The battle for Christmas number one this year attracted the most media attention of any such battle since, well, last year’s. But the success of Rage Against the Machine, where the similar Jeff Buckley campaign failed last year, means it will not be as easily forgotten. For, unlike the Buckley campaign, this was not merely a musical complaint. Rather it was a revolt against the corporatism of an industry where artificial pop is served to a powerless population, who finally fought back, complete with Zack de la Rocha’s, urm, uncompromising message.
‘Why do we want these charts?’
At first it seemed potentially wrought with hypocrisy; that Cowell and Rage are both under Sony labels is well documented, and when Rage first came out in support I was hardly surprised, as they stood to make a mint out of it. However, they were never the type to betray their principles, and profit has never seemed to motivate them, so when they promised to donate a (albeit indeterminate) ‘large portion of their royalties from the track’ to Shelter, I was reassured. I already knew I much preferred the song, but that wasn’t what had bothered me. It’s just the campaign was accompanied by talk – from the Morters to the band themselves – about the people taking back the charts, and it made me wonder; why do we want these charts?
In the last few weeks the Christmas Number one has been presented as a once cherished title, won after genuine battles, victory in which represented the pinnacle of a successful band’s career – this is until Cowell’s X Factor monopoly came along. Which battles were these exactly? The battle between Westlife’s cover of ABBA song ‘I Have a Dream’ or Cliff Richard’s singing the Lord’s Prayer to the tune of Auld Lang Syne? Spice Girls vs The Teletubbies? I’m sure Rage fans positively yearn for these times. The chart never mattered to them before, so why do ‘rea
l’ music fans suddenly seek chart approval? Rage themselves as a band aren’t all that interested in commercial success, which is why they aren’t interested in cleaning up their potential chart-topping number, even for Radio 5 Live’s breakfast show. But it seems strange that they simultaneously crave the spot. The band have spoken about their
hopes for social change, and so long as they’re giving so much money to Shelter, all power to them. But for the others, who appreciate the general stick-it-to-the-man vibe but generally just think the music charts are in a lamentable state and need a shake up, I just wonder what motivates this change in heart, and what actual success their efforts will bring.
‘I don’t see a revolution in the music industry as realistic’
The charts are generally designed to accurately reflect what people are buying. Sometimes its controversial and might get it a bit wrong, but its better than our own electoral system, so it’s not totally unrepresentative. So songs which top the singles charts are the most popular singles. Why has ‘good music’ not been the most popular? I think its fair to say that there are two trends – music enthusiasts tend to buy more albums, and also download more music for free. This isn’t necessarily even illegal, and becomes less so, aided by bands like Radiohead and Them Crooked Vultures, who released each album track on YouTube the week before it came out, as well as programmes like Spotify and Last.fm. The TCV move was lauded by fans as an anti-commercial move, yet could they complain if it dented chart sales? Websites like Stereogum have songs available for download, released by artists, perhaps to promote their albums, which they know their fans prioritise… So its no surprise that such bands chart less well, but as long as you’re their fan, and have the songs yourself, isn’t that all that matters?
Apparently not, but I wonder where this campaign for real music will go from here. I hope Rage can go on and make the world a better place on the back of the promised UK free gig next year – as they seem to be planning. I sincerely wish them every success. I bought the single, and was as happy as the next guy when Rage won. But I don’t see a revolution in the music industry as realistic.
‘The problem arises if good new music is underfunded’
Next year, there will be another X Factor, it will be popular, popular enough to win any ordinary number one battle. Will there be another gargantuan effort to take the power back, constantly reminding fans that they need to actually PAY for the song in question, something not many are used to, and probably another old song which many will already own? Or will the hope be that this experience is enough for the charts to be dominated henceforth by good old critically-acclaimed music naturally, without such an effort? If the latter transpires, then great – not all bands are Radiohead, or composed of members of Nirvana, Led Zeppelin and QOTSA, and not all can afford the trend for good music coming free. I fear that habits which have minimized the influence of alternative music on the charts are only set to continue and intensify. In one way this doesn’t matter, it has been this way for years. But people who think tub-thumping will change this are mistaken.
In a way, this all reminds me of a common complaint about Christmas more generally. People complain it’s over-commercialised, not enough about religion, etc. but as long as you are spiritually satisfied personally, its not really of concern what others are doing. Similarly, if you have Rage Against The Machine’s eponymous debut, you don’t need to buy it again to prove to the world that you still like them. As long as you listen to the music you like in the way you want, be it for free even via Spotify, it doesn’t matter who controls the charts. The problem arises if good new music is underfunded, because they are outside the industry, and need the money. Then not only the charts, but music as an industry may be dominated by Joe McElderrys – and we’ll need bands like Rage Against The Machine more than ever.
