|
Post by paradiseflats on Dec 19, 2016 17:34:30 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'!!! What about Rockin all over the years ?
|
|
37
Veteran Rocker Rollin'
Lancaster+Parfitt+Coghlan+Rossi=Pure Quo
Posts: 1,002
|
Post by 37 on Dec 19, 2016 17:35:16 GMT
Did the BBC2 radio help promote the FF reunion gigs in any way? Don't be daft. On CQ stuff. Yes they did. There was a Frantic Four Radio 2 programme in December 2012. Save
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 19, 2016 17:53:43 GMT
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 ? The Roundhouse gig wouldn't have been broadcast live on BBC radio and TV had Jeff Smith not pushed Quo to do an acoustic album. A number of BBC services benefited greatly due to the gig being exclusive to the BBC. The selection process regarding singles benefits the BBC because they have a free hand over what singles are chosen. That is not how it works - an artist should make the choices on their own (or through their pluggers) and the radio station decide whether or not to play them. No toing and froing that other acts do not have the pleasure of. It's breaking unfair competition rules as well as the BBC's own policy to remain impartial. Unless Quo release a Christmas mix of HYB within the next week then they and Radio 2 are complicit in releasing and playlisting a track that is not commercially available. Quo have benefited financially as people have bought the album on the basis of HYB being playlisted, the mix of which does not even appear on the album. Cliff has done similar by releasing a Christmas mix of a song on his album, but at least his is commercially available. Quo have no comeback on this.
|
|
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 21, 2016 11:26:44 GMT
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'!!! What about Rockin all over the years ? It's not an album, it's a compilation of singles. Wasn't recorded as an album, so it's not an album in my book. That's why I piss myself laughing every time Queen's Greatest Hits is vote the best British album.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 22, 2016 19:46:17 GMT
HYB not on the Radio 2 playlist for next week. Should never have been on it to start with. Are we going to see a commercial release (download only at least) of HYB complete with sleigh bells? If not, Merry Christmas Quo.
|
|
|
Post by powerage on Dec 23, 2016 18:07:00 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. Thanks for taking the time to explain, but in all honesty I'm not sure if I really see what the issue is. Perhaps I don't know enough about the BBC or the way it works (or is supposed to work!) to fully understand. Is it Aquostic you have an objection to (in terms of suggestion from the BBC)? I could understand that to a point I guess, but surely loads of radio / tv people have suggested bands do a number of things that could affect a bands output. But as for concerts, events etc, Quo and the BBC have always been close in that respect, and what about Oasis having an entire Jools Holland for a live show back in 2000?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 23, 2016 21:24:40 GMT
Maybe there have been occasions when the BBC have given exposure to particular artists, but the specifics of the contact between Quo and Radio 2, and the length of time that this has gone on puts paid to the theory that this is more than just token airplay.
Quo and the BBC haven't always been close. Pre-2011, Quo were lucky to have a single played just once let alone for weeks on end.
Ever since QPQ, every studio album Quo have released has been Album of the Week on Radio 2. In weeks where there have been new releases by Neil Diamond, Elvis, Michael Buble, I find that astonishing, and very odd.
14 singles and at least 10 of them A-listed?! To release that many singles in 5 years is insane, and to have them all playlisted is too far-fetched to believe all of this "just happened".
The latest single not even eligible for the playlist, chosen ahead of the many ACTUAL Christmas singles released this year?
Nope. Not having it. A complete con.
|
|