Band Banned From Charts For Being Too Well Liked
from the smash-hit dept
The popularity of downloading music is affecting an industry institution: the hit chart. In the past, it was easy enough to to tabulate sales, but file-trading, ringtone sales, and other means by which people listen to music render these lists less informative. Recently, a UK band was disqualified from the charts when it was discovered that overzealous fans were buying multiple copies of the same song. In one case a fan bought a single song 100 times. It's true that these repeat sales distort the breadth of the band's popularity, but they do indicate the intensity of the band's fans (it should be noted that the band is now imploring the fans to just purchase two copies of the album when it comes out, sort of a funny concept in the age of downloads). At a time when the industry must find new ways to monetize a band's popularity, intensity is something worthwhile to measure. Of course, if the chart keepers don't adapt they may soon be entirely meaningless.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
I like the new look!
- PrBl
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Already Useless
I'm no more likely to go see a movie because its #1 at "the box office" top ten list than if its not on it at all. In fact I'm less likely, because that just means that there are more annoying people in the theatre to put up with because its more popular -- again, that another story.
And I absolutely refuse to pay more than 8 dollars for a CD full of nothing more than nice sounds. That said, I dont buy music, nor should anyone at the prices they are currently set -- its absolutely riddiculous.
musicians only make a small percentage of what you pay for CDs, thus you don't pay that much for music, you pay mostly for the delivery method with retail CDs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Already Useless
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Already Useless
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Already Useless
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Already Useless
It doesnt cost shit to make music. the band needs no support other than the fact that I LISTEN to them with my HEART, not my WALLET.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Already Useless
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Already Useless
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Already Useless
Yet, RIAA has a hard on for the mp3 downloaders and not the live recording bootleggers? (Not that they don't care about live bootlegs, but it's not a priority of theirs) Apparently, since mp3 downloading is such a problem, they would not waste their money on catching piraters if it was not a substantial loss of money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Already Useless
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Already Useless
And they might do that... If it didn't cost money to do so! Blank CD's, printing of inserts, distribution, new guitar strings, new equipment when it breaks, on and on. The costs add up quickly, especially when you are creating a few hundred thousand CD's or more!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Already Useless
bland CDs are extremely cheap in bulk.
prinint is just bloat -- its unneccesary.
distribution might cost a bit, but not if you just hand it out to people on the street like staind did when they recorded their first album -- look where they are now.
equipment doenst break -- and if it does its because you dropped it and its your fault anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Already Useless
But, the belief that making good music must cost a lot of money and must be a full time job is a false one. If a musician is an artist, he will pursue his art whether he gets paid for it or not. An artist will definitely never expect to make a 6 or 7 figure income or change his art based on what 50 Cent is doing to get him to number 1 on the charts. But, entertainers will. I've listened to recordings done on home gear that sounds every bit as good as recordings done in multi-million dollar studios.
So in summary, if you want to follow the charts and pay $15 for a CD by an entertainer, that's your prerogative. Personally, I think that is for sheep. But if you enjoy art, find musician's you enjoy and support them by buying their music from their sites and by going to their shows. They won't be as wealthy, but at least they'll be artists and not entertainers. As for you John, keep on grazing and some day we can make a sweater out of you...Baaaaah!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Already Useless
"If it weren't for your wallet's support, the band would not be able to live and continue to produce their music you love with your heart so much."
What, you think they live, eat, and breathe music? To write some lyrics and then come up with a catchy tune? this isnt rocket science dude, this is art. I have a full time job AND make music. If I wanted to distribute my music, I'd put it out, give it to my friends, people I give a shit about. I dont care who hears it, and anyone that does is either on a crusade or after your wallet, and which one do you think is more plausible?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Already Useless
They worked and made music at the same time once upon a time too. But see, they made music that people liked, and more people got introduced to their CD-R garage burns, and before they knew it, they were popular enough to give a live performance - by demand. This meant taking a night off work in order to play for their fans. To compensate, they charged a few bucks admission, and didn't miss their rent that month. After having a few shows, they decided that they wanted to create a quality cd. only problem was recoding studio time is very expensive. so they start charging $1 for their CD-R's that cost them 25 cents. They print up some tshirts for their fans and sell those for a little profit. They charge $5 for admission to their live performances now - and they have enough to put out their first studio-mastered demo/independent-release cd. Months go by, and their demo falls in the hands of a label, who signs them on. The label says, there's no way you can work and play music. you need to be practicing every day - and we got you doing shows far too often for you to get a job somewhere else. Then there is appearances at parties, on mtv, the music awards, humanitarian efforts for your image, and the list goes on. Before you know it, all the band does is publicize themselves and play music. Sure they get time off, but it's not enough to hold even a part time job. Then the band might get rich - say they make a #1 hit or two (a measure of their success - the charts!), then every teenie bopper is going to buy their music cause it's the trend to be new and hot. Now, the band is millionaires, and they take breaks from their music, putting out cd's every 3-4 or more years instead of twice a year like before. But since they're rich, they don't need to work now, and they live happily ever after.
Once a band move beyond their garage days, they don't really have normal jobs anymore - they're a success. Everyone loves them. They are in demand. You said you'd give your CD's to those you cared about. Well, these bands care about their fans too - Without them, they'd still be strumming chords in the coffee shop down of 5th Street once a week while working overtime at McDonald's.
See, most fans care about thier music. They see the purchase of band merchandise and media as a form of donating to them. I give you $20 cause I like your music so much, and you give me a recording of your music as a token of your appreciation. It just depends on how you look at it, I suppose.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Already Useless
And all you need to design buildings is a pencil, paper, eraser, ruler... architects should work a full-time job and then give away their building designs in the evening. Bloody architects, just after your wallet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Already Useless
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Already Useless
What planet are you from where it doesn't cost shit to make music. It costs a lot of money to be in a band. Sure you can sit in your bedroom and write CD after CD of pointless drivel, but if you want to do it for anything other than a hobby you're going to have to pony up a little cash. Then hopefully you can at least break even so you can do it again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Already Useless
it doesnt cost shit to make music. go buy a guitar for a few hundred, an amp for about the same, grab a couple other guys and make some music. record it any way you like. its cheap, you make music, and I want to hear it. thats that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Already Useless
What planet are you from where it doesn't cost shit to make music. It costs a lot of money to be in a band. Sure you can sit in your bedroom and write CD after CD of pointless drivel, but if you want to do it for anything other than a hobby you're going to have to pony up a little cash. Then hopefully you can at least break even so you can do it again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Already Useless
uhmmm...they should earn money from their talents. it's no different than me earning money from software i create or reports a bean counter generates or the burger joe assembles at burger king. im pretty sure the band wants to spend time creating, writing, and practicing (working) instead of worrying how they are going to pay for their next meal.
but, i also agree that $15-$20 is insane and as mentioned, most of that money doesn't go to the artist. it goes to the lawyers the labels are hiring.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Already Useless
nothign wrong with that.
"it's no different than me earning money from software i create"
software is another story, I'm an open source developer as well.
"im pretty sure the band wants to spend time creating, writing, and practicing (working) instead of worrying how they are going to pay for their next meal. "
You think we should support their living expenses just because we like their music?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Already Useless
"worrying how they are going to pay for their next meal. ""
more like worring how their going to pay for their next Porsche.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Already Useless
i'm not saying that musicians have to charge, im just say that it's their right. some musicians spend more time creating and practicing than others. and some want to spread their music beyond just the people they care about.
some artists actually see it as a way to support themselves. and if they can, more power to them. but just because someone has the freedom to change for a creation doesnt mean i like their price or think its worth that.
and if you could buy a porche on what you made from your creation (whatever it may be), do you think the people who purchased your creation should begrudge you for doing so?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Already Useless
I assume you also don't tip at restaurants? After all, servers are already being paid and it doesn't cost shit to bring a few plates and glasses around to the table. Then again, you're probably some 13 year old punk who has no idea of what real costs are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Already Useless
And a DEGREE.
"Now tell me, are you going to do YOUR job for no pay?"
I'm qualified to do my job. Anyone could run out of inspiration to write good music; my job isnt an art.
"I assume you also don't tip at restaurants"
not the Chinese Family owned ones. They make good money. I believe that waitresses should make minimum wage, but because they don't I feel obliated to tip.
"probably some 13 year old punk who has no idea of what real costs are."
Far off. Very far off.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Already Useless
The charts and any kind of ranking system matter immensley to the people in a position to make a profit off record sales i.e. Not the Artists. Anything high up on the list will be popular with teenagers who are desparate to fit in. Here is a CBS Article about a Recent Study that found teenagers rate a song higher if they found out their peers downloaded it more.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Already Useless
Thats irrelevant -- the charts just show what the crowds like, and no one cares what the crowd likes, and if they do then they're listening with their wallets or their egos and not their hearts -- otherwise the music isnt as important to them as popularity, and that does not deserve attention on this matter of MUSIC.
Ever heard of tape trading? Thats what music is for, thats why it exists, not charts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Already Useless
True - music does not exist for charts. No one said that it does. They are saying quite the opposite! The charts exist for the music. Charts help artists know if they are doing a good job or not. They also help radio stations decide what to play on-air. Charts are not the reason music is around - it's the exact opposite.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Already Useless
if you need to be told if your music is good, you're obviously not making music because you love it -- you might as well try to sell elevator music.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Already Useless
Well, that was taken out of context! What I was trying to convey to you was that they like to know if they are slipping in the charts, because if they are, then success is getting to their heads, and they are playing worse than they used to. Sometimes you need a little reminder of reality after becoming a star. Also, you have to realize that they can monitor their own sales at any time. You know how many CD's you sold, you know how many people were at your last concert, but even if this stays the same, slumps, or grows - it's not an indication of how you stack up against other artists. What is that 50 Cent guy doing that Eminem isn't? Why is his track ranked higher? (example ha!) By analyzing what another band is doing to rack up even higher ratings, higher crowds, higher sales... You can improve on your own act and music too. There's always room for improvement and education.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Already Useless
Music is Art.
Art is not a competetive sport.
Musicians should not compete with oneanother, which is the main reason for charts -- to see who is more popular than who.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Already Useless
I'd like to see a computer generate something as meaningful and "nice" as any man-made art. This isn't to say that popular music is good music in itself, but I think that your thoughts on music are really weak and that, just because you can't appreciate art, that doesn't mean that others can't and aren't willing to pay for the good music that's out there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Already Useless
That makes ZERO sense! Popular songs aren't really popular because they are popular.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Already Useless
That makes ZERO sense! Popular songs aren't really popular because they are popular.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Already Useless
if I have a vegetarian guest over I ridicule him and ask him how is protein deficiency is doing.
"Charts are already useless. Nobody carehow popular a song is. frankly, more popular songs areavoided due to being so overplayed -- but thats another story.
That makes ZERO sense! Popular songs aren't really popular because they are popular."
I mwant that they are avoided by myself. I didn't elaborate on that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
astroturfing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Already Useless
But the main reason they exist is for industry workers to know what they are dealing with. If a song is number one on the charts, then people like radio station DJ's know that they should be playing that song more often than a song that did not make it to the charts. This attracts listeners and, in turn, money from advertisers due to an increased listening group.
There are those of us who don't go by charts to know what is good music, but there are just as many, if not more, people out there who only listen to what's new and hot. Mainstream radio stations bank on that fact, and so you see higher radio play on #1 hits than you do on obscure tracks. Charts are very important, just maybe not to some people.
I use charts when buying music each week, because I don't know what is new and popular these days. I listen to different music, but since I am always having friends over, I need to have music on hand that everyone else likes. Charts come in handy for just such a purpose.
Charts also provide feeback to artists. They get to see how well they are doing in comparison to other artists, and not just their own figures.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Already Useless
why do you care?
"but since I am always having friends over, I need to have music on hand that everyone else likes"
need?
you need a good dose of "Think for Yourself" and don't be ashamed about it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Already Useless
Yes, my friends do not listen to the music I like, so I have a section of music that they like for when they are over, and want to hear something. There's nothing wrong with entertaining your guests. If you have a vegetarian friend over, you don't shove hambuger down his throat. You be a good host, and prepare them a nice vegetarian dish. That's called hospitality!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
People look to the charts to see whats hot. that is circular and pointless. everyone looks at these charts instead of looking at how they got on the chart in the first place: by listening to music, not looking at charts.
charts are pointless, and technically harmful to bands that arent on them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Getting on a playlist is easy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Getting on a playlist is easy
It's the other way around now. Radio stations keep logs of what they play, and have to pay royalties to the record companies. Charts are generated from many sources. Record stores, online places like itunes, and radio stations as well. There are several charts, depending on which type of data you're looking for. At the radio station, DJ's sometime pad these figures before submitting their logs to the charts if they like one artist more than another. That's just their way of saying "thanks for a great song." A record company would have to pay off an insanely large percentage of record stores, DJ's, and so on to affect the charts. Either that, or bribe the chart companies ;-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yes and no. The DO make a pretty chunk of change through CDs, but no where near as much from touring.
As far as the charts go, they might as well dump the whole thing if that's the case. It doesn't make any damn sense why they're still using it if it can be exploited like that. How do you know someone in the top 10 hasn't done that as well?
"Oh, we know".
Bullshit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anyway, there are people out there, I shit you not, paying $500+ for scribbles painted by a dolphin.
You CANNOT dissagree that this kind of obsession with art is absolutely irrational. I do appreciate art, but there is a very fat black line where you become a fan-boy groupie. These are just nice sounds, regardless of how much I love them, how artsy they are, or whatever. when you get right down to it, they are just sounds, and to be charged 20 bucks for a minimum collection of as-short-as-possible tracks of nice sounds (as most artists do) is irrational.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Son
Wtf are you smoking?? Yea anyone can make music buy simply getting a guitar and making something,I can hum an effin song and that doesnt cost shit.I think you fail to realize how much it costs to go into a REAL studio so you can make a good album to actually release,it costs thousands and thousands of dollars,not including marketing etc..etc...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Son
I'd rather listen to a real musician in a shitty studio than a shitty musician in a real studio any day.
look at how many shitty artists we have now in real studios. computer synthesized sounds playing with some crack addict singing about weed and booty. Yeah...thats art....in America.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
goto the SHOWs! they make much more off of that.
of the $12 you pay for CDs, they get around $2...
The rest certainly doesn't pay for the manufacturing of the CD....
it's all the 'overhead' of the publisher....
including marketing and payola to increase airtime
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How, oh bright one, are YOU going to know about the music if it isn't marketed in some fashion? Yes, I'm sure you can go to a friend's house and hear a local band thrumming through some tinny built in speakers on their laptop, but how do I, if I were an artist, get my sound out there without money?
Basically it just sounds like a lot of people are rationalizing stealing music by suggesting that "real" artists can live on love, music, and air.
Now tell me, are you going to do YOUR job for no pay? If not, then why shouldn't the artists and the other involved in the distribution, sales, legal aspects, etc. of music get paid for THEIR jobs? Whether you think music is overpriced or not is beside the point. If you believe it is, don't buy it, but don't steal it either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Spoiled people
When CD's came out they were supposed to be cheaper than cassettes by the mid 90's- that never happened- thus people dl music instead of buying CDs.
I think most of us want the money we do spend on music to go to the artist.
BUT- for all of you who get on a soap box and think there is something wrong with an artist wanting to make as much money as possible for the music they create- shame on you.
I hate the RIAA as much as anyone. They deserve the shit pie they are having to eat for their failure to lower CD prices and their shady contract deals they cut with new artists. Look what LaFace did to TLC when they first signed them.
Quit wrapping yourself up in that psuedo ethical argument that artist should just be happy with people's appreciation. I admit there is nothing I love more than to see my work touch someone- that is something that money will never buy. But if I can sell my stuff and make a great living at it, you're damn right I will.
Artist give up a portion of their lives to create music- who the hell are you to say that it does not cost shit to make music?
I don't buy CDs for the same reason many of you don't- they cost too damn much. Like the other guy said- they lower the prices to $5 a CD, then I'll buy the hell out of them.
Until then, I will keep going to concerts and buying the five or six CDs a year that I really want, and I will download the rest.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Spoiled people
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think musicians should make money, its obviously a valid carrer, but the truth is that most of the money you fork out doesn't even go to them, let alone help them make more music. the little bit that does probably gets spent on something other than life neccesities.
that is inarguable, at least for the famous musicians.
Art is far different than an educated position, such as System Administration, Architecture, etc, and much easier to achieve when you put your both your heart and head into it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I like songs for what they say.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
An Artist that creates music. who the hell are you to say I'm not?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Our time and energy are the two most valuable assets we have.
I was pointing out that you said creating music did not cost shit. Maybe your time is worthles, but you're the first musician I have heard say that.
I understand full well about the love of music to drive your creative energies. Most of the people on my mom's side of the family live for it. Some are happy playing at church every week, some are ambitious and some of those have made a great living in Nashville and Memphis. Some live in pure jealousy and misery because they never 'made it' like some in the family have.
I was pointing out that projecting your life on others is a form of mental illness if you want the naked truth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
there were some good points, and there were some bad ones too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
An interesting comment about Artist vs Entertainer.
from your comment, we share the same perspective on this issue.
I just hope you're not a vegetarian :-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
umm.. the record companies
It's mucked up that the little guy now has the same power to cheat as the big guy and the big guy disqualifies him.
Why they hell would the band care if they charted or not if they had a maniac fan base that is buying 2, 3, 4 at a time, 100 at a time. Then they tell them only buy 2? I'd tell them, please only buy ten at a time.
A sale is a sale, if I bought 1 or 1000. So what they found overzealous fans. "It's true that these repeat sales distort the breadth of the band's popularity" Wow, One download per single per ip. coming soon
Hey Homer, it's the music business, umm make money.. hello...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stealing Music
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Did you know that at the end of last year in the UK the labels sued the royalty collection societies because they wanted to pay artists 8.5% instead of 12% of a digital download - at 0.99c a track, they went to court over 4 cents !!!!! meanwhile the royalty collectors tried to stand up to them stating that on average musicians in the UK make only 10,000 pounds a year
Meanwhile bands like the arctict monkeys are making it huge at the same time as encouraging their fans to share their tracks on file sharing networks
I think we all agree on one thing - labels suck
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mr Rat
When (hopefully) thousands or millions of people download/buy/whatever a track, thats 4 cents * thousands or millions. 25 downloads is an entire dollar difference. A thousand downloads is 40 dollars difference. 5 thousand downloads is 200 dollars difference. 100 thousand downloads is 4,000 dollars difference. A million downloads is 40,000 difference. 5 million downloads is 20,000 dollars difference.
Entire UK downloads a track: $2,420,000 difference
Entire US downloads a track: $12,000,000 difference
So now why do you think they care?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Mr Rat
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Correction: To record 3 of my bands short songs it cost several hundred dollars and took 9 hours to record all three, not including the mixing time.
Also, the reason that something is #1 is for a reason: people like it! If people like, its probably good enough to be liked a lot. So what if there are some people that support it because of peer pressure? There are peers that support it for a reason.
Avoiding #1's because you think its just a stereotypical popular thing is probably the most stereotypical thing you can do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
downloading
If people want to own the CD, the official piece of work that they can hold in their hands and cherish and mount on a rack for posterity, fine. I'll always support artists putting out their music on full CDs. But not all music listeners are rich, and I resent labels and artists that force their fans, not to mention the deejays that make them famous, to choose between music or food. As a DJ, if all I want or need is one song, I appreciate the artists who are willing to give a single song download. The future belongs to those artists who are not afraid to let their songs stand by themselves... and not on the shoulders of their hit singles, so that they can effectively sell these singles for $14.99 apiece under the guise of giving you an album.
Like I said, if I absolutely need that track, I'll go out and buy it for sixteen dollars. But as more and more artists start coming out with single hit downloads, that's going to start changing. I'll just use one song over another. It's a foregone conclusion. And it's already starting to happen.
-DJ Skyede
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
When you download the artist's hard work for free, who do think misses out on the money, the artist, the label or RIAA?
Do you think the label or RIAA will fund another work by the artist if they did not make money from the previous work?
Do you think the label or RIAA will forget about the artist's debts because their work did not make money as it was downloaded for free?
So you realy think you are hurting RIAA by downloading for free? Think again, the labels and RIAA have very strong contracts to ensure they have little to no exposure to risk.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: what you said
There is simply no need for them any more - they are leaches living off money that would otherwise go to artists.
They are middlemen, these days artists and consumers can go it alone together; and those that are good at what they do (not thinking mass marketing creations like Britney) will get the riches.
There is a simple solution to p2p and thats - for all us lawyers out there - called collective licensing - it is entirely possible to collect fees and distribute them according to the popularity of a track. It would open up the music industry and allow fair competition for many talented people that are overlooked because they have the wrong hair style. More artists would get more money rather than a handful getting heaps. The problem is that the labels dont want it because they know that means the end for them.
wake up and smell the corporate BS
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yeah, how embarassing for ARIA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]