Yeah, I think some songs that appeal to adult audiences can appeal to 15-29 year-olds aswell (i.e. have crossover appeal). Like Somebody That I Used to Know and We Are Young for example. Robbie's song could be one of them aswell. I think it's good, and he's definitely not a singer that Radio 1 should completely black-list imo. Radio 1 should just do it on a song-by-song basis imo.

I think most 29 year olds would rather listen to Robbie than, say, One Direction

Don't expect 'Candy' to be joining this list. Radio 1 have banned Robbie from their playlist because he is too old.

 

Too old???? He's only 38 for God's sake!!! He's not Elton John or something.... Maroon 5 and Coldplay lead singers are almostvthe same age as him so it's not relevant... Train's lead singer is older than 45... An they were all A-listed.....

Ugh, the 'relevance' debate, anything can become relevant if Radio 1 wished to make it so, such is the power that they have. Moves Like Jagger 'wasn't relevant' either according to them, despite selling well over a million copies and being near universally adored by people of all ages. I do appreciate Radio 1 for the most part, and like others have said, their playlist is better than most (Heart's is WOEFUL), but in Robbie's case, and in the case of MLJ, it really wouldn't harm them to hold up their hands and say 'this time we made a mistake', rather than blacklisting any future release by them. Maroon 5's music was reinstated to 'relevance' after the success of MJL so let's see if they ever playlist Robbie again. I hope this means that future Take That singles aren't blanked, but it wouldn't surprise me. An artist is as relevant as their current release imo, a 'one size fits all' approach is completely useless.

Radio 1 don't have to playlist everything, and they certainly don't need to playlist things like Moves Like Jagger and Candy which simply don't need their exposure anyway. They playlist a huge proportion of hits so there's no problem at all with them not playing one or two every now and again, that added exposure is far better given to acts that won't get played elsewhere. This will be Candy's 8th week in the airplay chart without going below #11, it simply doesn't need their airplay and they certainly don't need to playlist anything so ridiculously overexposed anyway. Where they go wrong is trying to ignore the existence of these songs entirely.

Radio 1 don't have to playlist everything, and they certainly don't need to playlist things like Moves Like Jagger and Candy which simply don't need their exposure anyway. They playlist a huge proportion of hits so there's no problem at all with them not playing one or two every now and again, that added exposure is far better given to acts that won't get played elsewhere. This will be Candy's 8th week in the airplay chart without going below #11, it simply doesn't need their airplay and they certainly don't need to playlist anything so ridiculously overexposed anyway. Where they go wrong is trying to ignore the existence of these songs entirely.

 

It's not the fact that they're not playlisting them that irritates me, it's the fact that they build these personal vendettas against these songs that become huge without their support. Presenters laughing on air at the success of Start Without You and Moves Like Jagger, making out that anybody that bought these songs were idiots. And then their whole 'relevance' thing, which is essentially ageism for the most part, whether they want to admit it or not. Candy is WAY more relevant to the general public than Radio ever was back in 2004, and that got a-listed. Surely each song should be taken at face value, and not the artist behind it? And as for Euphoria not being relevant enough to playlist...it went top 3 off the back of one TV performance, was relevant enough to go to #1 across Europe and was a more credible dance song than half of those that they do playlist. The Eurovision tag is what apparently made it irrelevant, yet Sam & The Womp's Moldovan entry-esque Bom Bom was a huge A-listed smash, and WAY more cheesy than Euphoria could dream of being.

 

I just always think back to a chart from late 1998 where the top four were new entries by Cher, George Michael, U2 and Culture Club who must have had an average age of about 43 at the time, yet I expect all four got Radio 1 support at the time, I wonder at what point it was that everybody started to become irrelevant as soon as they reached their mid 30s (with a few exceptions - David Guetta although aging DJ's seem to get away with things more than pop acts, Train, J.Lo's On The Floor, Kylie's All The Lovers - but most of these are Radio 2 fare now).

Not only don't Radio 1 play "old" act, but they don't like acts with a big gay audience - that was one reason they gave for not play-listing Madonna, aside from the age issue. It's completely stupid because NO-ONE decides not to buy a song just because the artist is "old" or has a "gay fan-base".

I'm not really sure what the above post is about - where did you hear radio 1 were anti-gay?!

 

As fgor Candy yes they maybe should have playlisted it but i think they thought with radio 2 having the first play of it and they alisted it for 6 weeks before release they didnt need to play it and made room in the list for a newer artist to give them a chance!

I don't think radio 1 are anti gay, they just don't play music that is even vaguely camp, or would appeal to a gay audience.

Robbie is high in the airplay chart because he's played on Capital radio every hour and the rest of the Global and Bauer radio stations plus Radio2, Radio1 isn't as important if the rest playlist an act.

Will Young has not been on any Radio1 playlist since 2005 when he was 25 years old, Capital Radio stopped playlisting Will in 2006 when he was 26 years old, too old I suppose.

Robbie is high in the airplay chart because he's played on Capital radio every hour and the rest of the Global and Bauer radio stations plus Radio2, Radio1 isn't as important if the rest playlist an act.

Will Young has not been on any Radio1 playlist since 2005 when he was 25 years old, Capital Radio stopped playlisting Will in 2006 when he was 26 years old, too old I suppose.

 

Which coincidentally is roughly when he started catering to the Radio 2 audience.

Which coincidentally is roughly when he started catering to the Radio 2 audience.

 

Ridiculous statement to make.

Ridiculous statement to make.

 

You could, you know, explain why you think that.

 

Or not, that's good as well.

I'm not really sure what the above post is about - where did you hear radio 1 were anti-gay?!

 

I think one of the radio presenters said it. I don't think they are "anti-gay" as they have many gay presenters, but perhaps it's just an issue with the public, like with the age relevance?

The Robbie hilarity continues - Nick Grimshaw, the man in charge of the BBC Radio 1 Breakfast Show says he has never listened to a Robbie Williams record

 

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/music/news/a43...nt-anymore.html

 

How is that even possible?

The Robbie hilarity continues - Nick Grimshaw, the man in charge of the BBC Radio 1 Breakfast Show says he has never listened to a Robbie Williams record

 

How is that even possible?

 

Of course he's heard a Robbie Williams song! It's virtually impossible not to have heard a successful artists single, how ever hard you try to avoid them! :P

The operative word here is 'listened', as in out of his own will.

The operative word here is 'listened', as in out of his own will.

 

Maybe not at his own will, but he's probably listened to a Robbie song. He is a radio presenter after all!

Which coincidentally is roughly when he started catering to the Radio 2 audience.

 

So Jealousy doesn't appeal to radio 1 or Capital's audience? As goodelta says each song should be judged on merit not on who the artist is.

It's funny how they playlist James Morrison, who is basically a less interesting Will Young.