MyFox
 

Jeff_I's Blog

by Jeff_I

Last Post 31 days, 10 hours Ago


Radiohead vs The Recording Industry
Oct 2, 2007 | 7:52 PM
Category: Music
Report This Post

Say what you want about Radiohead, either they're amazing or amazingly overrated, but there's one thing you cannot ignore. Radiohead is one of the world's biggest bands.

I happen to think they're also one of the world's best bands (and also guest starred on the best episode of South Park ever), but I am willing to forget that I worship at the altar of Thom Yorke and Co. for the sake of objectivity.

Radiohead has just destroyed the recording industry. Or, taken the biggest shot at the already decrepit state that the recording industry is already in.

Let's look back:

Two days ago, Jonny Greenwood posted this message on the band's usually cryptic blog Dead Air Space:

" Hello everyone.
Well, the new album is finished, and it's coming out in 10 days;
We've called it In Rainbows.
Love from us all.

-Jonny"

I was psyched and shocked (pshochked?). Only Radiohead would nonchalantly announce that their album was done and it was coming out in a week and a half. In this age of promotion does this ever happen? Nope. After picking up my jaw from the floor, I began to get excited. My jaw's realignment with my face was brief, however, as it quickly fell right back to the floor while reading how I could get the album.


"In Rainbows" would be available for download on 10/10/07 for the price of... whatever you feel like paying. When you order the download this pops up at checkout:

Then, when you inevitably think it's a scam and click the Question Mark next to the checkout, this pops up:

So, it's up me to pay what I want (I haven't decided how much I want to pay yet) and now it's up to the recording industry to figure out how to deal with this blow dealt by Radiohead.

If you haven't noticed, no one really buys CDs anymore. The industry is flailing. Now, with this stunt, they've officially been put on notice. Radiohead has now said, "It's About The Music," and it's about time.

Look at the other big bands these days. Springsteen inked a deal with Starbucks, U2 released an album with a freaking iPod.

Only Prince had the guts to do anything similar when he put out his newest album for free in a British newspaper. But he was still signed with a record label and you still had to buy the album in the States.

Nobody has had the gall to do it like this. No label, no promotion, no singles, NO PRICE!

For a far more talented take on what I'm trying to say, check out this article in TIME. Here's my favorite quote:

"That's the interesting part of all this," says a producer who works primarily with American rap artists. "Radiohead is the best band in the world; if you can pay whatever you want for music by the best band in the world, why would you pay $13 dollars or $.99 cents for music by somebody less talented? Once you open that door and start giving music away legally, I'm not sure there's any going back."

Touche.

So, how much would you pay for Radiohead's album? Is this a death knell for the industry? Let me know what you think.


14 Comments |  Add a Comment

Member Comments Total Comments: 14
Page 1 of 1
Maria_Stephanos read my blog
Oct 2, 2007 | 8:40 PM

Jeff_I, Yes, absolutely leading to the death knell for the industry and in a way, I think it's exciting. Shake it up. Give us a little control and a break.

btw, I love Radiohead and I would happily pay hmmmm let's see. 10 dollars. I think that's a fair price. I just wish Nordstrom would take a page from Radiohead's book. "That blue suit, I'd like to pay 50 dollars. Those kickin shoes, how about 25?" I like this. I like this a lot.

Maria
Jeff_I read my blog
Oct 2, 2007 | 10:13 PM

Unfortunately I don't think the clothing industry is in the same amount of decline as the music industry. Maybe not until they invent downloadable clothing templates that you can print on a fabric printer at home. I'm sure Star Simpson and the gang at MIT are hard at work on a similar invention.

I do think you'll be able to buy a GM car for a few bucks soon. But cmon, who buys American?
Valintyne read my blog view my photos
Oct 3, 2007 | 8:42 AM

Great and daring move by Radiohead! Beautiful blow to the record thugs (who are now apparently signing artists to "exclusive" download contracts, as in you can only download an artist's song from one online music store, like itunes). Artists retaking control of the music - I love it!

And Maria, Amen to the wishful thinking about clothing retailers. Saks Fifth Avenue would have all my business if they let me pay $20 for their dresses instead of $500.
Maria_Stephanos read my blog
Oct 3, 2007 | 5:29 PM

Valintyne, Let's start a campaign right now!
rstrout
Oct 3, 2007 | 10:12 PM

I think RH figured that they might as well make a few bucks through digital downloads knowing that it is more likely than not that the album will leak over the internet between now and the conventional release date in stores.

They are actually in negotiations with a label right now and will release the album (the conventional way) in early 2008.

This isn't as revolutionary as some people may think. It is a win win for everyone (the band, the fans) and it shows that Thom and Co. aren't just musical geniuses but also have business smarts.

Also, it goes without saying that this album will be tremendous. I've been waiting for 4 years. Can't wait for next Wednesday.
JoshS read my blog view my photos
Oct 4, 2007 | 1:40 PM

I think this is great for both the fans and the band but let's not kid ourselves here....Bands are making their money these days through touring so if we're gonna shell out more than $40 to see band every time they come through the area we might as well get to hear their songs for free.

Jeff I I just downloaded a pair of boxers last week and they fit perfectly.
Kevin_C read my blog view my photos
Oct 9, 2007 | 6:57 PM

I just read that Nine Inch Nails aren't re-upping with their record company either and plan to do something similar regarding future releases.

The question now, though, is this: Radiohead and NIN are established bands with rabid fanbases. Will it be possible for new bands to survive using this business model?
Graham_Cracker read my blog view my photos
Oct 12, 2007 | 7:47 AM

Kevin C brings up a very good point, but what are new bands supposed to do anyway?
America is one of the few countries in the world (maybe even the only one) where bartering isn't really an option.
I'll never forget when I went to the UK when I was 18 (back in 1988) and I needed a belt that I found in a store but I didn't think I had enough coin. It was eight British pounds. The clerk asked me, "How much have you got?" I told her, "I've only got five..." She said, "that'll do."
Being from the uber-greedy U.S.of A, I was nothing short of stunned. Consider what a wonderful world this COULD be...
Graham_Cracker read my blog view my photos
Oct 12, 2007 | 7:48 AM

Oh, btw, I'd give Radiohead ten bucks. If this was happening back when they had just released OK Computer, I'd have given them about twenty-five.
JoshS read my blog view my photos
Oct 12, 2007 | 7:58 AM

To be honest I haven't downloaded the album yet but I will. However, I guess I'm an uber-greedy American since I probably won't give anything for it. I think think the band makes quite enough money and if they're actually going to give me the option to listen legally for free then I will.
Graham_Cracker read my blog view my photos
Oct 12, 2007 | 8:27 AM

That's unfortunate, Josh. But I at least admire your candor. It takes some not-so-nice-word-for-testes to admit that you're a bit of a miser. You must have more money than I do. People who HAVE money are usually the least generous for some reason. That's why Massachusetts (one of the richest states) has long been at the bottom in the charitable giving department, while Mississippi (the poorest state) has long been in the top five most charitable states (commensurate with income levels, of course.)
JoshS read my blog view my photos
Oct 12, 2007 | 8:34 AM

Graham I actually do give a decent amount of money to charity especially since I'm still in school racking up loans however I don't consider Radiohead a charity. Pretty sure they do quite alright even without my "donation."
Bob_Ward read my blog view my photos
Oct 15, 2007 | 9:32 AM

Hey guys,

Say I download this album. I give them ten bucks.

If I think it's unlistenable rubbish, can I get my ten bucks back?

Or say I download, and I pay nothing. And I think it's the greatest thing since U2's Pop, can I go back and pay for it?

So many choices!

BTW, anyone listen to the album yet? Is it any good?

BW
Graham_Cracker read my blog view my photos
Oct 15, 2007 | 12:22 PM

You missed the point, Josh. Charity isn't just about giving to a hungry person on the side of the street. It's about giving whenever you really should do so. If you're getting a recorded copy of somebody's music, you ought to compensate them for their work and your taking that work in your possession. If you don't, in essence you are stealing. They may have made stealing an option by saying "pay what you think it's worth," but that really doesn't matter. When you take something which really should be paid for without being charitable, it's really stealing. But I'm sure you don't see it that way, and that's fine. I just think that in this case that it's evident that Radiohead should absolutely receive something for their recording - even if you only give a dollar.

Bob, I would suggest you give them a dollar, and then if you think it's "unlistenable rubbish," you haven't lost much. If you think it's worth more after listening to it, I'm sure they would accept the difference later.
Page 1 of 1


Write your comment below:




Jeff_I

I'm a blogger for MyMusicBoston.

Member Since: 3/17/2007


 

RSS: XMLWhat is RSS?