. 1 on iTunes but it's shot up the chart already within a few hours so it's bound to make the top 10 within the next couple of hours.

 

If the record company insisted on holding back its release until next week that's already one weeks sales lost as impatient people buy cheaper alternatives - or download illegaly from other websites.

 

So I partly agree with Bray that the record companies can't complain if they lose money. They should seize opportunities to release songs when they're popular, not having to wait another fortnight.

well in Bruno's case its a good thing clearly, had he stuck to 4th October he would have been denied number 1 by Robbie and Gary, now that hes releasing now, he is sure to get number 1 as with all those covers charting, it was clearly very anticipated- and thats what his record company would want

 

 

 

I dont think this is such a big deal for record companies. Theres nothing to say that people wouldnt download the cover and the the original when it became available aswell!

 

Katy Perry didnt do bad out of it with I Kissed A Girl, no.1 600,000 sales and the cover version probably barely sold 2% of that amount. Its not something I'd imagine Big Record Companies will be losing sleep over.

Yes, I did. :kink:

 

Me too!

On a related issue, has anyone here ever accidentally bought a wrong version of a song, thanks to all the cover versions floating round?

On a related issue, has anyone here ever accidentally bought a wrong version of a song, thanks to all the cover versions floating round?

I don't think anyone could mistakenly buy a cover version, could they?

 

I think they choose to because it sounds like what they hear on the radio, or saw on TV.

 

 

 

I don't think anyone could mistakenly buy a cover version, could they?

 

I think they choose to because it sounds like what they hear on the radio, or saw on TV.

 

You never know... :P

 

OK then - how about buying the wrong mix of the song you intended?

Yeah I did that with The Source :D

its their own fault for holding the releases back! its not like it used to be where you would wait for a single, people can download and want songs when they want them on hear them!