I am so mad! I go to buy my copy of Scream 3 on VHS today, and I'm told that it's not out on VHS yet, at least, not to buy! Seems that Dimension had this brilliant idea that they were just going to bring it out on DVD at first and not on VHS. The guy I talked to said that movie companies are starting to do this to get people to switch to DVD (which isn't happening in my house!) I had to go RENT it so I could see it again, it was the only way I could get it on VHS, since it's not for sale on that yet. This really ticks me off, since the guy at the movie store said it could be up to two months before it's avalible on VHS to buy. UGH! Does anyone know when it's being released on VHS???
Hold your horses there, man. First of all, the guy you talked to was wrong - it will probably be up to four or six months before it's available to buy on VHS. And it wasn't just Dimension that had this "brilliant idea". Most movie studios work this way and have been for years, way before DVD ever hit the market.
Jason Monana Geller wrote in message news:[email]...
Movies ARE coming out now on DVD first (though I can't comment about Scream 3) but they don't need to force people to switch to DVD, the format's winning on its own terms of quality, value, and convenience.
I know that sounds like QVC, but never mind it's till true.
We received the Region 1 disc of Galaxy Quest about a week ago, and yet it's only just ended in British cinemas. The anamorphic picture on a widescreen telly is just staggering, and the DD5.1 sound pulls the house down. You can't do that with VHS tape.
Don't talk to me about the extras though. An alien soundtrack?
If you ask me, I'd consider myself lucky if I were you. The RENTAL copies aren't released here in Australia until October 3. And I know other countries are even further behind.
Apparently there's going to be a special boxed set of the trilogy on DVD coming out in the US soon. I'll be hanging out for the same to be released here :)
Yeah there is a box set to come out soon, but the thing is that the Scream 2 DVD has nothing special on it like Scream and Scream 3 so I am not to fond of that.
Anyways I got the Scream 3 on DVD two days ago just because of the deleted footage(which were only three scenes but only one of them actually stood out) and an alternate ending which is like the original except different dialogue and some other stuff was added to the final version.
Also on the alternate ending Wes Craven and his staff point out that David Arquette is not too careful. They note that when Gale Weathers(CCA) and Dewey(DA) are trying to get the door to open to the secret room, David makes a book fall on CCA's head and from on the look on her face(real quick one) she looks very pissed.
Oh well, I also want to get Scream 3 on video since I can really only view the DVD movie on my computer and not in the privacy of my own room.
Having neither a PC nor a DVD-ROM drive, I don't really know, which is why I was hoping you could tell me. But from what I've heard, the drives themselves can play any region, it's the controlling software that limits you. There are sites (don't ask me) that have patches for you to download that give you extra functionality. A patch might be one line of code for you to edit in, a single file, or practically a complete replacement. The thing to look out for is that some new drives have their region fixed in firmware or hardware which is trickier to deal with. There are newsgroups about this sort of thing, but since in Britain we can just purchase cheap multiregion players at the local supermarket, there's no incentive for us.
To be exact, the Scream 2 DVD that is in the boxed set will be the Collectors Series and the only way to get that is to buy the boxed set. Scream 2 has deleted scenes, music videos, etc, etc. Unlike the other two discs, this one will be different from the one that is already released. It will be so much worth it to buy.
Also, in response to those who are upset about the fact that Scream 3 isn't yet on video when it's out on DVD, there's nothing unusual about it. Did we not have to wait a year for Scream and Scream 2 to come out on video after it's initial release? Of course. The reason DVD's are coming out early is not to convert you. DVD's are coming out for purchase and rental at the same time because not many people have DVD players yet. The companies aren't going to lose any money on DVD rentals by putting the DVD out to buy early. The practice of waiting 6 months after a films release for rental is not unusual and then we wait another 6 for the VHS to come out to buy. It's not just Dimension, it's all companies. There is a huge difference between the rental and purchase of the VHS and that's what the companies are caring about when it comes to marketing them. Sure you can pay $100 for the VHS, but what is so wrong about DVD's? DVD offers you better picture quality, more special features, etc, at an earlier time and a cheaper price than the $100 that you would spend. So before anyone gets upset that they can't buy Scream 3 on VHS yet, just think: How often have you gotten to buy and purchase a VHS movie AT THE SAME TIME when they have just come out. Until DVD's came along, the only way to buy it would be to wait a year for the release. The only difference you have is that those select few who actually own DVD players can purchase it in advance. And you can always get someone who has a DVD player to make a copy of these bonus features for you, so you don't necessarily have to "convert" to DVD.
Here is something that may make any Scream fan feel better: supposedly there are Action Figures coming out that can be purchased. I have yet to learn the details, but as soon as I do, it will be posted. I believe they may be coming out in time for October/Halloween. Take Care all!
Signed, The Scream Queen (aka Proud Owner of a DVD player and the Scream Trilogy)
On Wed, 05 Jul 2000 15:21:06 -0700, Monana Geller wrote:
It's definitely available on VHS. The guy you talked to is just not giving you the whole story. Certain films are released on VHS at "rental prices", which are usually over $100. Scream 3 is one of those films. The idea is to get as much rental business as possible since very few people will spend that much for a cassette. Then once rentals have died down the price will drop. It's purely a marketing strategy to milk as much money out of certain titles that are expected to do huge rental action. It's certainly not a ploy to get people to switch to DVD; it's been going on ever since Warner Bros. broke with tradition and released Batman (a summer theater blockbuster) on VHS at a reasonable price only 6 months later to boost Christmas sales. Back then, video releases usually took over a year from the time they were in theaters. Other studios were reluctant to follow at first, until they saw that Batman made ridiculous amounts of money for Warner (because of the low price tag it mafe a great Christmas gift - I know, cause I got one!)
If you are determined to get a copy, Wal-Mart or your local video store probably won't have it because of the exorbitant price. But any well-stocked online video store will have it. Just be prepared to see that big ugly $100 price tag!!!!
PS - CDNow is running a 20% off sale right now, so you can break the $100 barrier. :P
As you say, this has been going on for a long long time. As time-to-video has decreased, we expect fast releases these days. The question is not 'Why are they not releasing it on VHS?' but why are they releasing it so soon on DVD at non-rental prices when they aren't on VHS? Some kind of market stimulation is implied, if you ask me. It's not unreasonable to suggest that the distribution companies are attempting to distract us from the fact that DVD is horrendously expensive.
Region 2 DVDs are certainly hideously expensive, but I get most of mine from America and they usually cost me between �10-15 less than the cost of a new VHS and certainly a lot earlier. Best of all though, completely untouched by the BBFC :-)
Disney-OWNED movies - they make a lot of grown-up movies too, often under the Touchstone label. Having said that, Tina, I agree with you, for they have the worst reputation among DVD enthusiasts.
Tennant (who appends a small selection)
Armageddon (1998)
Biscuit Eater, The (1972)
Cocktail (1988)
Color of Money, The (1986)
Con Air (1997)
Dangerous Minds (1995)
Dead Poets Society (1989)
Deuce Bigalow: Male Gigolo (1999)
Dick Tracy (1990)
Down and Out in Beverly Hills (1986)
Ed Wood (1994)
Enemy of the State (1998)
Face/Off (1997)
Father of the Bride (1991)
Good Morning, Vietnam (1987)
Green Card (1990)
Horse Whisperer, The (1998)
Jefferson in Paris (1995)
Preacher's Wife, The (1996)
Pretty Woman (1990)
Romy and Michele's High School Reunion (1997)
Ruthless People (1986)
Sister Act (1992)
Splash (1984)
Starship Troopers (1997)
Things to Do in Denver When You're Dead (1995)
Three Men and a Baby (1987)
Tin Men (1987)
Turner & Hooch (1989)
Up Close & Personal (1996)
Who Framed Roger Rabbit (1988)
Hellooooo!!! After getting drunk in Vegas, Tennant Stuart doodled cat whiskers on his/her face and miaowed this little lot at a statue...
I don't like the tactics they use... one of Hollywood Records' (their record company) latest acts has acheived success based almost solely on the fact that they've been telling radio stations to play the record, rather than because people have actually been ringing up and requesting the song. (Not that I don't like the group; I think they're great and wish they would do better here in the UK. I just don't think that practically rigging the charts is the way to go about it.)
But then again, I think Billboard is corrupt anyway, or at least the Hot 100 is. :)
Tina, this is how radio stations work everywhere - the record companies tell them who's going to chart, then they give them the relevant records, they get airplay, and "oh look, they chart". You can sell any old dross to chart-buyers if you don't give them much choice. Bands such as Take That, East 17, etc were bought and paid for. The record companies pretty much force radio stations to play certain songs (don't believe the hype about playlist decision-making, it's all marketing), and bands get broken by how photogenic/telegenic they are, rather than the quality of their music. Disney are not even the tip of the iceberg when you're looking at corruption in music. The (UK) charts have also been much more corrupted than they are today, if you can imagine that. In the late 1970s/early 80s they put limits on "freebies" given away with records, and in the late 1980s they put a limit on the number of tracks per single. Both of these measures were put in place to combat blatant attempts at chart rigging. They've also severely altered the old "chart shop" situation... (huge amounts of corruption in that!). Warner Brothers (music) were much worse than any Disney-owned label ever could be, and are you going to boycott the whole WB shebang?
Hellooooo!!! After getting drunk in Vegas, Jacqui doodled cat whiskers on his/her face and miaowed this little lot at a statue...
<chomp>
The point is, the UK charts that actually *mean* something are *not* based on 75% airplay like the Billboard Hot 100. AIUI, we are led to believe that that aspect of that chart is based on how many requests are made for a song, but in actual fact I know a lot of people who have recently rung up for particular acts only to be told that they don't even have the promo CD for that song, whereas other songs get played almost constantly with next to no airplay. For example, did you know that recently, Mariah Carey - whose popularity, love her or loathe her, cannot be disputed - released a double A-side, but thanks to her ongoing dispute with Sony (I believe she's leaving as soon as her next album is finished, which will be very soon, if not now), one side of that double A-side failed to even *chart* on the Hot 100, in spite of the fact she was number 2 in sales at one point, because Sony had released next to no promo copies to radio? (And in fact, I suspect the only reason it was even brought out to sales was because she put her own money behind it, like she did with her recent tour.) Yet Aaliyah managed to get to number 1 based on airplay alone. It shouldn't be like that.
I would not say that the official UK charts have been totally corrupted by the airplay system because they're based *solely* on how many copies of a single is shifted (it doesn't help, but the utter flop that was Girl Thing should prove that airplay and fancy campaigns still mean absolutely diddly-squat if people don't like the music), although I do acknowledge that some fans buying two or more copies of a single to help it get to number 1 *has* become a fairly common practise in some cases these days (that was the only real reason N'Sync's latest album did so well in America). But one thing I will absolutely *never* understand is the way record companies over in the States are allowed to get away with only releasing singles to radio and not even bothering to bring out a commercial release... that's just cheating the fans, and while they may claim that it's so as they can up the album sales, they know as well as everyone else that there is nothing better for a fan than buying a single in the knowledge that whatever chart position their desired artist eventually gets to, they have had a hand in it, however small.
So basically, what I'm getting at is that I *know* it goes on everywhere, but the US is the only place that actually has the nerve to base the rankings of its main chart mainly on how much airplay a song is getting... people buying the song because they've heard it on the radio and like it is one thing, but not even having the option to buy the song unless they buy the album is quite another.
Hellooooo!!! After getting drunk in Vegas, Tennant Stuart doodled cat whiskers on his/her face and miaowed this little lot at a statue...
The thing is, I *love* the director of that video (most of his stuff is great - a lot better than most of the other stuff these days) - but the idea of that video was just mean-spirited. I mean yeah, girls having fun and all the rest of it, I get it - but trashing someone else's wedding? Come on, not even worst enemies do that to one another.
Hellooooo!!! After getting drunk in Vegas, Tennant Stuart doodled cat whiskers on his/her face and miaowed this little lot at a statue...
No - instead, there's a whole "To be continued..." thing. :(
The director is Cameron Casey - I know because on The Box (which is crap, but I *always* seem to have it on :)), they put the names of the director(s) on at the beginning and end of each video, along with the names of the artists and songs. I don't know whether you'd have seen much of his and Simon Brand's work (they mainly do pop videos, oh and they work together most of the time :)), but he recently did that Billie video, together they've done most of the Westlife and Five videos (if you want to see the best examples, hunt down "Flying Without Wings" and "Keep On Moving"), and, uh... ah, yes, they also did the new Steps video (the one that's in black and white). They've done a lot more besides that, though.
Another director who's pretty decent is Phil Griffin (I think that's right; I keep getting him confused with someone else I know :)), but his videos can be a tad cheesy... but at the end of the day, the director an artist gets depends a lot on the label. Put it like this - the only reason Girl Thing got him as the video director is because they're on the same label as Westlife and Five, and that record label uses them for a lot of their artists' videos. They probably wouldn't have got him if they'd been on another label.
Hellooooo!!! After getting drunk in Vegas, Tennant Stuart doodled cat whiskers on his/her face and miaowed this little lot at a statue...
Hopefully not, now that they've flopped.
Don't know. I know it was on cable at some point, and it's definitely on Sky Digi (got it on right now).
That *was* very good, actually... they are the people to go to when an artist wants an image upgrade. Just a shame for Billie that Samantha Mumba's got the better voice.
Coincidentally, they've just done Mel C's new video as well - which completely surprised me, because it's not really like the normal stuff they do at all. They're definitely very good for the repackaging.
I'm ashamed to admit that I've seen them in concert... not half bad, actually, they put on a good show, although the one I saw was definitely oriented more towards the younger kids than anyone else. *Much* better than the disaster that was PITP yesterday, at any rate - but that wouldn't be much of an acheivement, let's face it. :)
Don't know, to be honest - not seen "No Ordinary Morning" at all yet, and not seen "Porcelain" on The Box - I was wondering who made that myself. I can try and find out, though.
Hellooooo!!! After getting drunk in Vegas, Tennant Stuart doodled cat whiskers on his/her face and miaowed this little lot at a statue...
Depends on your PoV. I personally am willing to give *all* music a chance (except that which is the true definition of "teenybopper pop", Lolly being among them), but I know others aren't. There's room for everyone, IMHO.
Um... she's the one who just lost out to Eminem in getting to number 1 the week before last.
They're very in right now, so yeah. :)
Just seen the "Summer Of Love" video on MTV for the millionth time... and just figured out how they did it. :)
It was dire. They were so badly organised that at one point they had managed to lose Westlife *and* their 30-piece choir! Now, like the guys or loathe them, you have to admit that it's pretty impossible to lose an extremely popular group *and* a backup choir! Add in sound problems, language problems (more than one act decided to turn the air blue) *and* the rain which effectively turned the stage into something resembling a sheet of ice (a lot of artists slipped on it), and you have one seriously *bad* concert. The only thing worse was the fact that the producers of the T4 coverage had decided it was their perogative to let the presenters talk over three-quarters of the whole concert *and* cut off the last three hours. Blech. :(
I've already seen Porcelain, no need to describe it - but as for the other one, I'll stay unspoiled. :)
Yep. No point being beat up for the contents of your record collection. :(
Somehow seem to have missed her, kinda like Eminem tho.
What's the advantage over letting it grow?
Oh wow, yeah. :)
Have you seen the elderly couple on the bowling green who advertise the MTV Balearic thingie? "Who's on the decks?" asks the old dear, and after her friend tells her, she says "sounds dreadful." As they relax on the crown green he yells out "I can taste the sky!"
Good for you, Tina!
Unspoiled *is* best. You can only watch for the first time once... :)
Hellooooo!!! After getting drunk in Vegas, Tennant Stuart doodled cat whiskers on his/her face and miaowed this little lot at a statue...
Definitely not. Just because I like mainly pop and R&B, doesn't give people the right to beat me up about it. :) (In all fairness, though, I *do* avoid the people who give pop a bad name, though - namely Daphne and Celeste, Lolly and others.) I pretty much lack respect for the Brits, though... but I'm a bit anti-establishment anyway, so that's hardly surprising. :)
I'm trying to find you a site that has the basic info on her, but all there is is articles about her...
Well, if your hair's anything like mine, it can be impossible to grow it to the length you want it
I only just noticed this afternoon that there are some parts where you can clearly see they're standing in front of a green screen... and then I figured the rest of it out from there. :) (Pretty good video, though I think the good/bad Steps part would have been better if it had *all* been done in one "take" � la the first verse... it looked a bit disjointed after that.)
I've seen it, but it's better than PITP was, trust me. :)
I'm debating about going unspoiled for next season's Friends, actually, although at this rate I might be busy enough that I don't have a choice... (Email me and I'll tell you - I need a little of your help anyway.)
Hellooooo!!! After getting drunk in Vegas, I doodled cat whiskers on my face and miaowed this little lot at a statue...
full stop. :)
But yeah, that's where hair extensions can come in handy. Plus you have the option of putting them back in if, after taking them out, you decide you don't like it shorter...
Hellooooo!!! After getting drunk in Vegas, Tennant Stuart doodled cat whiskers on his/her face and miaowed this little lot at a statue...
Well, the way they're done is like nuts and bolts, yeah. :) (Btw, I advise anyone considering clip-ins because they're cheaper to avoid them like you would bubonic plague... they are notorious for giving permanent headaches.)
Isn't that why Phoebe had her hair up for a while, because it didn't hurt? And then LK was provided with very expensive ones that were not painful, even when worn down?
Hellooooo!!! After getting drunk in Vegas, Tennant Stuart doodled cat whiskers on his/her face and miaowed this little lot at a statue...
I somehow very much doubt that her hair was up to stop it from hurting - if anything, that would make it hurt more because of all the extra clips, grips and general hair gadgets. If anything, her hair was up to disguise the fact that it was fake.
One day, Tina says, "It's just a shame for Billie that Samantha Mumba's got the better voice."
"Who?", asks Tennant, revealing his ignorance, "I probably know of her, but the name doesn't ring a bell."
"Um...", replies Tina patiently, "she's the one who just lost out to Eminem in getting to number 1 the week before last."
Tennant looks puzzled. "Somehow seem to have missed her."
Tina can't quite believe that anybody could be so stupid, but she keeps her smile going, "I'm trying to find you a site that has the basic info on her, but all there is, is articles about her..."
Time passes, and after Tennant spends all day clearing out an old shed while wondering about Whateverthehelhernameis Mumba, he pops the telly on in time for Neighbours, but it comes on tuned to MTV, playing that video that's always on with the girl who jumps off of everybody's balconies before leaping into a moving plane.
"Hmm", muses Tennant, hearing this from the kitchen while sticking the kettle on, "she's got a good voice, wonder what her name is?"
I dunno. Have you ever done a jigsaw puzzle, and near the end you've got a piece which you can't seem to fit in anywhere, and there's this hole in the puzzle which you just can't find the piece for, and then after a lo-long time you find that the two go together?
well haven't done that, but I've done a 500 piece puzzle and not been able to find the last piece, then someone casually walks by sees it and puts it in the puzzle to complete it! That bugs me!!
Well said, Tina. Many acts have been guilty of this practice. Madonna started, and it and others have followed suit. Thank goodness you don't live in the US right now! Britney, N'Sync and Eminem are living atop the Billboard Charts, along with Nelly, Lil' Kim, and Creed. Britney Spears goes without saying (she is #2).
Papa Roach is the *only* newcomer on the Usenet side of things...
Hellooooo!!! After getting drunk in Vegas, Delmont Reeves doodled cat whiskers on his/her face and miaowed this little lot at a statue...
It's not so much the album charts... at least they're based on only sales. It's more the fact that singles can get to number 1 based on airplay alone and not be liked by very many people at all because the suits have decided to play it non-stop, so they're not a fair judge of how well a song is doing at all. Our UK charts can be called many things (I dislike the fact that a song can get to number 1 based almost solely on hype, but again Girl Thing proves that isn't always the case), but they can hardly be accused of being wide open to rigging.
We have built the whole industry around the rigging that comes from not having a song available for purchase, all the while it is constantly on the radio. Billboard doesn't allow a song onto its Hot 100 Singles chart unless it's available to buy. Demand for sales is artificially increased by the constant radio play, then when the song/album finally comes out in stores it debuts in the Top Ten. Then because of its high spot on the charts, it gets played even more on the radio. And the choice of radio stations that are monitored is pretty suspect to me. It's a nice little circle they have going. The industry probably has the next few months worth of Billboard charts already planned out. It's no different from pro wrestling.
The 25%/75% sales/airplay mix is about as fair as it's going to get, when you consider so many songs aren't even released as singles any more. I wonder how much of a full CDs sales are factored into one song's ranking, and how that changes depending on if the song is also available as a single?
Hellooooo!!! After getting drunk in Vegas, Delmont Reeves doodled cat whiskers on his/her face and miaowed this little lot at a statue...
Actually, I like a lot of those. Or rather, I like some of their songs... whether I actually like *them* as artists is still to be determined, which is why I only bought NSA to see what the big deal was and out of the rest only plan to buy Eminem (the guy's twisted, but he's got a beat) and possibly Lil' Kim (hey, I'm an R&B freak :)).
Btw, when exactly *did* Billboard/Soundscan decide to start the 75% airplay scheme? I personally think they should never have allowed the practise of airplay-only singles to even begin to develop in the first place, but I'm curious as to when they decided to do that and what made them decide that.
So many songs just aren't released as singles that they ~had~ to add album cuts to the charts. It's the only way to be reasonably fair about it (in theory! - the reality of the way it's handled leaves a lot to be desired). I think they started in the early/mid 90s, not sure exactly when. At least with this method you can be sure the sales portion is accurate. Billboard used to go into detail in the magazine each week about how the overall chart differed from the airplay & sales charts. I wonder if they still do that, and I am real curious about how they factor full CD sales into the mix when considering one song's ranking.
Hellooooo!!! After getting drunk in Vegas, I doodled cat whiskers on my face and miaowed this little lot at a statue...
This made no sense whatsoever - what I meant to say was that: "a lot of people have rung up for particular acts only to be told that the radio station doesn't even have the promo CD for that song and probably won't be getting it even if that song becomes their most requested ever, whereas other songs get played almost constantly with next to no requests."
On Sat, 8 Jul 2000, Jacqui stated this considered view. Waking from my doze, I hastily scrawled -
The whole nature of the charts has changed too. When I used to follow them, in the 80's, it was a very rare event for records to enter at No.1, and records used to have far longer chart lives too. Now they're gone in a month.
Aren't *all* the charts pretty well meaningless these days, Tina? Not just the hyping that goes on, but they way records are released so that they (if successful) go straight to #1, then fall the next week? And who buys singles anyway these days - you get the album. Not to mention all the money that is squandered on games, greatly subsuming pop music.
What did you think about Cliff Richard's Christmas Number One?
Hellooooo!!! After getting drunk in Vegas, Tennant Stuart doodled cat whiskers on his/her face and miaowed this little lot at a statue...
At least they're determined by the buyers, rather than the suits.
Don't forget, he *didn't* get the Christmas number 1 in the end, Westlife did. (And thank God for that... I wasn't too fond of their release either (I've never been a fan of covers), but quite frankly I found the attempt to commercialise a *hymn* of all things just deplorable, and so anything that stopped it was welcome.)
Hellooooo!!! After getting drunk in Vegas, Tennant Stuart doodled cat whiskers on his/her face and miaowed this little lot at a statue...
Well, I do know a little bit about this stuff. :)
Didn't remember that, but that would have been considered chart-rigging - if he actually *did* do that and it could be proven, he'd probably be disqualified from the charts.
Hellooooo!!! After getting drunk in Vegas, Paul Hyett doodled cat whiskers on his/her face and miaowed this little lot at a statue...
Trust me, it is in America. All the record companies in America are known to spend money to convince radio stations to play one song more than the others... and because it's based on 75% airplay, a song can be absolutely diabolical and still get to number 1 if the backing's behind it on airplay.
Hellooooo!!! After getting drunk in Vegas, Tennant Stuart doodled cat whiskers on his/her face and miaowed this little lot at a statue...
It is. See what I mean about our charts not being nearly so corrupt now?
Unfortunately, they do. Lately I've noticed that acts will talk about how their sales are (particularly UK acts) but will not talk about their ranking on the main chart unless they're doing extremely good on that as well, but unfortunately they're still seen as the bees' knees over there. Most recent example I can think of: Mariah Carey's recent double-A side, one side of which charted at (I think) number 30 on the main chart and the other side of which failed to even chart on the 100, in spite of the fact it was number 2 in sales. And as one of the Westlife guys pointed out on one of the many PITP interviews today, getting to number 30 with a first single is *just* getting your foot in the door, so for an established artist like Mariah to get that is basically a disaster - if you want people to take notice of *any* song, you need *serious* airplay. No-one takes any notice of a good-selling single if it's not getting enough airplay to put it into at least the top 10 of the main chart. It does indeed mean the charts are completely meaningless, but no-one in the industry really seems to care as it means they're very open to rigging. The best thing Soundscan could do, IMHO, is scrap the "Hot 100" as it stands altogether and make it sales-only - therefore, the radio-release-only practise would have to be abolished, and the charts would actually *mean* something again.
Hellooooo!!! After getting drunk in Vegas, Tennant Stuart doodled cat whiskers on his/her face and miaowed this little lot at a statue...
I doubt it. It works for the people who release album cuts (which should be banned), therefore it works for the record labels, therefore it works for the industry as a whole.
Hellooooo!!! After getting drunk in Vegas, Tennant Stuart doodled cat whiskers on his/her face and miaowed this little lot at a statue...
That's the only one that would make any difference. It appears to me that the industry is shooting itself in the foot by allowing airplay-only singles, because it really doesn't increase album sales all that much from what I can gather.
Hellooooo!!! After getting drunk in Vegas, Paul Hyett doodled cat whiskers on his/her face and miaowed this little lot at a statue...
Well, there's Rick Dees, but I don't know what that's based on. The only place you're guaranteed at least an accurate sales-only chart is Billboard's sales-only chart.
yes there are, and I know they always do a top 5 at 10 soley based on requests throughout the day on my radio station, and they do this on others. They did a top 100 for the year..
Not really because a lot of radio stations play many requests. The song will only be requested if people like it. People won't listen to the radio station if they don't like the songs. Therefore it wouldnt make sense to play a bad song. So then it wouldn't reach the top of the charts. It's not as rigged as you think.
Disaster - no, the Trekkers didn't resent the spoofing, they lapped it up, and they were suitably scornful of the GQ fans in the early scenes.
I'd only had time to play the opening, last night was its first proper outing, and it went wrong on the second layer, chapters 13-20, starting and stopping all on its own. Eventually it condescended to play 16-20, then we found it would play 15 if 16 just had, and so on.
So we watched the movie in the order 1-12, 16-20, 15, 14, 13...