2. Actually where are these covers come from? 4-5 years ago there wasn't such a phenomenon if I remember well :wacko:

 

It's probably because of the explosion of the digital market. I used to buy compilations of currernt dance and pop hits when was on holiday in Spain in the late 90s and early 00s. Sometimes they would have the original versions, but sometimes they would have eg Johnson's version of Mmmmbop or Alex & A.'s version of Uh La La La...

It's their own fault for not realising that the artist is clearly not the real one. And for not reading the other reviews of the track right under it. You must be really stupid to buy a fake version of a song believing it to be the real version. In fact most of them say they're a tribute or cover right next to the track title - the Precision Tunes version of Payphone was alsways tagged with '(Maroon 5 Feat Wiz Khalifa Tribute)'.

Remember that 99.99% of iTunes uses aren't Buzzjack members, they don't follow every twist & turn of the iTunes chart. They may well be casual music buyers who hear a song on the radio called 'Payphone' (perhaps not even knowing the group) and look it up on iTunes. It doesn't seem unreasonable to assume that track called 'Payphone' sitting in the top 10 there is what they've heard on the radio. Not everybody has the knowledge you do, you wouldn't expect them to, so you shouldn't dismiss it as being 'their own fault'. Everybody should be able to buy music without the risk of them being duped.

It's their own fault for not realising that the artist is clearly not the real one. And for not reading the other reviews of the track right under it. You must be really stupid to buy a fake version of a song believing it to be the real version. In fact most of them say they're a tribute or cover right next to the track title - the Precision Tunes version of Payphone was alsways tagged with '(Maroon 5 Feat Wiz Khalifa Tribute)'.

 

But the purpose is still to confuse the customer,especially first time users who just maybe know the name of the song and not the artist whether its their own fault or not!

 

Its like companies in todays world selling gas to OAPs and duping them into signing a contract thats against their interests - its hardly the oaps fault. Like with most things in the post thatcher world its always assumed that free de-regulated markets are always right but the Barclays controversy has finally showed this to be nonsense!!

Edited July 4, 201212 yr by steve201

Does anyone even remember the last time we introduced a OA/OS system? The top end of the chart was very slow and boring, there were no British artists in the Top 10, new artists struggled to break the Top 40, I could go on and on for hours...

 

The charts simply wouldn't be as interesting if we introduced an OA/OS system, there would be less quirks in the charts and everything would become predictable and boring...

 

It even annoys me when established rock bands relase their stuff through OA/OS. Their new stuff does not have time to be promoted or played on the radio before it is out there for the public to buy, therefore their new stuff does not chart as well as the hype suggests. And people wonder why there isn't any rock music in the charts.

 

I say that the artists and record companies shouldn't release their stuff through OA/OS, but they should wait for two weeks for the record to be promoted and then release their stuff. Otherwise, the charts would become dry and boring...

Edited July 4, 201212 yr by Griff

Does anyone even remember the last time we introduced a OA/OS system? The top end of the chart was very slow and boring, there were no British artists in the Top 10, new artists struggled to break the Top 40, I could go on and on for hours...

 

The charts simply wouldn't be as interesting if we introduced an OA/OS system, there would be less quirks in the charts and everything would become predictable and boring...

 

It even annoys me when established rock bands relase their stuff through OA/OS. Their new stuff does not have time to be promoted or played on the radio before it is out there for the public to buy, therefore their new stuff does not chart as well as the hype suggests. And people wonder why there isn't any rock music in the charts.

 

I say that the artists and record companies shouldn't release their stuff through OA/OS, but they should wait for two weeks for the record to be promoted and then release their stuff. Otherwise, the charts would become dry and boring...

 

It didn't work because only a select few were using OA/OS. It WOULD WORK if EVERYONE was forced to use it!

It didn't work because only a select few were using OA/OS. It WOULD WORK if EVERYONE was forced to use it!

 

How can you explain the top end of the chart being slow and boring, no British artists in the Top 10, and new artists struggling to break the Top 40 then?

How can you explain the top end of the chart being slow and boring, no British artists in the Top 10, and new artists struggling to break the Top 40 then?

 

"It didn't work because only a select few were using OA/OS. It WOULD WORK if EVERYONE was forced to use it!"

Well the fact that this weeks ONLY new entry in the Top 40 is OA/OS, and the rest of the chart is basically up 1, down 1, no-move, doesn't lend much weight to Griff's argument does it..

It even annoys me when established rock bands relase their stuff through OA/OS. Their new stuff does not have time to be promoted or played on the radio before it is out there for the public to buy, therefore their new stuff does not chart as well as the hype suggests. And people wonder why there isn't any rock music in the charts.

 

Rock bands that hold their singles back tend to actually suffer worse - radio (with the exception of Radio 1) and TV don't play them so they don't gain any first week sales, and all their fans have already downloaded the song illegally by the time it's put up for sale since the majority of them don't give a stuff about the charts.

 

Linkin Park are a good example - by most measures their popularity is on the wane, their new album sold less in its first week than their previous one and there's a few websites that aren't even bothering to review their stuff any more. Yet "Burn It Down" was released OA/OS and made #27 (and actually stuck around a little) while their last lead single "The Catalyst" was held back for weeks and only made #40.

 

Other than the odd anomaly (Pumped Up Kicks, Somebody That I Used To Know and We Are Young being the main three) the only way a rock act is able to get anything resembling a hit these days is through OA/OS, as You Me At Six and Arctic Monkeys proved.

OA/OS would be better in my opinion, every song at #1 would get there deservedly and there would be very few 'non number ones'.

Taking this discussion slightly away from the UK, in Australia Pink has released her new single 'Blow Me' which has pretty much rocketed to no. 1 on their iTunes.

 

Had the track received any airplay before its release? I know Pink is pretty much one of the most successful female artists in Australia but it's still very interesting to see a new track (particularly if it's OA/OS) climb up so fast.

Taking this discussion slightly away from the UK, in Australia Pink has released her new single 'Blow Me' which has pretty much rocketed to no. 1 on their iTunes.

 

Had the track received any airplay before its release? I know Pink is pretty much one of the most successful female artists in Australia but it's still very interesting to see a new track (particularly if it's OA/OS) climb up so fast.

 

Not doing so well in the USA where it's so far only #41.

Taking this discussion slightly away from the UK, in Australia Pink has released her new single 'Blow Me' which has pretty much rocketed to no. 1 on their iTunes.

 

Had the track received any airplay before its release? I know Pink is pretty much one of the most successful female artists in Australia but it's still very interesting to see a new track (particularly if it's OA/OS) climb up so fast.

 

Nope, it was on air, on sale like pretty much everything in Australia. I said on another forum that as soon as Pink is out it'd shoot to #1 on itunes and it has :yahoo: I think Australia is probably the best example of OA/OS, its works well there because everything is released like that and radio latch onto songs extremely quickly as well.

Not doing so well in the USA where it's so far only #41.

 

Hardly surprising, given that airplay is (absurdly IMO) the dominant factor on the US singles charts, so any OAOS release starts at a huge disadvantage.

"It didn't work because only a select few were using OA/OS. It WOULD WORK if EVERYONE was forced to use it!"

 

aprilj didn't tell me about how these effects were because of a select few using OA/OS.

 

Well the fact that this weeks ONLY new entry in the Top 40 is OA/OS, and the rest of the chart is basically up 1, down 1, no-move, doesn't lend much weight to Griff's argument does it..

 

You have used ONE chart week as your example. Look at the previous chart weeks before presenting your argument to me.

 

Rock bands that hold their singles back tend to actually suffer worse - radio (with the exception of Radio 1) and TV don't play them so they don't gain any first week sales, and all their fans have already downloaded the song illegally by the time it's put up for sale since the majority of them don't give a stuff about the charts.

 

Linkin Park are a good example - by most measures their popularity is on the wane, their new album sold less in its first week than their previous one and there's a few websites that aren't even bothering to review their stuff any more. Yet "Burn It Down" was released OA/OS and made #27 (and actually stuck around a little) while their last lead single "The Catalyst" was held back for weeks and only made #40.

 

Other than the odd anomaly (Pumped Up Kicks, Somebody That I Used To Know and We Are Young being the main three) the only way a rock act is able to get anything resembling a hit these days is through OA/OS, as You Me At Six and Arctic Monkeys proved.

 

I can accept that I was wrong on this matter. :lol: It's just annoying to see established rock bands shoot straight in at a position like #22 and drop out of the Top 40 the next week. :(

Edited July 5, 201212 yr by Griff

Hardly surprising, given that airplay is (absurdly IMO) the dominant factor on the US singles charts, so any OAOS release starts at a huge disadvantage.

 

All releases are OA/OS in the USA - a brand new single by an act as big as P!nk (both Raise Your Glass and F**kin' Perfect went top 2 on the Hot 100) should be off to a much better start on iTunes. Up to #36 now anyhow.

Edited July 5, 201212 yr by BBB

The most revealing statement in the article was that the uk market is the only one that artists hold their singles back so long even ireland doesnt - it just shows how reactionary record companies have taken over the uk charts!!

 

Surely the chart is MORE predictable with held up releases chosing a week to release so like in the past month we have had held back releases perfectly released in order to avoid each other and so all claim a no1 position(even if their sales are decent in the first week). Last week being the exception when 3 BIG new releases came out(thank god Brown didnt realise Will.i.am would be such a big hit and so his 2nd mediocre song in a row deservedly didnt get to no)!!

There's a good article about fake versions in the current issue of Music Week where the author (Paul Williams) rightly points out that record labels in the UK are still trying to behave like they did in the 1990s by holding back releases of the single in order to gain a high new entry on the first week.

 

He concludes his article with an observation that has been repeated here many times:

 

What is unarguable, however, is the decision to hold back such in-demand tracks for so long in the UK has resulted in many thousands of music fans instead turning to sound-a-like versions flooding the market. It is highly likely some of these purchases were made mistakenly with buyers thinking they were getting the original version rather than a copy. Still, at least these purchasers decided to follow a legitimate route. Undoubtedly others, rather than waiting for the Maroon 5 version to go on sale, simply downloaded it illegally.

 

The UK music industry just never learns does it?

Last week being the exception when 3 BIG new releases came out(thank god Brown didnt realise Will.i.am would be such a big hit and so his 2nd mediocre song in a row deservedly didnt get to no)!!

 

I have a feeling you're going to be distraught at 7pm on Sunday evening. :cry:

I will be lol a hold for william or a 2nd week for maroon 5 would be good. It will however be the ultimate non no1 imo because its sales have simply stayed more steady than the other 2 with falling sales and no doubt brown will benefit from his new album only just being out.

 

I wouldnt mind if it was Beautiful People or something good but his past 2 songs have been instantly forgetable!