In article <199309170843.AA04924@orion.oac.uci.edu>,
Ned Andrew Raggett <eahg119@orion.oac.uci.edu> wrote:
quoted 5 lines To build from that--is it good or bad that a variety of recent,>To build from that--is it good or bad that a variety of recent,
>non-techno/dance acts (mostly British outfits such as Curve, Lush,
>Chapterhouse, and the Boo Radleys) seek out remixes by supposedly
>'blatantly hip' artists (besides the above mentioned outfits, Spooky,
>St. Etienne, the Aphex Twin, and the ever-lovin' Orb)?
It's just a way of ensuring a better chart position. Getting in the UK
top forty singles chart is a springboard to making lots of money
worldwide, completely out of all proportion to the actual number of
sales these days. The market has also got extremely fragmented, further
lowering sales of non-(very)mainstream artists. By targetting a range of
different markets through different mixes, you can artificially inflate
your chart position.
You first get in someone like Paul Okenfold to do your radio mix,
specially geared to the tastes of the heads of music at the three most
influential radio stations: the national Radio One, London's Capital FM
and Glasgow's Clyde 1. Then you look at the main segments of clubland
at the time. Perhaps a rave mix from Carl Cox for the kiddies, Danny
Rampling to do the happy house, DJ Pierre for something trancey.
Depending on the remixer you might also hope to pick up a few extra
sales from the completists who just have to have everything a
particular remixer has done. Oh, and make sure you put out white labels
of the different mixes with minimal info on them so they can pick up a
following in the clubs and on specialist radio without getting a
negative vibe over the real artist's name.
Wot me, cynical? :-)
--
Stephen Hebditch TQM Communications steveh@orbital.demon.co.uk +44 836 825962