I’m not sure how well it’ll do officially, I have a feeling it may chart similarly to creator universe had done last year. At least they’re basically guaranteed #1 on big top 40 though

They could maybe drop a new song instead of keeping doing covers

Not expecting anything from this, charity songs just don’t really work any longer

Mike Stock retweeted my tweet about Band Aid II.

 

 

Well they did always like covering other people’s material

Incidentally, I went back and dug out James Masterton's commentary from when Band Aid 20 hit number one. Unsurprisingly, much of the criticism he levied then will almost certainly apply to this new one: https://chart-watch.uk//archives/2004/week-...h-2004-band-aid

 

As he mentions here, the 1984 version was a real lightning in a bottle moment, it was when a record like this had the power to corral for a greater cause and when buying singles still mattered. Nevermind 40 years on, not just the world, but the music industry is in a totally different space now to what it was in 2004 or even 2014.

 

And audiences are - I would like to hope - that bit smarter. I'm quite frankly surprised this has even been greenlit given the 2014 version went down like a cup of cold sick critically and beyond its week one performance. The fact it is for charity does not preclude it from carrying an air of being generally unnecessary.

I expect this will make number one but on relatively pitiful sales and plummet quickly afterwards

30 felt half-arsed and this even less so. As overstuffed as 20 was, I did appreciate that they tried new, contemporary genres at the time, they had an opportunity to build on that with 30, but it was a damp squib and this seems...almost entirely unnecessary, not even new artists? Can't see it getting near number 1 unless it gets a real push, it seems to just be a hollow 'event' release now which defeats the original concept.

 

 

It'll be No.1 first week of release without fail. :)

Apparently the Band Aid II vocals aren't being used in the edit because "the multi-tracks cannot be found" which sounds plausible, though of course it doesn't explain why they couldn't include it as one of the tracks on the CD.

I wonder if they will combine sales/streams of this to the original. The track listing makes it look like this is a remix of a previous version, rather than a new version. Perhaps it might even trigger a reset of the original too?

(Whoddy just so you know the subtitle has the wrong year :P )

 

I'll keep an open mind about this one, I just assumed they'd repeat the exact same formula with a new group of current artists, so just the fact they're trying something different is impressive to me. Yay for the Sugababes being confirmed, and are they really separating Harry's vocals and not using the rest of 1D? Interesting if so...

I am still kinda sad that they have ignored Band Aid II. I get why to an extent but it doesn't feel like it will be a true ultimate mix. Although to be fair they'd probably only have included vocals by Kylie, Cliff, Bananarama and possibly Marti Pellow anyway. It will be interesting how it does, if it goes to #1 I can't see it staying there until Christmas.

 

It will be interesting to see if this will be the last one or if they will try to do something special for the 50th.

AI vocal splitting tech is very good now, and could have easily split Kylie and Cliff etc from the track. I'm surprised that they wouldn't have jumped at the chance to use modern technology for such a project.

@1857556775383261326

That post kind of proves it’s about ego and nothing else.

 

Let’s face it’s not fair it’s not included but it’s terrible compared to the rest.

 

Anyone know why no one did anything in 94?

For me it's the 2nd best version after the original and at the time a lot of people gave their time to do it so like the other versions should be included.

For me it's the 2nd best version after the original and at the time a lot of people gave their time to do it so like the other versions should be included.

Exactly this- it's not really a case of musical merit or otherwise (lord knows, the original apart, there's little going on in terms of breaking new ground on subsequent versions- and let's not when it comes to Dizzee's rap)- but if it was good enough for Geldof to approach SAW to produce it and to take the subsequent monies that it raised then it should be present in some form.

That post kind of proves it’s about ego and nothing else.

 

Let’s face it’s not fair it’s not included but it’s terrible compared to the rest.

 

Anyone know why no one did anything in 94?

 

Not sure how recognising the talents and hard work of those involved means it’s ’about ego’ but this isn’t exactly the most dismissive thing you’ve ever said, I guess.

 

If we’re all being honest, NONE of the versions are any good-it’s not even that good of a song to begin with. It’s a Christmas classic and it always will be but if it wasn’t for its charity status plus the shear number of stars who turned up to take part for the original, I doubt it would still be gushed over as it is now. It’s kind of why I couldn’t stand the criticism Band Aid 20 got-so what if people didn’t like it? It’s just another attempt at the naff charity song.

 

So really, why single out one version and leave it out-it’s arguably no worse or better than any of the other versions. Each to their own.

Just went to listen to all the versions in a row and really the worst one is the one with the rap from Dizzie Rascal, that ruins the song, kills all the momentum the song had

The main issue with the 90 version is that the majority are poor singers (ie, the guy from Bros!!) so kinda lacks distinctive voices

 

but I do like the original song and the lyrics are nice and make a good social commentary. If I remember the story well, the lyrics were from another song that Geldof had written for his band Boomtown Rats, so they re-used them, it's not something they wrote on the spot.

30 will always be the worst imo with Seal sounding like he's being strangled followed by Ellie Goulding's shriekiest line ever delivered.