Blackdown said:
it's not a linear relationship though: it's cyclical. People like what is marketed to them. the more something is covered in the press and marketed the more it sells. just saying people like pop-rock so labels sell them pop-rock is only half the equation.
a clear example is Adverts. Some obscure underground/independent track - destined to sell 500 copies through indie shops - goes on an advert. it gets shown to 10m people a week, and then suddenly it's popular. is it the same obscure tune it was the week before? yes. would the tens of thousands people who now like it have bought it before the ad: no.
so to return to the subject of this post, an example like this show why polls shouldn't be safe or mediocre, because people in positions of influence should use that influence to promote diversity not mediocrity.
What's at work here is a need to be seen as running with current trends, I suppose.
Looking at the list of what's been picked, they're all pretty safe bets - i.e. the industry consensus is that these are the bands worth backing for 2006 because they've all already got that backing and are ready to roll as projects for the labels. "Record Of The Day" fodder.
These tastemakers want to still be seen as tastemakers this time next year, so they therefore tip bands who will (almost) certainly have had a degree of commercial success in 2006.
It's interesting to note that The Arctic Monkeys weren't picked last year, but The Dears were.
