Backing new British acts rather than established American ones?

 

I swear people use their personal preferences to bitch about R1. Sure, you might not like everything that their playlist but who gives a shit? I don't rant about Capital being outrageously fickle all the time just because I don't like some of the music they play.

 

Its about inconsistency not personal preference. Why playlist Olly Murs and Cher Lloyd for example and refuse to play Alexandra Burke? I'm not a fan of hers by any means but she has more talent than the two of them put together. Swagger Jagger is one of the worst pieces of music I have ever heard and despite massive hype had a very short chart run. What is their thought process? I just don't like how pompous they are deciding what they think the public should like. Which is why I stopped listening years ago. To not playlist something is one thing but to try and justify it to the nation with sarky comments is quite another.

Its about inconsistency not personal preference. Why playlist Olly Murs and Cher Lloyd for example and refuse to play Alexandra Burke? I'm not a fan of hers by any means but she has more talent than the two of them put together. Swagger Jagger is one of the worst pieces of music I have ever heard and despite massive hype had a very short chart run. What is their thought process? I just don't like how pompous they are deciding what they think the public should like. Which is why I stopped listening years ago. To not playlist something is one thing but to try and justify it to the nation with sarky comments is quite another.

I'd say it was because Cher is a newer artist, as is Olly Murs so they will always be kept on there for a bit.

 

Also, Swagger Jagger was only on their C-List. They obviously realised that a lot of their audience didn't like it but there was still demand for it, so they only played it occasionally. Her new more appealing single is now understandable further up the list.

Its about inconsistency not personal preference. Why playlist Olly Murs and Cher Lloyd for example and refuse to play Alexandra Burke? I'm not a fan of hers by any means but she has more talent than the two of them put together. Swagger Jagger is one of the worst pieces of music I have ever heard and despite massive hype had a very short chart run. What is their thought process? I just don't like how pompous they are deciding what they think the public should like. Which is why I stopped listening years ago. To not playlist something is one thing but to try and justify it to the nation with sarky comments is quite another.

 

You're still using your personal opinion to try and justify your assertions.

My problem with what they did with Alexandra Burke, etc. was that they said they'll never playlist anything she does. So she could release Someone Like You, or Bad Romance, or Boom Boom Pow (:lol:), and they still wouldn't playlist it, whatever she does. That seems a bit unfair. They should just base it on the songs (so imo they should say they won't playlist All Night Long because it's too generic, Start Without You because it's too gimmicky, The Silence because it doesn't appeal to their audience, but they'll consider her future singles incase she does anything worth playlisting, rather than just automatically deciding not to playlist songs which they haven't even heard yet).

They're not 'deciding what the public should like'. They're playing what THEY like. And if that happens to influence what the public likes then they must be doing something right, because if the public didn't like it, they wouldn't have such a big influence.

 

If the entire country suddenly started following your musical tastes, would you start liking songs you hate just because other people like them? Would you stop listening to unpopular songs that you love because by liking them you're 'deciding what the public should like'?

Edited October 7, 201113 yr by Bré

I'd say it was because Cher is a newer artist, as is Olly Murs so they will always be kept on there for a bit.

 

Also, Swagger Jagger was only on their C-List. They obviously realised that a lot of their audience didn't like it but there was still demand for it, so they only played it occasionally. Her new more appealing single is now understandable further up the list.

 

Point taken but with so few songs on the playlist why does she deserve it at all? Just playing devils advocate as I am a fan of neither but why is she higher up the list than say Matt Cardle who again can at least sing and did win the show? I just can't understand how they think that's all. Its like they enjoy having the power of what they can or can't make a hit and when something like MLJ is a massive hit regardless they resort to demeaning it.

It's not Radio 1 as a whole that's 'demeaning it', it's just Chris Moyles who is a complete twat and this is nothing out of the ordinary for him (I do like his show, but he is a twat). One DJ on a radio station does not represent the whole station, even if he is the most well-known DJ.

They don't play bands who existed before 2005 :( sad reality but Maroon 5 are apparently "too old" and "unrelevent to youth" as they're trying to be a youth station even though their main listening audience is apparently 30+ and Radio 1Xtra is supposed to be the youth station.

 

But I actually thought they had playlisted it!! It's good though when a song they don't touch does well as it embarrasses them! Sometimes they then suddenly add them to their playlist like with Olly Murs and Parade after realizing they're popular

Point taken but with so few songs on the playlist why does she deserve it at all? Just playing devils advocate as I am a fan of neither but why is she higher up the list than say Matt Cardle who again can at least sing and did win the show? I just can't understand how they think that's all. Its like they enjoy having the power of what they can or can't make a hit and when something like MLJ is a massive hit regardless they resort to demeaning it.

I'd say that's just demographics. Cher, along with One Direction, were far more popular with the younger voters and viewers, those who are Radio 1's demographic. It's the same reason why Matt's singles will be played far more on Radio 2 than anything One Direction or Cher Lloyd make, his voters were made up of a far larger percentage of Radio 2's target audience.

They're not 'deciding what the public should like'. They're playing what THEY like. And if that happens to influence what the public likes then they must be doing something right, because if the public didn't like it, they wouldn't have such a big influence.

 

If the entire country suddenly started following your musical tastes, would you start liking songs you hate just because other people like them? Would you stop listening to unpopular songs that you love because by liking them you're 'deciding what the public should like'?

 

Is Radio 1 not funded by the licence fee? Surely they are providing a public service? So if Chris Moyles doesnt think much of a song he won't play it even though the majority of the public disagree. As I said before I think it's about inconsistency not musical taste. They are deciding to a degree what the public will like because just like other radio stations (Heart etc are just as bad) if something is not played and therefore not heard it has a far lesser chance of selling does it not? You can't like what you can't hear.

In what way does it 'embarrass' them when they don't playlist a song that becomes a hit? I can sort of get where some of these anti-R1-snubbing-MLJ arguments are coming from but this one I don't understand in the slightest. I'm pretty sure they don't care.

Two things I think are incorrect in this topic.

 

1. Swagger Jagger was on the B-List for a while (not just C-List).

2. Chris Moyles, in my opinion at least, was belittling the playlist people, not the song.

Is Radio 1 not funded by the licence fee? Surely they are providing a public service? So if Chris Moyles doesnt think much of a song he won't play it even though the majority of the public disagree. As I said before I think it's about inconsistency not musical taste. They are deciding to a degree what the public will like because just like other radio stations (Heart etc are just as bad) if something is not played and therefore not heard it has a far lesser chance of selling does it not? You can't like what you can't hear.

 

You can't like what you can't hear, but you can like what you do hear and Radio 1 does an awful lot for allowing people to hear songs that no other radio stations would touch. And again, if people didn't like what they were hearing on Radio 1, they'd stop listening to it and it'd lose its influence over the charts. The fact it has such a big influence just proves that they're doing the right thing. For every big hit that they don't playlist there's probably at least 10 big hits that owe their success almost entirely to Radio 1 playing them when no one else would. Besides, it's not like Moves Like Jagger is suffering from lack of airplay. It's been airplay #1 for quite a few weeks. Plenty of songs become big radio and chart hits with zero support from Radio 1.

 

And I don't see why they should change the policy they've had regarding their playlist ever since the beginning of the station just because it's funded by the licence fee. If every single influential station in the country played nothing but existing hits non-stop it'd become practically impossible for new artists to break through and the charts would crawl at snail's pace.

 

People just need to accept that Radio 1 will snub big hits sometimes - and also that Chris Moyles is in no way representative of Radio 1 as a whole. It's not like they're ignoring all the big hits. The vast majority of big hits do get playlisted despite being under no obligation to be. Why complain about the very rare occasions when they don't?

Edited October 7, 201113 yr by Bré

Is Radio 1 not funded by the licence fee? Surely they are providing a public service? So if Chris Moyles doesnt think much of a song he won't play it even though the majority of the public disagree. As I said before I think it's about inconsistency not musical taste. They are deciding to a degree what the public will like because just like other radio stations (Heart etc are just as bad) if something is not played and therefore not heard it has a far lesser chance of selling does it not? You can't like what you can't hear.

Yes, R1 is funded by the licence fee but its remit is to cater for a young audience. That's why the Chart Show is so juvenile. Sadly, it's aimed almost entirely at a young audience and not chart fans.

In what way does it 'embarrass' them when they don't playlist a song that becomes a hit? I can sort of get where some of these anti-R1-snubbing-MLJ arguments are coming from but this one I don't understand in the slightest. I'm pretty sure they don't care.

 

It doesn't 'embarrass' them, I agree, but you can tell with some DJs that it bothers them that the track is doing well. But I'm mainly thinking of Chris Moyles and Reggie who shouldn't be allowed on radio to begin with. This week I heard Greg James and Annie Mac both mention MLJ without trying to pretend it's not there (Reggie) or completely slagging it off (Moyles). That is why I regard them as professionals.

 

And this doesn't have much to do with the debate but IMO 'young' people must have shocking taste in music if Cher Lloyd is catered to them. I don't like not fitting in the 'young' category either when I'm only 23. I still think people as old as I am should fit into Radio 1's target audience.

Edited October 7, 201113 yr by T Boy

They snubbed Cascada until Evacuate The Dancefloor in 2009. That was suprising and I remember they playlisted one or two of their follow up songs too. Now they are back to snubbing them though :lol: Just depends if you are in with the right music direction at the time.

It doesn't 'embarrass' them, I agree, but you can tell with some DJs that it bothers them that the track is doing well. But I'm mainly thinking of Chris Moyles and Reggie who shouldn't be allowed on radio to begin with. This week I heard Greg James and Annie Mac both mention MLJ without trying to pretend it's not there (Reggie) or completely slagging it off (Moyles). That is why I regard them as professionals.

 

And this doesn't have much to do with the debate but IMO 'young' people must have shocking taste in music if Cher Lloyd is catered to them. I don't like not fitting in the 'young' category either when I'm only 23. I still think people as old as I am should fit into Radio 1's target audience.

I think Cher caters for the younger part of their 16-25 core. I know of no one my age that doesn't hate it but my brothers group of friends quite liked Swagger Jagger. I'd say as a 22 year old that from the tastes of the majority of my friends Radio 1's playlist is pretty much right.

I will admit, it really does bug me how certain artists are 'blacklisted' by them and will never get a chance no matter what they do, I would prefer them to consider the actual SONGS more than the artists and their profile etc.

It doesn't 'embarrass' them, I agree, but you can tell with some DJs that it bothers them that the track is doing well. But I'm mainly thinking of Chris Moyles and Reggie who shouldn't be allowed on radio to begin with. This week I heard Greg James and Annie Mac both mention MLJ without trying to pretend it's not there (Reggie) or completely slagging it off (Moyles). That is why I regard them as professionals.

 

And this doesn't have much to do with the debate but IMO 'young' people must have shocking taste in music if Cher Lloyd is catered to them. I don't like not fitting in the 'young' category either when I'm only 23. I still think people as old as I am should fit into Radio 1's target audience.

 

It probably bothers them more because they don't like it than because they're embarrassed that R1 didn't playlist it though. If I were a radio DJ I'd be extremely reluctant to play Moves Like Jagger. I'd try not to openly slag it off but I wouldn't exactly give it a massively enthusiastic introduction.

I will admit, it really does bug me how certain artists are 'blacklisted' by them and will never get a chance no matter what they do, I would prefer them to consider the actual SONGS more than the artists and their profile etc.

 

Now this is actually a valid criticism of Radio 1's playlist - it is a bit stupid that they'll supposedly never playlist anything by Alexandra Burke or Enrique Iglesias etc. presumably even if they change their style of music drastically and make it sound identical to some of the artists they do love. This needs to be changed and they should base their playlist choices based on the song for everyone without just excluding certain artists.

 

Although I do think they may eventually take some of these artists at least temporarily off their blacklist anyway. They supported 'She Wolf' quite heavily completely out of the blue (before going straight back to ignoring Shakira afterwards). Maybe the same could happen with an Alexandra/Enrique song in the future.