14 minutes ago, 777666jason said:

Im wondering when they finally realise that they are sadly haemorrhage money on what is essentially a dead concept nowadays

Won't be much longer as we all surely expect by this point.

14 minutes ago, awardinary said:

Won't be much longer as we all surely expect by this point.

People say it might go back to twice a year, I think annnually but as a 4-CD box set could be better, like a Yearbook you don't have to wait 30 or 40 years to get.

If they get to the end of this year, that's 125 and that's a sensible number to end on.

They're padding the numbered Nows out with stuff that wasn't even on the radio.

And with the Yearbook approach it would be easier to licence a January hit in November than in March I guess.

Edited Friday at 22:511 day by HiyaLuv!

Yeah, with the way this is going now, NOW 125 may be the final one, unless if the NOW team are able to license any decent artists again.

They were able to license RAYE but chose not to include her. They could’ve at least included Nightingale Lane on Now 123 and save Click Clack Symphony for Now 124. I hope both her songs get included on Now 124

38 minutes ago, Hadji said:

They were able to license RAYE but chose not to include her. They could’ve at least included Nightingale Lane on Now 123 and save Click Clack Symphony for Now 124. I hope both her songs get included on Now 124

Careful to present assumption as fact because we don't actually know that. RAYE's label could have paused licensing until after the release of her album, like Charli xcx presumably did a couple of years ago when we had 360 on Now 118, nothing on Now 119 and then Apple on Now 120 (and no Guess).

16 minutes ago, gooddelta said:

Careful to present assumption as fact because we don't actually know that. RAYE's label could have paused licensing until after the release of her album, like Charli xcx presumably did a couple of years ago when we had 360 on Now 118, nothing on Now 119 and then Apple on Now 120 (and no Guess).

What difference would it have made if RAYE had appeared or if Charli XCX had appeared on Now 119? It’s not like it’s gonna hinder sales of their albums. Maybe in a physical era but not in a streaming era and anyway, if people like an artist, them being on a Now album isn’t gonna stop them from buying the artists album

Edited yesterday at 00:271 day by Hadji

10 minutes ago, Hadji said:

What difference would it have made if RAYE had appeared or if Charli XCX had appeared on Now 119? It’s not like it’s gonna hinder sales of their albums. Maybe in a physical era but not in a streaming era and anyway, if people like an artist, them being on a Now album isn’t gonna stop them from buying the artists album

I disagree with this. If you're new to music collecting, maybe just starting out your physical collection, you might only want to have a few songs because your friends like them or played them in the car on the way somewhere. If a compilation album offers that song and that's the only song they are interested by that artist, along with a few other tracks on that compilation, it might seem like a cheaper option than buying one or two artist albums for a limited number of songs you would already know and like.

More seasoned collectors may not care much, and those are the main audience for physical music, but everyone who ever collected physical music had to start somewhere. For me, it was with Now cassettes and later CDs.

I'm not sure "first album you bought" would quickly come to a new collector who lives on streaming platforms mainly. But in order for the physical music industry to survive something does need to change to keep people invested.

Labels will probably want to prioritise their own studio album releases before licensing things out. So that’s probably why RAYE isn’t on 123. When I studied in music management we discussed why certain songs don’t appear on things right away. Album releases, whether a song is still getting a lot of radio play, if a song is still getting sales of its own course, and also just waiting for labels to say yes.

Granted this was in 2012, but I think a lot of these reasons stay the same. My teacher worked for Universal Records, and she was in charge of Young Money distribution in the UK (and Big Machine - Taylor’s old label), and she denied Starships on NOW 81 because the song was still getting big radio and streaming numbers - and a physical appearance on something other than her album might’ve diluted things.

1 hour ago, SuperWooper said:

Granted this was in 2012, but I think a lot of these reasons stay the same. My teacher worked for Universal Records, and she was in charge of Young Money distribution in the UK (and Big Machine - Taylor’s old label), and she denied Starships on NOW 81 because the song was still getting big radio and streaming numbers - and a physical appearance on something other than her album might’ve diluted things.

Streaming wasn’t really a thing in 2012 or it wasn’t as big as it is now. Back then, sales were dominant and as for Now 81, I remember when they removed Jason Mraz to add Good Feeling. In my opinion, they should’ve kept Jason Mraz on there when they added Good Feeling as there was room for both on the album

4 hours ago, Hadji said:

Streaming wasn’t really a thing in 2012 or it wasn’t as big as it is now. Back then, sales were dominant and as for Now 81, I remember when they removed Jason Mraz to add Good Feeling. In my opinion, they should’ve kept Jason Mraz on there when they added Good Feeling as there was room for both on the album

It’s like you completely ignored everything I had to say. It’s wild that I was told this by someone in the music industry and you’re just like “no” who probably has no experience in the field whatsoever.

Stop saying the same things over and over again. We know there’s space on this disc, but it’s not always as simple as that. Warner perhaps pulled Jason last minute because the label thought they could get more mileage out of it.

3 hours ago, SuperWooper said:

Stop saying the same things over and over again.

Indeed!