[JonoMarshall]

Love this idea, big thumbs up to Thom from me!

Radiohead have announced that their new album "In Rainbows" will be available to download from October 10th or buy as a special disc boxset from 3rd December. The boxset will be £40. The download will cost as much as you'd like:

http://www.inrainbows.com/

You can specify what you want to pay, including 0.

It's a bit of a moral dilemma and I hope the system doesn't get too abused, we shall see I guess...

[Kevin]

With a band like radio-head, this could work.

[design219]

I really like Radiohead, but I'm afraid this experiment will crash and burn.

[Kevin]

We will see.. there are a lot of Radio-Head fans that are hard core. That would pay MORE for a CD's asking price just because.

The power of zealous fans should never be underestimated.

Had say, Jane's Addiction went this route I may have payed a lot of money for their songs.. but then again if I heard them first I might not of. Not that their last album wasn't better than most stuff put out at the time. It just didn't match their other two.

So if the music is good, and the fans like it, it should work.

[Doofy]

Had a look. Can't see an option for Radiohead paying me to listen to it, so I'll pass.

[design219]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

The power of zealous fans should never be underestimated.

Yes, that's true, but would you pay more for a Mac? I don't think there will me much paying more that going value.

[Peter]

I'll pay £50 just to shaft the music labels that little bit more.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by design219 

Yes, that's true, but would you pay more for a Mac?

Isn't that what people have been doing for years?

[::maroma::]

Even if this doesn't work, its a statement. It tells the industry that artists are starting to think on their own and take risks. Being Radiohead, this is less of a risk than if most other bands were do this, but its still somewhat of a risk.

I think it could be rather successful. There will be loads and loads of people who will download the songs for free or for a few bucks. Then there will be the many many big Radiohead fans who will buy the special "box set" thing. And if the album is that good, some of the people who downloaded for free will spring for the "box set" thing.

Of course, it could also fail miserably. But if there was a band out there that could take this chance its Radiohead. More power to em!

[JonoMarshall]

There's not much of a risk IMO, it would just be difficult for a smaller group/artist to achieve a similar thing.
The Telegraph has some marketing reasoning here:

Radiohead to give away new album - Telegraph

[Doofy]

If it wasn't for the "machine" which they're trying to break, Radiohead would still be making crappy demos in their living rooms. Of course, now they're established all they're doing in breaking the machine is making it harder for other up and coming artistes to achieve their success (international superstardom requires the kind of promotion which only the machine can generate). So essentially they're locking the doors behind them and somewhat biting the hand that feeds.

Radiohead need to die already. Bunch of prats.

[Jawbone54]

Hey, cool...free music!


I've decided my price!

[sogbrightlight]

You'll have to pay .45 pounds at most.

I bought it for 1.45 pounds.

Whatever though.

I'm a college student who is unemployed and poor.

9 more days.

[Kenneth]

I went to the site late last night. It was pretty interesting and a bit scary (as usual). I plan to pre-order the Discbox edition at 40£ (~US$80) as it comes with the digital download tracks as well.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

If it wasn't for the "machine" which they're trying to break, Radiohead would still be making crappy demos in their living rooms. Of course, now they're established all they're doing in breaking the machine is making it harder for other up and coming artistes to achieve their success (international superstardom requires the kind of promotion which only the machine can generate). So essentially they're locking the doors behind them and somewhat biting the hand that feeds.

Radiohead need to die already. Bunch of prats.

Yeah, because the industry are a bunch of saints who totally don't **** over legitimate artists left and right while continuing to churn out shitty one-hit wonders on the dance charts.

Honestly, anything that can make the dinosaurs in charge of the current music industry go extinct faster is cool by me. Let something better take their place.

[Mastrap]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

international superstardom requires the kind of promotion which only the machine can generate

Ten years ago I would have agreed with you, wholeheartedly. Today the machine is old, creaking and getting more superfluous by the day.

[ort888]

I'll give them about 7 bucks... which is what I believe albums are worth.

[::maroma::]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

If it wasn't for the "machine" which they're trying to break, Radiohead would still be making crappy demos in their living rooms. Of course, now they're established all they're doing in breaking the machine is making it harder for other up and coming artistes to achieve their success (international superstardom requires the kind of promotion which only the machine can generate). So essentially they're locking the doors behind them and somewhat biting the hand that feeds.

Radiohead need to die already. Bunch of prats.

Funny way of viewing the situation. But without Radiohead's previous success, they couldn't do something like this to try to change the industry. Would you rather they keep playing the game? The game where the artists continue to get screwed, just to line the pockets of the record industry? The game where the industry overcharges the consumer? DRM?

Radiohead was/is part of the machine. But who better to try to change it than a band with such a large following who knows the industry pretty damn well.

When Pearl Jam protested against Ticketmaster, did you feel the same way?

[goMac]

I'd like to see the stats on the average price paid when this is all done.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by ::maroma:: 

Would you rather they keep playing the game? The game where the artists continue to get screwed

If by "getting screwed" you mean "taken out of the burger flipping destiny they're currently heading for", then yes.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Mastrap 

Ten years ago I would have agreed with you, wholeheartedly. Today the machine is old, creaking and getting more superfluous by the day.

So write an album, stick a website up and see how far you get without the machine.

[design219]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Isn't that what people have been doing for years?

Well, we haven't had a choice to pay less. Or nothing. I'd take a free Mac for sure!

[Mastrap]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

So write an album, stick a website up and see how far you get without the machine.

Far. Write a decent album, stick it on Facebook. Publish a blog, build a fan base. Start promoting live gigs, film them, put them on YouTube. Make the music freely available to whoever wants it in 96kbps.

You'll go far, assuming that your music doesn't suck. Is it hard work? Absolutely. It needs full-time commitment, it needs passion and trust. But it can, and does, work. We created a campaign last year, for a University in Northern Ontario, where we got international news coverage from a tiny budget.

[::maroma::]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

If by "getting screwed" you mean "taken out of the burger flipping destiny they're currently heading for", then yes.

Hey, my brother is a hotel Valet driver (and an aspiring musician). His destiny is a bit brighter.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Mastrap 

Far. Write a decent album, stick it on Facebook.

Pray tell how to record said album.

[ort888]

At a recording studio? They're all over the place.

Or your basement, which is actually possible to do in this day and age.

[paul w]

They have this system at the public museums here in New York. Pay what you want, but you must pay something. As someone who was a frequent visitor, more for artistic research than as a casual visitor, I'd often pay whatever small coin I had in my pocket - including a penny.

But most people pay the suggested admission. Whether they're happy to, assume it's obligatory or too embarassed to not pay otherwise I don't know. But if the transaction was impersonal - IE you didn't physically, shamefully, hand over a penny for a ticket - I doubt as many people would pay the whole price.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by ort888 

At a recording studio? They're all over the place.

Reckon on a minimum of $28,000 for an album. And that's using gear I wouldn't touch with a ten-foot pole.

Originally Posted by ort888 

Or your basement, which is actually possible to do in this day and age.

[Mastrap]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Reckon on a minimum of $28,000 for an album. And that's using gear I wouldn't touch with a ten-foot pole.

You're assuming that the first album needs to be perfect. Far from it. It needs to show talent, not perfection.
Ready, Fire, Aim is the principle here.

[ort888]

I have no interest in arguing with you, but I know plenty of people who have made albums on the cheap and they sound fine.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by ort888 

I know plenty of people who have made albums on the cheap and they sound fine.

And these people are international superstars?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Mastrap 

You're assuming that the first album needs to be perfect. Far from it. It needs to show talent, not perfection.

We call those "demos", not "albums".

[Oisín]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Reckon on a minimum of $28,000 for an album. And that's using gear I wouldn't touch with a ten-foot pole.

Do you know a band called Under Byen? Probably not, since they’re not exactly internationally famous, but they’re quite well-known in this part of the world.

[Edit: Your last post was made after I started typing—no, they’re not international superstars, but they neither need nor want to be. Their records are available over most of Europe and North America, that’s good enough for them.]

They recorded their first EP in a private studio and spent just over 10,000 DKK (that’s less than $2,000) on the entire project. And guess what—it sounds great. They didn’t even send it out to record companies, but they were still head-hunted by one. This company decided to give them more or less completely free hands, both artistically and economically. They decided for themselves how long they took to make an album, how long the album was, and most importantly, how much the album would sell for.

The first album ended up selling for about half what CDs usually sell for here (though only when buying directly from them—record stores and such places cranked the prices up to normal), and made them plenty of money, even without massive advertising. The record company made very little from the release (relatively speaking, compared with what a record company would normally make from such a release), but then again, they didn’t invest much work in it, either (again, relatively speaking). The band did more or less everything on the album (recording, producing, mixing, even including cover art, design, etc.), such was their deal.

If you ask me, that’s the way the machine should work. It should be a medium present to help artists spread their music, and fans acquiring it; not just a money press that, when hard-pressed, puts out some music (after having its own way with it, in complete disregard for the actual artists themselves), and then squeezes as much money as they possibly can out of the fans, because they know they own the copyrights and can do whatever they like.


I’m very happy we’re seeing more and more music, both by unknown and well-known artists, being offered for reasonable prices or free via the Internet (or any other means). Perhaps, just perhaps, some day it might come far enough that major record companies (whether because of pressure or out of good will) lower their margins accordingly and settle for plain good profit.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Oisín 

Do you know a band called Under Byen?

No.

Originally Posted by Oisín 

Probably not, since they’re not exactly internationally famous, but they’re quite well-known in this part of the world.

*cough*
Here's the root of the argument:

Originally Posted by Doofy 

(international superstardom requires the kind of promotion which only the machine can generate).

Originally Posted by Oisín 

Edit: Your last post was made after I started typing

You mean you didn't read my second post, way up there. ^^

Originally Posted by Oisín 

—no, they’re not international superstars, but they neither need nor want to be. Their records are available over most of Europe and North America, that’s good enough for them.

There ya go then. But they ain't superstars, which is where my argument against Radiohead closing the doors starts.

Originally Posted by Oisín 

They recorded their first EP in a private studio and spent just over 10,000 DKK (that’s less than $2,000) on the entire project. And guess what—it sounds great. They didn’t even send it out to record companies, but they were still head-hunted by one.

So, they made a demo and got picked up by the machine. This is how it's worked forever.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

We call those "demos", not "albums".

I know what you're saying, but that's simply not the case so much, anymore.

And awful lot of the pop stuff is just plug-ins out of a box - meaning somebody has to play/record it, but you don't need a 3-million-dollar studio to record it anymore.

BFD for drums, Native Instruments B4 for Hammond, some massive orchestra plug-in for the strings - that's a large part of the investment already taken care of, right there, and that's before there's any question about the quality of A/D converters or recording acoustics at all.

Yes, you can hear the difference, and so can I, and that's why big acts will still on occasion insist on real orchestras and such once the money's there, but a large part of why big productions hire expensive studios is "vibe" and because they can, IMO.


Although of course, what Mastrap and others aren't seeing is that even in those electronic genres where large studios aren't necessary, studio time is a real expense and only cheap or free if you do it yourself. A production like the Gnarls Barkley album - arguably a big international hit - probably cost at least the equivalent of $20,000 in production time, all told, not counting equipment (which can be a considerable expense if you're lunatic enough not to want to work with plug-ins whenever possible).

[ort888]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

And these people are international superstars?

So international superstardom is the new standard of success?

Thanks to the internet, one guy working out of his basement in Idaho can get his music out to the world overnight.

You don't need to spend $28,000 on a super-polished professional album to get started.

I'm a professional graphic designer, and I'm very aware that some guy can make professional looking designs using a $500 Dell and Microsoft Publisher.

Sure it isn't ideal, but it's possible. You don't need a $3,000 Mac and $2,000 in software to get started. You don't need a design degree or years of experience. Anyone can do it.

We live in a world where anyone with enough talent and determination can get their stuff out there.

[Oisín]

You mean you didn't read my second post, way up there.

No, I meant that international superstardom isn't necessarily the goal. The fact that Radiohead are already international superstars is what makes this stunt of theirs interesting and what gives it publicity, but it's otherwise irrelevant to the point.

My point was that the machine is a necessary tool if you want maximum exposure, but the way the machine works and seemingly becomes greedier by the hour is not an intrinsic characteristic of the machine, but a rather undesirable effect that's been growing out for decades. The machine is a publicity machine, of course; but it should also be a music machine, and it barely has the right to call itself that anymore.

So, they made a demo and got picked up by the machine. This is how it's worked forever.

Actually, their demo was an album (well, an EP), not just a demo. It was released as was, not re-recorded.

But more importantly, my point was not that the chronology was atypical. Rather, it was the fact that they weren't screwed over when they were picked up by the machine that stuck out as atypical. The record company publishes their material, but the band retains full rights, not the machine. The band retains (almost) full control over how the material is advertised, sold, packaged, etc.

[scaught]

The very definition of how we consume media is changing. The labels have little control of what and how we consume it. Terrestrial radio is dead in the water and turning into one giant sports discussion. MTV stopped being relevant when it comes to music years ago. Musicians/artists are getting a frightening amount of exposure with no assistance from who used to provide said things.

Everyone does everything in ProTools. The same ProTools that can be acquired by anyone for far less than whatever 28000 dollar sum you're talking about. Wait until someone releases something free that can compete with protools. Then you'll see the ass fall out of it all.

While we wait, I'll post this link yet again. The Problem With Music

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by ort888 

So international superstardom is the new standard of success?

Originally Posted by Oisín 

No, I meant that international superstardom isn't necessarily the goal.

Please keep up fellas. My whole argument is about how Radiohead have become international superstars using the machine and then try to destroy that machine so up and coming artistes are effectively condemned to being everyday jobbing musicians.

[Oisín]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Please keep up fellas. My whole argument is about how Radiohead have become international superstars using the machine and then try to destroy that machine so up and coming artistes are effectively condemned to being everyday jobbing musicians.

They’re not trying to destroy the machine, just force it to get back to a more ideal state—at least the way I see it.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by scaught 

Everyone does everything in ProTools.

Do they now?! Better go tell Otari, Studer, SSL and AMS-Neve to stop bothering to make their recorders.

Originally Posted by scaught 

The same ProTools that can be acquired by anyone for far less than whatever 28000 dollar sum you're talking about. Wait until someone releases something free that can compete with protools.

$28,000 = studio time. Eight weeks in a cheap studio running ProTools and some crappy hardware (analogika: Yam O2r, no master clock, no Apogee, no Focusrite, no Lexicon.).

And it's not ProTools which is expensive - it's the input/output hardware. For example, I've just spent $10,000-odd on two input channels for my home studio - because you simply cannot get that sound without spending that kind of money. Don't kid yourselves people - world class recordings do not come cheap. Period.

Oh, and we haven't even started on the promotion yet. How do you break a band without the machine? While there may be the odd few who get up there (Lily Allen, Arctic Monkeys, etc.), the other zillion are doomed to be hobbyists on FaceBook while they work the day shift at the realtor office.

[scaught]

^The machine has enough issues trying to 'break a band'. It's certainly not foolproof or the only way.

[ort888]

So how many international superbands can the world support? 50? 100?

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

And it's not ProTools which is expensive - it's the input/output hardware. For example, I've just spent $10,000-odd on two input channels for my home studio - because you simply cannot get that sound without spending that kind of money. Don't kid yourselves people - world class recordings do not come cheap. Period.

They don't come cheap, but they aren't inaccessible without taking it up the ass from a bunch of recording industry bigwigs either. Heck, my cousin started his own studio with money earned from a normal retail job.

And besides that, I think the quality of the actual music is probably a bigger factor than small-to-medium-scale differences in the recording quality — especially when you consider how many people listen to music on the radio or compressed files on iPods with cheap earbuds. If you offer me a choice of Fergie's new single in vinyl or a 128 Kbps MP3 of a bootleg of a 1994 Pearl Jam concert, I will not spend a second agonizing over which one has better sound quality.

[OpenMyPorts]

Doofy: Have you ever considered the fact that maybe some people don't WANT superstars? Superstars produce crap. It's overly compressed radio garbage meant to play in between commercials on dying radio stations, in elevators, and maybe sell a few albums to help keep the record companies afloat. 99% of 'record label' artists are complete crap, with no original thought, sounds, lyrics, or anything! Of my entire music collection, I would say about 5% or less are 'famous big label bands'. That's what you don't get. Big music superstars ARE dead. Today music is more regional, more local, more accessible, and easier than ever to get. 20 years ago, if I wanted to hear a new band, I had to either call in a radio station to play something for me, find a friend with a new album, or buy a new album. Today I can find literally millions of free tracks to listen to without paying a cent.

You are right. The era of superstars are dead. As are mega-huge record companies. The 'promotion' you talk about costs so much it forces the albums to be so expensive to support all the advertising, not to mention the risk of advertising campaigns vs profits, all that crap. Indie music does not suffer that problem. It's also easier to go see shows, easier to meet artists, easier to find new artists, etc. The problem is that big record companies don't REALIZE they're dead yet, unless they do something drastic, like... oh... say... offer realistic prices, and cut down on the promotional garbage. Do I need my record store to have cardboard cutouts and advertising crap printed all over the place? No. If it's someone I'm interested in is coming out with a new album I probably already know about it thanks to this thing called the internet.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by OpenMyPorts 

Doofy: Have you ever considered the fact that maybe some people don't WANT superstars?

So how did you find your way into a thread about Radiohead then?

Originally Posted by OpenMyPorts 

Superstars produce crap.

I agree. OK Computer was the most over-hyped piece of garbage ever.

Originally Posted by OpenMyPorts 

99% of 'record label' artists are complete crap, with no original thought, sounds, lyrics, or anything! Of my entire music collection, I would say about 5% or less are 'famous big label bands'. That's what you don't get. Big music superstars ARE dead. Today music is more regional, more local, more accessible, and easier than ever to get. 20 years ago, if I wanted to hear a new band, I had to either call in a radio station to play something for me, find a friend with a new album, or buy a new album. Today I can find literally millions of free tracks to listen to without paying a cent.

You're just the kind of "customer" which musicians love.

Originally Posted by OpenMyPorts 

The 'promotion' you talk about costs so much it forces the albums to be so expensive

$10 for an album is expensive? For something which will give you pleasure for years?

Don't tell me. You have zillions of average quality tracks in your iTunes and your main concern is beating everybody else in "how many songs do you have in iTunes" competitions.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by design219 

Yes, that's true, but would you pay more for a Mac?

#1 I have no zealous connection to Apple. If something comes out that is better for what I do, I will be on it in a second.
#2 Macs cost in the THOUSANDS. I don't think anyone will pay more than $50 for this.

[talisker]

Originally Posted by design219 

I really like Radiohead, but I'm afraid this experiment will crash and burn.

In what way is it an experiment? And why will it crash and burn? You seem to be approaching this with a "big record company" hat on, and assuming that their objective is to generate as much revenue as possible through a radical pricing approach. I suspect their objectives are more to do with distributing their album to a large audience, and challenging the normal corporate approach. No matter what happens, I can't see this failing.

[ron_colsen]

Originally Posted by talisker 

In what way is it an experiment? And why will it crash and burn? You seem to be approaching this with a "big record company" hat on, and assuming that their objective is to generate as much revenue as possible through a radical pricing approach. I suspect their objectives are more to do with distributing their album to a large audience, and challenging the normal corporate approach. No matter what happens, I can't see this failing.

With the objective of distributing and making a huge splash, they have definitely done that. As for challenging the corporate approach and winning a measure of success, that is yet to be seen. and that will be somethig worth waiting for.

[OpenMyPorts]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

So how did you find your way into a thread about Radiohead then?

The whole 'experimental approach to music pricing' part. I really don't give a rat's ass about Radiohead.

You're just the kind of "customer" which musicians love.

Local musicians, sure. Underground musicians, sure. Electronic musicians, sure. Superstars? No, I bet they don't like me, because I don't buy their crap.

$10 for an album is expensive? For something which will give you pleasure for years?

Most albums I've purchased do not give me pleasure for years. Most make me want my $15 back (it's rare to find an album for $10).

Don't tell me. You have zillions of average quality tracks in your iTunes and your main concern is beating everybody else in "how many songs do you have in iTunes" competitions.

Nope. I only have about 34 gigs.