Nosey

Big Mo is a legendary character in Eastenders, who is an inspired booking, if true. I can only hope that Fat Elvis comes to show his support! I hope it's true about Jennifer Ellison too. She could be brilliant. Good riddance to Emma, but I'm not buying into Louie Spence as a judge. Is he capable of giving critique without making it all about himself?

I'm interested by the line-up. Will.i.am does stand out as an odd choice, but people are right when they say that the voice of the title relates to the contestants being judged in the first instance (after careful screening by producers) on their voice alone. In that respect, the judges should be evaluated on the basis of their hearing, and while I'm not keen on everything he's done, a music producer would reasonably be expected to have a better ear for what will work in the studio than someone whose career is all on the performing side. The Script are one of those bands that are much bigger than people realise. They've had big albums in the UK and globally, and monster airplay hits, so if people aren't familiar with them, it's a reflection of their musical knowledge, not their success. Although I'd hazard a guess that most people would recognise their music as soon as they heard it. Danny hasn't been an obvious celebrity up until now, but that makes his inclusion more interesting. We can all predict what the others are going to be like, but he's an unknown quantity to the general public. I've seen them live, and he's got a decent stage rapport, so I don't think there is anything to worry about there.

Another fan of Little Donkey here! :cheer: :angel: There are at least 50 versions of the song on iTunes, so I think the biggest problem would be getting everyone to download the same version. :lol:

Going on past form, I'd guess they'll just try to ignore it and hope no-one notices. Ironically, the more well know the artist is, and therefore the less excuse for not noticing they had a song out, the less likely they are to concede. It is always quite amusing to hear them announce a song not on their playlist in the charts, especially the midweek chart update.

It's a good idea. The people at iTunes must know that a lot of people will go elsewhere, such as YouTube or Spotify to listen to whole songs, so this is a way of making sure that people use their website more, then hopefully buy from them. I think this is more about iTunes providing better customer service, and therefore retaining customers, rather than it being about sales for individual tracks.

Her second album could go either way. Her first album didn't sell that well, but as far as the majority of the general public are concerned, she had a number one single and album, and is one of the X Factor success stories. She did a few Summer festivals last year and went down well at them. If she gets the right material, and they get the promotion right, radio and tv should be receptive to supporting her. They need to make sure they release when there isn't too much competition, and get her out there, showcasing herself at the festivals and Party in the Park events. They need to treat her as if she didn't come from X Factor and is someone who had a moderately successful first album, but who is essentially still a new artist to most.

Thing is, it's aimed at Sun readers.

My parents and brother had to stop giving because they'd spent more than three months in Africa (or something like that) and there was a theoretical risk of them having undiagnosed Malaria. Didn't bother my parents that much, because they were on the brink of being too old, but it does seem ridiculous. I think the concern is that an HIV test will come up negative if taken in the first three months after the person has contracted it, so they don't want to rely on the screening immediately after the donation is given. I think it's fair that they want to restrict higher risk individuals, and for practical reasons, that might sometimes involve crude, blanket decisions, but they could do a lot better than they do now. They could ask that people have had no new sexual partners in the previous six months if they don't trust people to have used condoms properly, or think they are effective enough.

I think the point is to discourage their readers from voting Yes.

I knew the No Campaign were using dirty tricks, but seeing their leaflet in its full, awful glorification of logic failures and misinformation has made me more angry than I've been in ages. What upsets me is that I can see some of my little old lady neighbours glancing through it, and being horrified without giving it any actual thought. And they'll be the ones voting in high numbers.

I think you are getting confusing with political, social and economic impact. In Government, the Department of Culture deals with things like sports and the arts, including music. They tend to leave dealing with wars and famines to the big hitters like the Foreign Office. :D

Some people are confusing what someone has earned and what they are worth. The lists that show what someone has supposedly earned will be a gross figure, before a lot of the costs have been considered, which includes tax, and a substantial contribution for your manager, not to mention an accountant and various other hangers on. With a lot of time spent in hotels or in expensive rented accomodation, paying for security and everything else that comes with the territory. Record companies are very good at spending their artists' money on things they probably don't actually need. Young pop stars these days tend to be a lot more savvy than they used to be, but when you are caught up the whirlwind, doing the job you've always dreamed of, it's easy to ride the wave and not make sure you aren't paying for stuff you don't need. Plan B reckons he's not made a million yet, which I don't think is a huge amount if he was planning on never working again, but he says he doesn't want that, so it's a moot point. In his favour he's probably got money already earned, but still to come in, and despite his success he's not the kind of super high profile artist who would need 24 hour security or have trouble going to a normal restaurant or on the tube.

:lol: If I hadn't seen your previous posts pushing this campaign I'd think you were on a wind-up. 99p will not be going to charity. A chunk will go to iTunes. When people purchase this single, they aren't getting "silence" in return. They are paying for the opportunity to give the Vs to Simon Cowell/X Factor or whatever it is they think they would have achieved if it were successful. They are also paying for a group of artists to get more publicity in the mainstream media than they've had for some time. People are claiming that stunts like phoning in their silence makes it all creative. It doesn't. These are all gimmicks to disguise the fact that it's nothing more than a cheap cover version that requires no actual musical ability. People criticise the X Factor singers for being glorified karaoke singers. If that's the case, the Cage artists are glorified members of the audience. I don't blame them for having a go, but it's a cheap laugh and if it will make you giggle, pay your 99p, but be under no illusion that it's for charity. It's no more about charity than the X Factor finalists single was about charity. It's about promotion of their own cause.

People are forgetting that Rule the World was the lead single from a re-released album. A lot of people wouldn't bother with the re-issue, but got the single as a one-off download. That and the song being featured in a film, and used in high profile tv shows, from background in X Factor, to being covered on Last Choir Standing and skated to on Dancing on Ice, all keeping the song alive. The Flood is a good song, and probably did deserve to be number one, but for most people it's part of an album they'll buy anyway, and I'm not sure if it will be able to have a life of its own after official promotion has ended.

I think as soon as you've bought tickets for a tour you presume that you will buy the album, and so there isn't much point in getting the single a few days early, especially when it's on the radio all of the time. I also think that a lot of their fans don't feel the need to support their chart runs, so won't be buying the song for the sake of getting it to number one, assuming most haven't presumed it will be number one. It's not as if they need another number one to prove a point. Not doing any dedicated promotion for the single this week was possibly a mistake if they did want a number one, but they seem to have everything geared up to promote the album with the minimum possible personal appearances. They are relying heavily on reputation, the documentary and the X Factor appearance to sell the album for them, and it will presumably work very well for them. It's not a bad strategy for a band in their position who wants to avoid over promotion and therefore over-exposure which ultimately shortens careers. Nevertheless, I think they could have afforded to do something early this week to properly flag up that the single is out.

I don't think it proves anything about people buying music, because they've not even had the chance yet. Most haven't had the chance to hear it because of the lack of radio support, so IMO it shows that it is the people making up playlists, and journalists who care more about image created by labels and PRs than the music. I don't think Nadine's song is quite as great as you make out, but it was good enough to be played more and would have been played much more if her image had been more carefully controlled and they'd given the press more to work with.

I was surprised when I saw her on Graham Norton plugging the album. I was aware that she was releasing new material, but managed to miss the actual release altogether. It goes to show that being in the papers isn't always good for promoting music.

I really like Nadine's song on first listen. I was worried it might be a bit of a damp squib, but I think this could be really big, and hopefully some good remixes too.

This was inevitable, but I don't think it will dominate the charts in the way it is predicted. Glee has a smaller audience, but a high proportion of that audience is iTunes savvy, and the Glee versions of songs are well thought out, rehearsed, recorded and auto-tuned. And a proper length. However, songs used in the show do get a boost, so it makes sense that Cowell would want a piece of that action too, but it might prove to be more difficult to get rights to release music that has been edited with the intention of releasing it. It will also make it much plainer which artists are likely to sell - to a download audience at least, but as useful at that market research may be to Syco, he does risk really annoying the rest of the industry. I'm still convinced it was the dreadful charity single that encouraged so many people to join the RATM campaign, and while the competition might boost sales in the short term, it will make it harder for the acts that come from the shows to get respect once they've left. Hopefully common sense will prevail over greed and they'll hold off on releasing any recordings to iTunes until the latter stages of the live shows, and perhaps the group numbers. Apart from anything else, most of the finalists will repeat a song that they did earlier in the competition, and the second version is always much better than from the first time around.

Not excusing him the affair one bit, but I think it is demeaning for a woman to sell stories about sex with famous men. It's a less honest version of prostitution and I don't see why she should be praised for making money for having an affair. Trust me, if Mark tries to sell stories about her, I'll think badly of him. The thing is, men rarely sell stories about sleeping with famous women to the papers, and do you know why? THey get ripped to shreds before they have the chance. They are seen as cads. Whereas the mysoginistic papers think it's just marvellous to pay money to women to talk about affairs and sex and to pose in their underwear. It's a great way to start or boost a career as a tabloid favourite. The only case I can think of where a man tried to sell a story was James Hewit, and I don't think he got very far. I could be wrong, maybe he did manage to sell the story, but I remember the great outcry from the very papers who regularly pay thousands to women for the same sort of stuff.

I'm wary of the whole reunion thing, but a big, special even like the Olympics would be brilliant. The Spice Girls are too out of date now. They could appear as part of a medley or something, but it would be embarassing if they were supposed to represent the modern music scene. The same for Queen, even though they are brilliant. I'd argue that they'd be better trying to get someone newer to the music scene, but we'd have to wait and see who is popular then, and they'd need to be popular outside the UK too. Right now it's all PR people trying to make headlines.

You can't fault her timing. I'm guessing they've had this on stand-by, waiting for the best moment to strike.

You obviously have missed it. She was interviewed on Radio 1 yesterday, and was apparently in on Radio 1 Extra too. People have been talking about her interview on Sky Breakfast news too and was on Alan Carr recently too. It sounds as if she's been doing the rounds of whoever will have her, and although she's complaining about people being prejudiced against the song because it is her, there is no way Radio 1 would even play a clip of the song if it was by an unknown. It's just not the sort of song that is relevant to today's chart radio, and her voice is awful on it. Even if the voice was good, the song isn't and it wouldn't get played. She probably planned some more publicity stunts, but it's all being ignored because people like Cheryl more, but do you honestly think it is just a coincidence that the only time she could release the single was just after her fake wedding, or that photos from the fake honeymoon leaked the day the track came out. She was relying on being all over the papers and being talked about for a couple of weeks. This hasn't happened, but tough. If she made a better record or was a nicer person she might get more support from the traditional promotion routes.

It doesn't ruin the song, but it doesn't make it any better either. All it does is make it "new" so it can be released to radio again and maybe provoke interest from people who haven't paid her that much attention before.

Personally, this feels very pointless, but it is getting Radio 1 airplay, which might help to boost sales of the album, which deserves it because it is amazing. If this helps to secure her position within the record company I won't complain too much. I would prefer her to move on and work on a second album, so I'm a bit anxious this is part of a campaign to add extra songs to the album in time for the Christmas market.