Anathema: careful - buying it multiple times from the same IP can mean that they don't count it.
Unquiet, AllFallDown, Kaloki: oh I'm under no illusions that my 99p will change the world. I would like Simon Cowell to be a bit narked though, the man's sense of self-entitlement is highly annoying.
There has to be some organisation of which song to choose otherwise there'll never be enough interest to push the X Factor song out of the number 1 slot. There is some irony involved, I agree, but there is also irony in SC's marketing which involves people PAYING to vote in a song then PAYING again to buy the single at the end of it. And they're not even any good.
There's a good rebuttal to the criticisms of the choice of RAtM on Tim Chester's blog at NME
"His major gripes seem to be: the irony of singing ?I won?t do what you tell me? while signing up to a Facebook campaign, the song choice, the question of whether we care about what?s #1 at Christmas, and the futility of the exercise.
Put simply, a Facebook campaign is a vote, a choice whether or not you sign up. There?s no judges or Dermot repeatedly hammering phone lines into your head, it?s just people using a democratic right bestowed on them by the social networking age to tell the judges and Dermot they won?t do that other thing they tell them.
?Killing In The Name? might be owned by Sony, thus most likely somehow benefiting Cowell financially, but these days what isn?t? A good 95% of the music industry is controlled by the shit that floated to the top (that?s a made-up statistic but probably not far off), which is why shopping at Pure Groove/buying merch at Fucked Up gigs/other statements of independent solidarity are so important. However, you won?t get nearly 500,000 people signing up to buy Slow Club?s version of ?Silent Night?."