why are people expecting the winners of the x factor to reinvent music, bruno mars is having huge success this year but to me he is an avergae singing and none of his songs are ground breaking. why are people not attacking him?

 

Exactly. Bruno Mars isn't doing anything new, yet everybody around the world has fallen in love with him very recently for some reason. Same with Lady Gaga and others. I've never really got this to be honest.

Sorry to drag up the bird campaign/facebook again, but, this actually made me LOL!!!

 

Facts are Harry, radio 1 always publish a midweeker all year round & in the 99% majority of cases it never reflects the sunday outcome.

 

There you have it guys, 99% of the time, the midweeks chart never reflects the Sunday charts.

Sorry to drag up the bird campaign/facebook again, but, this actually made me LOL!!!

There you have it guys, 99% of the time, the midweeks chart never reflects the Sunday charts.

 

PMSL :rofl: Can someone give that utter moron a medal for the best post of the week.

Sorry to drag up the bird campaign/facebook again, but, this actually made me LOL!!!

There you have it guys, 99% of the time, the midweeks chart never reflects the Sunday charts.

Said I wouldn't comment on that any more and haven't been on the page in a while but: :rofl:

 

Is there still a couple banging on about, don't believe the midweeks, we are NOT 200k behind that was wednesday?

 

They are absolutely correct.

 

They ARE no longer 200K behind.

 

They are further behind than 200K now. (Almost certainly)

 

Many bookies have closed their book now they're convinced the race is won. I'd be obliged to agree ^_^

Invincible #15 on iTunes surely must be top 30 by Sunday, and then hopefully top 10 next week.

The Silence has dropped 19places so far.. :unsure:

Hope things stay as they are in top 5 on album chart. Rihanna :heart: Her biggest album yet for sure.

Come ON Bon Jovi keep moving on up, i like its movement in the last 2 updates, hopefully 85,000 + for it this week.

Sorry to drag up the bird campaign/facebook again, but, this actually made me LOL!!!

There you have it guys, 99% of the time, the midweeks chart never reflects the Sunday charts.

Well, they're sort of right. I'm not sure whether the whole of Sunday's top 40 has ever been exactly the same as Wednesday's midweek top 40. Even if they both contain ther same 40 songs they won't all be in the same order.

Sorry to drag up the bird campaign/facebook again, but, this actually made me LOL!!!

There you have it guys, 99% of the time, the midweeks chart never reflects the Sunday charts.

 

True fact, but I think he means it in a way that the top 3 can change, which would happen sometimes on a normal week but this week nothing is moving.

 

Anyway, the whole top 9 is X Factor Related.

 

1 - Matt Cardle - Winner of X Factor

2 - Rihanna ft Drake - Performed on X Factor Saturday Final

3 - Trashmen - Anti X Factor Campaign

4 - Black Eyed Peas - Performed on X Factor Semi Final

5 - Ellie Goulding - On John Lewis Advert, advert showed on X Factor

6 - Take That - Performed on X Factor Sunday Final

7 - Biffy Clyro - Original of Matt's song

8 - Rihanna - Only Girl was performed on X Factor sometime last month

9 - Willow - Whip My Hair was on the TalkTalk advert on X Factor final

 

Only song in top ten not X Factor related is Michael Jackson - Hold My Hand

True fact, but I think he means it in a way that the top 3 can change, which would happen sometimes on a normal week but this week nothing is moving.

 

Anyway, the whole top 9 is X Factor Related.

 

1 - Matt Cardle - Winner of X Factor

2 - Rihanna ft Drake - Performed on X Factor Saturday Final

3 - Trashmen - Anti X Factor Campaign

4 - Black Eyed Peas - Performed on X Factor Semi Final

5 - Ellie Goulding - On John Lewis Advert, advert showed on X Factor

6 - Take That - Performed on X Factor Sunday Final

7 - Biffy Clyro - Original of Matt's song

8 - Rihanna - Only Girl was performed on X Factor sometime last month

9 - Willow - Whip My Hair was on the TalkTalk advert on X Factor final

 

Only song in top ten not X Factor related is Michael Jackson - Hold My Hand

 

One Direction also performed 'Your Song' on the X Factor

Rihanna would be an awful xmas number 1, eventhough its a great song

Rihanna would be an awful xmas number 1, eventhough its a great song

 

Actually it'd be good for a 'normal' song to get xmas number 1 for once, the last time a 'normal' song went to xmas number one was 2003 - Michael Andrews & Gary Jules 'Mad World' Since then there was Band Aid 20 then 4 years of X Factor and 1 year of Anti X Factor.

Sorry to drag up the bird campaign/facebook again, but, this actually made me LOL!!!

There you have it guys, 99% of the time, the midweeks chart never reflects the Sunday charts.

Yeah, the midweeks chart must be the US chart :heehee:

How many new artists make it to 3 albums, very few. they have their 15 minutes and then get dropped. the record companies aren't out to lose money, no matter who it is. Apart from about 10% of all artists they are dissposable cash cows, and once the milk run dry they are gone. X factor is no different.

 

As for your last line, the winners of x factor aren't established artists so why compare them to the likes of britney ect who are?

 

Like with every new artist syco hopes the winner of the x factor will build a large fanbase quickly, because if they don't they will be losing money from them. every once in a while it happens (leona lewis, susan boyle, kelly clarkson) but it is only once in a while it happens away from x factor anyway (lady gaga, katy perry and rihanna).

 

Sammy01 you are so right, thank you. you have just made the ultimate quote regarding everything that is wrong with the modern music industry. You have put into words what I & no doubt many have been thinking for so long.

 

Meet me at the pub & I will get you a drink.

Sammy01 you are so right, thank you. you have just made the ultimate quote regarding everything that is wrong with the modern music industry. You have put into words what I & no doubt many have been thinking for so long.

 

Meet me at the pub & I will get you a drink.

 

? How is that "everything wrong with the modern music industry"?

 

All it means is that artists have to release songs that people like. If people like the songs, they sell a lot, and the artist can proceed to release more singles/albums. If the general public consistently aren't liking an artist's music, they won't buy it. The artist won't be making much money anymore, possibly a loss, so they get dropped.

 

Makes sense to me. Do you know anything about basic economics? It's supply and demand. If there's no demand for a particular artist, or a particular genre of music at a given time, it will not be supplied to the mainstream, at that particular time.

 

40 years ago, in the charts, different types of music were in demand. Genres such as rock were far more popular, and more dominating. There was higher demand for rock music, so it was supplied more. Now there's lower demand for rock music, and higher demand for electronica, RnB, pop, hip hop, dance, etc. music, so those types of songs are supplied more.

 

What's wrong with this? There's still plenty of obscure music out there for the contrarians. Infact, in this era, the "obscure" music is more available than ever before. Ever heard of youtube? :lol:

? How is that "everything wrong with the modern music industry"?

 

All it means is that artists have to release songs that people like. If people like the songs, they sell a lot, and the artist can proceed to release more singles/albums. If the general public consistently aren't liking an artist's music, they won't buy it. The artist won't be making much money anymore, possibly a loss, so they get dropped.

David Bowie had 1 hit off his 2nd album and no more until his 4th. By your logic the classic Ziggy Stardust and many others of his would never have existed and one of the defining artists of his generation and indeed all time may well have ended up in a dead end job with no musical career. The same could be said for Velvet Underground, U2, Prince, Bruce Springsteen, Nirvana, The Cure, Human League, Metallica and yes even Madonna.

 

Maybe you have to give a talented artist time to grow and find their feet?????

David Bowie had 1 hit off his 2nd album and no more until his 4th. By your logic the classic Ziggy Stardust and many others of his would never have existed and one of the defining artists of his generation and indeed all time may well have ended up in a dead end job with no musical career. The same could be said for Velvet Underground, U2, Prince, Bruce Springsteen, Nirvana, The Cure, Human League, Metallica and yes even Madonna.

 

Maybe you have to give a talented artist time to grow and find their feet?????

 

So do you think it's right that artists can fail to make good music for years, and still be signed to the best record labels? If they do a couple of dreadful consecutive eras, they should have to re-climb their way back into the mainstream, just like they had to do the first time around.

 

For example, if the next 3 Black Eyed Peas albums were dreadful, do you think they would still deserve to be playlisted by nearly every radio station in the country after that? Then, if they started getting good music again, they'd have to start from the bottom, and climb their way up again (although it would be easier the 2nd time round, since I'm sure people would still remember them). (NOTE: This is just an example, I think the new BEP album is okay, and I adore them as a group).

 

Some artists get like a 5 album contract or something, where they're guaranteed to have 5 of their albums promoted. So they could have a couple of dreadful albums in the middle I suppose, but if the last one is amazing they could get their contract extended.

 

Joe McElderry's most recent single charted at #60-something in the charts. If he kept releasing singles for the next couple of years, and they kept selling only a few thousand copies, do you think he should still have the luxury of being signed? Do you think, perhaps, if Joe knows he'll be safely signed for years, no matter what he does, that he might not be motivated to release better material? Do you think, perhaps, his label could drop him, and take on another un-signed artist who's also getting their singles charting low top-75, except with much less promotion? (Again, Joe is an example, this can apply to lots of other artists).

 

I don't know the history of some of those artists in-depth. I know many of their songs, but I wouldn't be able to say which singles come from which albums, etc. However, there is no reason why they couldn't continue making music if they got dropped. Just like they made music before they got signed in the first place. Just like a plethora of other artists who aren't signed make music. There is no reason why, if their music got good enough again, they couldn't get another contract.

Edited December 18, 201015 yr by Eric_Blob

So do you think it's right that artists can fail to make good music for years, and still be signed to the best record labels? If they do a couple of dreadful consecutive eras, they should have to re-climb their way back into the mainstream, just like they had to do the first time around.

 

For example, if the next 3 Black Eyed Peas albums were dreadful, do you think they would still deserve to be playlisted by nearly every radio station in the country after that? Then, if they started getting good music again, they'd have to start from the bottom, and climb their way up again (although it would be easier the 2nd time round, since I'm sure people would still remember them). (NOTE: This is just an example, I think the new BEP album is okay, and I adore them as a group).

 

Some artists get like a 5 album contract or something, where they're guaranteed to have 5 of their albums promoted. So they could have a couple of dreadful albums in the middle I suppose, but if the last one is amazing they could get their contract extended.

 

Joe McElderry's most recent single charted at #60-something in the charts. If he kept releasing singles for the next couple of years, and they kept selling only a few thousand copies, do you think he should still have the luxury of being signed? Do you think, perhaps, if Joe knows he'll be safely signed for years, no matter what he does, that he might not be motivated to release better material? Do you think, perhaps, his label could drop him, and take on another un-signed artist who's also getting their singles charting low top-75, except with much less promotion? (Again, Joe is an example, this can apply to lots of other artists).

 

I don't know the history of some of those artists in-depth. I know many of their songs, but I wouldn't be able to say which singles come from which albums, etc. However, there is no reason why they couldn't continue making music if they got dropped. Just like they made music before they got signed in the first place. Just like a plethora of other artists who aren't signed make music. There is no reason why, if their music got good enough again, they couldn't get another contract.

You've missed the point. The point is that the artists Severin mentioned were retained by their record labels for their potential. The decision whether to keep them on was not made entirely by the money men. It was made in part by people who were able to look a few years ahead and say "OK so they may not be doing brilliantly now but the potential is there for this act to be great. Stick with them and they could make us a lot of money in years to come". Simon Cowell will never do that because he has no musical vision. He sees only pound signs.

 

Any news on how Duffy's album is doing this week?

I don't know the history of some of those artists in-depth. I know many of their songs, but I wouldn't be able to say which singles come from which albums, etc. However, there is no reason why they couldn't continue making music if they got dropped. Just like they made music before they got signed in the first place. Just like a plethora of other artists who aren't signed make music. There is no reason why, if their music got good enough again, they couldn't get another contract.

 

Some great debate going on here & its been a pleasure to read.

 

It appears from whats been said above that X factor winners (the vast majority) dont have the ability to bounce back from poor sales. Where the artists mentioned above have made successfull come backs is because they have to a degree creative talent.

 

Without the full backing of a lable X factor contestants tend to be screwed. These people are not song writers, bed room producers or even singers in pub bands.

 

Most of them prior to fame do very regular jobs with little to no involvment with music at all.

 

If for example the black eyed peas had a slump & got dropped by there lable then no doubt there would be a good chance of a comback as there is a very strong creative force behind the band. Failing that Will.I.Am would no doubt make a career in production.

 

Poor old Joe Mceldry is going to be back working in Tesco(this is an example)

 

Record companys know this & thats why some artits are given more time to come up with the goods. Amy Winehouse is still signed & when was her last album released? Though whether she remains sober for long enough to mske another one remains to be seen.

 

 

 

 

You've missed the point. The point is that the artists Severin mentioned were retained by their record labels for their potential. The decision whether to keep them on was not made entirely by the money men. It was made in part by people who were able to look a few years ahead and say "OK so they may not be doing brilliantly now but the potential is there for this act to be great. Stick with them and they could make us a lot of money in years to come". Simon Cowell will never do that because he has no musical vision. He sees only pound signs.

Absolutely.

 

Eric's post also seems to assume that if an artist makes good music they will be very successful whereas often the reverse is true especially in the singles chart. The public will largely buy any old crap if you give it a sexy singer, a flashy video, put it on heavy rotation and get some characterless DJs to tell the world it's the future of music. Just look at acts like Sigue Sigue Sputnik, Scouting For Girls, Flo Rida, Jason Donovan etc Yet an artist like Velvet Underground, or Nick Drake can release consistently brilliant ground breaking records that actually change the way people the world over make music and yet never get a sniff of the chart success.

If records companies through history had dropped all the acts that didn't sell well after 2 albums I shudder to think what music would be like today