Baffle said:
Megalodon said:
I thought the point of the (successful) campaign to make Killing In The Name Christmas No.1 was to spite/protest the 'X factor winner = automatic Xmas No.1' phenomenon of previous years. Rage being chosen both because it's a far cry from the regular pop chart fodder, and the confrontational/'fight the power' nature of the song itself (such as the repetition of "Fuck you, I won't do what you tell me") fitted with the 'fuck X Factor' sentiment, not 'lol nobody like this band, lets make them No.1 because irony(?)'.
While you're right and I was only joking, I have to say: Ugh, that's a terrible song. It's just so ... teenage. (I realise it was probably written in a genuine fight-the-power sense, but I was a lad when it was popular and I think it was more likely to be used when someone didn't want to tidy their room than it was to overthrow The Man.)
Funny thing is, originally the music from Killing in the Name was nothing but the bands sound check music. It makes sense, listen to the beats of the intro and what not, and the way it completely emphasizes the hardest things to balance on a stage.
When they picked up a recording deal very very early in their existence, i read somewhere years ago, that they were told that everything was brilliant, but they need ONE marketable song to get on the radio, so they wrote lyrics to their sound check music, threw it in the face of the studio execs and said basically, fuck you, market this.
Turns out the marketers did a good job.
No idea if this is myth or true, just something i read.
lol
On the surface yes it does sound like a juvenile song, but they were very young then and the band had not even been together a year when they were signed (Formed 91, Signed 91, Self titled album 92)
Anyways, my two cents
