Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 17, 2016 16:46:39 GMT
Since 2011, Quo have released no fewer than FOURTEEN singles. Radio 2 has chosen to playlist ALL fourteen. Quo have released FOUR studio albums in that time. Radio 2 has chosen ALL four as their Album of the Week. On new releases alone - LINK - Quo are undoubtedly Radio 2's most played artist. Quo played In Concert for the BBC in 2011, Hyde Park in 2012, the Roundhouse (broadcast live on the Red Button, subsequently shown on BBC4) in 2014, VE Day in 2015, and Hyde Park again in 2016. On the back of the official board closing, Mike Paxman said that Radio 2 were involved in the selection of BBQ as a single. Jeff Smith, Head Of Music at Radio 2, "pushed (for some time)" Quo (through Simon Porter) to do Aquostic, according to Francis (see 2:04). We now have a situation where a track NOT commercially available (HYB) is on a playlist apparently made up of tracks that HAVE to be commercially available in order to be considered, as per LINK. People are buying the album on the assumption that a HYB with sleigh bells will feature when that is certainly NOT the case. It is NOT the duty of a state-funded radio station to tell artists what singles to release, nor is it the responsibility of a person working in a high position for a non-commercial entity to influence the commercial activities of another entity, particularly when that person has the influence to enforce procedure and said activities bear profits and production for the non-commercial entity in question. The fact that Quo have continually been playlisted by Radio 2 for a long period of time, and have enjoyed such exposure as a result of "working with" (however you want to put that) Radio 2 is scandalous, and now to a point which contravenes both BBC policy and makes a mockery of the rules and regulations that other artists have to abide by is completely unfair, and dare I say it, ILLEGAL. Now, maybe it's just me, but surely even the staunchest of Quo fans can't say that the relationship with Radio 2 is entirely above board? |
|
|
|
Post by Tʰᵉ Wᵃˡˡ Oᶠ Dᵉᵃᵗʰ on Dec 17, 2016 17:34:16 GMT
**Maybe** (ahem)... it's a deal from Auntie Beeb as a way of apologising for the Radio 1 debacle all those years ago?
|
|
|
|
Post by powerage on Dec 17, 2016 17:40:30 GMT
I'm not sure I understand what the problem is.
Ok so the BBC choose the singles, but Quo still wrote the songs, and perhaps rather than Quo spending money on someone to be their radio plugger, they've just gone straight to the BBC who advise them which songs they'll playlist?
The Quo fans that go to the gigs now are more than likely radio 2 listeners rather than say Planet Rock.
The discussion has been that Quo have been completely devoid of ideas for the last 10 years or so, having people from outside the organisation of Quo might have helped?
|
|
|
|
Post by clonesydney on Dec 17, 2016 18:12:23 GMT
There's something fishy about this for sure, because there's no logical justification for Quo's output to be playlisted in this manner.
It's not as if the songs have been any good and deserve to be heard.
I tend to agree that it's something to do with a settlement between the BBC and Quo's management after the 96 debacle.
We're seeing a similar thing now with Cliff's mediocre rock n roll album getting a lot of exposure, when it basically has no musical merit whatsoever.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 17, 2016 19:47:37 GMT
I'm not sure I understand what the problem is. Ok so the BBC choose the singles, but Quo still wrote the songs, and perhaps rather than Quo spending money on someone to be their radio plugger, they've just gone straight to the BBC who advise them which songs they'll playlist? The Quo fans that go to the gigs now are more than likely radio 2 listeners rather than say Planet Rock. The discussion has been that Quo have been completely devoid of ideas for the last 10 years or so, having people from outside the organisation of Quo might have helped? The issue isn't Quo courting Radio 2 instead of Planet Rock. It's the level of involvement with which Radio 2 have had with Quo's releases over the past few years. Fair enough if singles are chosen on merit, but that does not seem to be the case given previous comments from those involved with Quo about Radio 2. The latest single being on the playlist despite it not being eligible raises questions over what is/has been going on. Radio 2's increased involvement with Quo may have increased Quo's success in recent years, but it is not up to Radio 2 (or anyone else at the BBC for that matter) to proactively get involved with or influence an artist's commercial activities. It is a clear conflict of interests. An outside party causing Quo to gain success and create some extra mileage by releasing acoustic albums would be commended, but this is the BBC we are talking about. They are supposed to be impartial. If every other artist that knocks on Radio 2's door is afforded the same pleasures as Quo then, again, fair enough. But, somehow, I doubt it. |
|
|
|
Post by Gaz on Dec 17, 2016 21:01:44 GMT
Did the BBC2 radio help promote the FF reunion gigs in any way?
|
|
|
|
Post by Tʰᵉ Wᵃˡˡ Oᶠ Dᵉᵃᵗʰ on Dec 17, 2016 21:16:00 GMT
Did the BBC2 radio help promote the FF reunion gigs in any way? Don't be daft. On CQ stuff. |
|
|
|
Post by paradiseflats on Dec 17, 2016 21:38:52 GMT
Since 2011, Quo have released no fewer than FOURTEEN singles. Radio 2 has chosen to playlist ALL fourteen. Quo have released FOUR studio albums in that time. Radio 2 has chosen ALL four as their Album of the Week. On new releases alone - LINK - Quo are undoubtedly Radio 2's most played artist. Quo played In Concert for the BBC in 2011, Hyde Park in 2012, the Roundhouse (broadcast live on the Red Button, subsequently shown on BBC4) in 2014, VE Day in 2015, and Hyde Park again in 2016. On the back of the official board closing, Mike Paxman said that Radio 2 were involved in the selection of BBQ as a single. Jeff Smith, Head Of Music at Radio 2, "pushed (for some time)" Quo (through Simon Porter) to do Aquostic, according to Francis (see 2:04). We now have a situation where a track NOT commercially available (HYB) is on a playlist apparently made up of tracks that HAVE to be commercially available in order to be considered, as per LINK. People are buying the album on the assumption that a HYB with sleigh bells will feature when that is certainly NOT the case. It is NOT the duty of a state-funded radio station to tell artists what singles to release, nor is it the responsibility of a person working in a high position for a non-commercial entity to influence the commercial activities of another entity, particularly when that person has the influence to enforce procedure and said activities bear profits and production for the non-commercial entity in question. The fact that Quo have continually been playlisted by Radio 2 for a long period of time, and have enjoyed such exposure as a result of "working with" (however you want to put that) Radio 2 is scandalous, and now to a point which contravenes both BBC policy and makes a mockery of the rules and regulations that other artists have to abide by is completely unfair, and dare I say it, ILLEGAL. Now, maybe it's just me, but surely even the staunchest of Quo fans can't say that the relationship with Radio 2 is entirely above board? Your first link doesn't seem to prove anything. As you can buy the 'single' on iTunes it's commercially available. Album tracks can make the charts without a physical version being available. So if it's not above board what is the BBC gaining from the relationship ? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 18, 2016 0:33:00 GMT
Your first link doesn't seem to prove anything. As you can buy the 'single' on iTunes it's commercially available. Album tracks can make the charts without a physical version being available. So if it's not above board what is the BBC gaining from the relationship? The first link shows how high up Quo are in Radio 2's airplay charts since 2011. I would suggest they are the top-played artist on Radio 2 based on new releases alone. How many artists have released 14 singles in 5 years? Some "current" acts haven't even released that many. You can't buy the single (the mix with the sleigh bells) on iTunes, or anywhere else for that matter. |
|
|
|
Post by freewilly on Dec 18, 2016 1:29:49 GMT
Agree with 99.9% of everything Deepthroat has said.
But...
It genuinely makes no difference...Sure, they have an advantage but, it means fuck all. They aren't exactly setting the charts alight so, fuck them
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 18, 2016 15:08:55 GMT
Did the BBC2 radio help promote the FF reunion gigs in any way? The first time Chris Evans played 'That's a fact' he also played the original and commented that he didn't even know that it was off a album from years ago but in the same sentence he remarked how he loves 'STATUS QUO' , yet another so called 'fan' who I dare bet cant even name the original drummer or bass player and I'm guessing 99% of the staff at radio2 haven't a clue either . When ever status quo is mentioned its Rossi and parfitt ;. no one else . |
|
|
|
Post by powerage on Dec 18, 2016 15:45:09 GMT
I'm not sure I understand what the problem is. Ok so the BBC choose the singles, but Quo still wrote the songs, and perhaps rather than Quo spending money on someone to be their radio plugger, they've just gone straight to the BBC who advise them which songs they'll playlist? The Quo fans that go to the gigs now are more than likely radio 2 listeners rather than say Planet Rock. The discussion has been that Quo have been completely devoid of ideas for the last 10 years or so, having people from outside the organisation of Quo might have helped? The issue isn't Quo courting Radio 2 instead of Planet Rock. It's the level of involvement with which Radio 2 have had with Quo's releases over the past few years. Fair enough if singles are chosen on merit, but that does not seem to be the case given previous comments from those involved with Quo about Radio 2. The latest single being on the playlist despite it not being eligible raises questions over what is/has been going on. Radio 2's increased involvement with Quo may have increased Quo's success in recent years, but it is not up to Radio 2 (or anyone else at the BBC for that matter) to proactively get involved with or influence an artist's commercial activities. It is a clear conflict of interests. An outside party causing Quo to gain success and create some extra mileage by releasing acoustic albums would be commended, but this is the BBC we are talking about. They are supposed to be impartial. If every other artist that knocks on Radio 2's door is afforded the same pleasures as Quo then, again, fair enough. But, somehow, I doubt it. So you're saying that Radio 2 getting involved with Quo's release activity is a conflict of interest, that would in some way give Quo an edge over other possible Radio 2 acts such as (I would assume) the likes of Squeeze or Madness, even Blondie and Fleetwood Mac? I don't listen to Radio 2 so I wouldn't know in all honesty. Other than possible "compensation" for the radio 1 debacle of the nineties, why would a radio station get between current Quo at all? Given that Quo's public perception is probably only 1 level above Nickelback level of contempt. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 18, 2016 19:39:05 GMT
The issue isn't Quo courting Radio 2 instead of Planet Rock. It's the level of involvement with which Radio 2 have had with Quo's releases over the past few years. Fair enough if singles are chosen on merit, but that does not seem to be the case given previous comments from those involved with Quo about Radio 2. The latest single being on the playlist despite it not being eligible raises questions over what is/has been going on. Radio 2's increased involvement with Quo may have increased Quo's success in recent years, but it is not up to Radio 2 (or anyone else at the BBC for that matter) to proactively get involved with or influence an artist's commercial activities. It is a clear conflict of interests. An outside party causing Quo to gain success and create some extra mileage by releasing acoustic albums would be commended, but this is the BBC we are talking about. They are supposed to be impartial. If every other artist that knocks on Radio 2's door is afforded the same pleasures as Quo then, again, fair enough. But, somehow, I doubt it. So you're saying that Radio 2 getting involved with Quo's release activity is a conflict of interest, that would in some way give Quo an edge over other possible Radio 2 acts such as (I would assume) the likes of Squeeze or Madness, even Blondie and Fleetwood Mac? I don't listen to Radio 2 so I wouldn't know in all honesty. Other than possible "compensation" for the radio 1 debacle of the nineties, why would a radio station get between current Quo at all? Given that Quo's public perception is probably only 1 level above Nickelback level of contempt. If the BBC are benefiting directly from telling an artist what to release then that is a conflict of interests. Why else would Jeff Smith have told Quo to do an acoustic album? Just a suggestion? Nah, it's probably because he would have foreseen a way to get Quo to do an acoustic gig, thus creating production and commercial incentive for the BBC. Quo were hardly going to say no to it. Regarding the playlist, if Radio 2 working with Quo has built up a relationship between the two parties, influencing single selection, that is a conflict of interests since the BBC should be impartial towards artists. It is without doubt that the BBC influence the charts, but as soon as it becomes a case of "oh, we won't play this, but if you release that..." then it contravenes with the BBC's impartiality rules. A completely different argument altogether is that the majority of the singles chosen have been diabolical and have resulted in poor returns for Quo. The BBC are cloth-eared as well as corrupt. Any manager with a brain would have noticed. Oh, this is Porter we're talking about... Anyhow, the situation stands that a single not commercially available is on a playlist that requires all tracks to be commercially available in order to merit their selection. Therefore it is against BBC policy. |
|
col
Rocker Rollin'
Posts: 641
Favourite Quo Album: Dog Of Two Head, Piledriver, Hello, Quo, Live
Favourite other bands.: Ramones, Warrior Soul, Soundgarden, King Buffalo, Small Faces, Motorhead, UFO, Screaming Trees, Kyuss, Clutch
|
Post by col on Dec 19, 2016 17:11:50 GMT
It's not as if the songs have been any good and deserve to be heard. If that's true, and musical taste is subjective, then the airwaves should be silent. No Phil Collins, No Adele, No Alfie Boe and Michael Ball, No Elvis Presley, No Little Mix, No Michael Bubble, No Olly Murs etc etc. Radio 2 are catering to their audience. And it doesn't matter how you cut it up, the only none covers album since 1986 to chart better than Aquostic II was Aquostic I. Just sayin'!!! |
|
|
|
Post by paradiseflats on Dec 19, 2016 17:29:51 GMT
So you're saying that Radio 2 getting involved with Quo's release activity is a conflict of interest, that would in some way give Quo an edge over other possible Radio 2 acts such as (I would assume) the likes of Squeeze or Madness, even Blondie and Fleetwood Mac? I don't listen to Radio 2 so I wouldn't know in all honesty. Other than possible "compensation" for the radio 1 debacle of the nineties, why would a radio station get between current Quo at all? Given that Quo's public perception is probably only 1 level above Nickelback level of contempt. If the BBC are benefiting directly from telling an artist what to release then that is a conflict of interests. Why else would Jeff Smith have told Quo to do an acoustic album? Just a suggestion? Nah, it's probably because he would have foreseen a way to get Quo to do an acoustic gig, thus creating production and commercial incentive for the BBC. Quo were hardly going to say no to it. Regarding the playlist, if Radio 2 working with Quo has built up a relationship between the two parties, influencing single selection, that is a conflict of interests since the BBC should be impartial towards artists. It is without doubt that the BBC influence the charts, but as soon as it becomes a case of "oh, we won't play this, but if you release that..." then it contravenes with the BBC's impartiality rules. A completely different argument altogether is that the majority of the singles chosen have been diabolical and have resulted in poor returns for Quo. The BBC are cloth-eared as well as corrupt. Any manager with a brain would have noticed. Oh, this is Porter we're talking about... Anyhow, the situation stands that a single not commercially available is on a playlist that requires all tracks to be commercially available in order to merit their selection. Therefore it is against BBC policy. You keep saying the BBC benefits how is this ? |
|
