- Related Stories
-
RIAA verdict playback
October 8, 2007 -
Revelations from Pandora's music box
September 18, 2007 -
Hollywood's copyright enforcer
August 27, 2007
Normally a Radiohead release generates huge buzz as fans and critics alike wait to hear the latest musical direction of a band that has produced such varied offerings as the radio hit "High and Dry" to the experimental musings of "Kid A."
But the English band's seventh studio album "In Rainbows" is being closely watched for business reasons; the album is being released digitally on Wednesday by the band itself, just 10 days after the completion of recording and mixing.
And the price? Fans can pay what they want. The price listed at Radiohead.com says simply: "IT'S UP TO YOU."
"This has been a long-brewing issue with artists," said Ted Cohen of music consulting firm TAG Strategic. "In a digital world where you can create something relatively quickly and get it out there immediately, why wait? Is there any overwhelming need to sit on something for three or four months?"
Typically a band of Radiohead's stature would be signed to a major recording label, which would wait several months before releasing the music to allow time for buzz to develop and plan a tour and marketing campaign.
Tony Bongiovi, a record producer who has been in the music business since the 1960s, said the fast turnarounds could hurt a music business that he believes is losing money as it becomes more singles-driven, rather than album-driven, in the age of iTunes and Internet file-sharing.
Some bands wouldn't work to complete an album if they could put out a good single right away, he said.
Less cash from singles?
According to Bongiovi, a singles-driven market would lead to less money for musicians and producers, and, ultimately, to fewer artists getting a shot at the big time.
"When you go into a record label now, its got to be such a sure thing. Otherwise, there's no money for you," he said.
Radiohead is releasing its latest recording alone after benefiting from label support for their first six albums, the last out in 2003. But fast releases might not be as worthwhile for newer bands.
"People know who Radiohead are--there is a pent-up demand of people waiting for the next thing," said Gartner Vice President Mike McGuire. "Very few bands have that kind of loyal audience following."
Radiohead's quick release in some ways is evocative of the early days of rock 'n roll, when it was not uncommon to record a song in the morning, press it into a 45 in the afternoon and have it on store shelves the next day.
Radiohead is not alone in taking advantage of new technology, helping artists to stay ahead of fast-changing musical trends and reducing the risk of illegal downloading.
Stars, an indie Canadian rock band known for lush pop songs, made their album, "In Our Bedroom After the War," available for download on July 10, four days after completion.
The CD only became available in stores on September 25.
The band said the album would have inevitably leaked during the period usually marked for promotion, and it hoped fans would choose to support it by paying to download it.
It also said they believed that the widespread release would help build word-of-mouth about the release.
"We believe that the line between the media and the public is now completely gray," Stars said in a statement. "What differentiates a commercial radio station from someone adding a song to their Last.fm channel? Or their MySpace page?"
Brooklyn-based indie rockers Bishop Allen said they have benefited from putting out their music speedily. They wrote and recorded a four-song EP every month in 2006, making the record available for purchase or download the last day of each month.
"The idea that you could make something from what you're thinking at the moment, and that fans can immediately access those thoughts, makes it more like a dialogue," said Justin Rice, who plays guitar, piano, and sings in the band.
"They were hearing what we were saying without a weird lag. It's kind of beautiful," he said.
Story Copyright © 2008 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved.
The potential for the band to make more money will hopefully inspire other musicians to sever ties with big labels, and just do it themselves.
Anything that pounds the last nail into the big studios coffins is welcome.
"Some bands wouldn't work to complete an album if they could put out a good single right away, he said."
Is this really a bad thing? For too long there have been many bands and singers that release an album with 1 good song and 9 or 10 throw away songs. They know they can put a lot of effort into 1 song, then shift into cruise control for the rest of the album, and still make enough off that one song to live well forever.
The shift from albums to singles have hurt the music industry, but there will always be bands that care about their art enough to put out complete, quality albums.
I am surprised more musicians haven't already done this. The rise of the WWW has given them the tools to release themselves from corporations that rip them off at every turn. The only thing missing is advertising, but in this new digital ecosystem the cream can actually rise. Something that rarely happens in the current model of boardroom created bands and singers.
C'mon everyone; let's show the artists they don't need the RIAA and the record labels! Let's break some records on this release and put a nail in thier coffin. Vote with your wallet!
If you are not involved with the creation of music, but instead sit in an office and leech off of the output of the actual artists, be warned, your days are numbered.
May the RIAA and it's member studios die ASAP and become a distant nightmare that we have awakened from.
album's worth, and you're near the price a manufactured CD will
cost you, but all you've got is a bitstream, no permanent artifact.
This longtime record collector hasn't bought into the download
revolution (though I admit there is a favorite artist that is
offering downloads of archival material - for about the price of a
manufactured CD - thus I haven't yet bought) because for this
kind of money I'm used to receiving a permanent artifact that
sits on the shelf, brimming with data, awaiting the day I play it.
Thus I don't have to pony up the data storage to keep the item,
and because I only buy what I'm interested in, I intend to keep it.
One computer "Oops" and that Radiohead album is history.
I know, I know, I'm an old fart who hasn't signed on to this
wunnerful wunnerful new age of instant digital gratification, and
fail to appreciate the disposability of today's product. That song
you downloaded today you'll delete tomorrow, because our
gratifications are indeed instant and yesterday's song has no
more cachet than yesterday's newspaper (a what?).
A real Radiohead fan will want a proper CD, with packaging and
everything, because a real Radiohead fan will want to hear that
work next year, five years from now and ten years from now.
Maybe a homemade CDr will last and maybe it won't - no one
knows yet, though there is no way it will last as long as a
manufactured CD. I will praise their "open pricing" - at least if
you plan to get the real thing you don't have to **** away an
equivalent amount of loot for a miserable pile of electrons.
2. If your CD becomes unplayable, burn another CD.
3. All the other crap that gets packaged up in a CD like lyrics and liner notes in unreadable small font can easily be placed on a web page.
4. There is nothing more substantial about a song on a CD vs a downloaded file, they are both nothing but a collection of bytes.
There are quite a few more flaws in your argument, but I don't have time to go through them all.
download only or buy the Diskbox deal, it contains both CD AND
Vinyl at the price YOU see fit to pay. If that aint a deal for a
Radiohead fan than I don't know what is..!!
The other problem is that I buy these CDs, put them into my iPod (which I think can last way longer than just a CD, cause I have a copy on my computer and on the iPod itself and DVD backups) and then I never use the CD again. They take up space in my apartment, becoming a waste of plastic and paper (and pollution from printing/plastic factories, transportation, etc.).
So lately I've been thinking that instead of appreciating the cover art, I can appreciate a re-designed band website (and the cover in iTunes). Usually bands redesign their website and post artwork online every time they release a new album. Some have artwork exclusive to the website, so they still have an outlet for creating art along with their music. And with websites they can at least add animation and hyper-linking and make it a lot richer.
business since the 1960s . . .
"Some bands wouldn't work to complete an album if they could
put out a good single right away" he said
Hey a$$hole - true artists don't care about the "1 hit wonder"
It's you record "producers" that want that.
Bands like Radiohead, Modest Mouse, Jack Johnson, Pink Floyd,
The Beatles, The Beach Boys, Prince, Nine Inch Nails (The list
goes on and on) care or cared more about thier music than they
care for you!
It's the ART!
Someone doesn't sing or play music to make YOU money!
They play and create music because they love it!
It's YOU who drives artists to hate what they are doing.
You're a leach riding on the backs and sucking the life blood out
of truely talented people.
More power to you Radiohead! ;-)
- Fan-freaking-tastic!!!
- by SeizeCTRL October 8, 2007 11:30 AM PDT
- I absolutely love Radiohead and they are one of the few bands now that I will buy anything they put out.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(10 Comments)I think this is a great idea and applaud them for doing so. The need for a record label in this day and age is quickly decreasing. The last 4 CDs I have purchased, I have bought directly from the band themselves. Granted they have been more indie and lesser known than Radiohead, but it just feels good knowing that the money is going to the band, not some record label by proxy who then gives a percentage to the band.
Plus you get a personal experience, 3 of the 4 CDs came signed by the band, which was unexpected, and 2 of the 4 also sent me a free EP as an added bonus.
Being the IT Director for a TV and radio station, I'm in a weird position... I tend to avoid radio because it's the same bunch of crap that we are sent to play. We tend to follow charts which is based on CD sells. As mentioned, this doesn't take in to account things like streaming, myspace, Last.FM etc. Music is growing away from radio as fans are given more options on how to listen to what they want. The real irony is MTV, a station named MUSIC TV that rarely ever plays music, and when they do, it's pure garbage.
Why would I want to listen to the same 30 songs on the radio when I can listen to my iPod and hear exactly what I want? Radio stations need to change their model as much as the record industry.
But I digress... I can't wait for more bands to follow suit and the recording industry start to crumble and decay and be nothing more than a memory of the old and dark age.
Even though I could essentially get In Rainbows for free, I will gladly pay 10-20 for the privilege to download directly from them.
Radiohead = best band ever :D