Jump to content

An Album That Costs What You Want It To


Hush

Recommended Posts

  • Members

Radiohead let's you decide how much to pay for their new CD.

 

The members of Radiohead, the respected British rock act, said that the band would sell its new album, at least initially, exclusively as a digital download and allow fans to decide how much to pay for it, if anything. In a statement yesterday, the band said it had begun taking orders for the album,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

This is a really interesting experiment.

 

I hope it works out.

 

 

I think the fact you apparently have to fill out the donation/pay form may actually make people think about it.

 

If it was a simple download button separated from the pay interface, I'd be worried that folks would DL the album with the idea of "trying it out" and then figure they could pay later... (which is why good intentions often turn vaporous in the shareware world).

 

I'll be watching this. I've tried asking for voluntary donations on my own site and -- though I used to sell some CDs over at the old Mp3.com and even sold some 'virtual albums' which ould have just as easilyl been DL'd for free one at a time -- but, after (the old) Mp3.com essentially closed down, the voluntary donation on my own site thing never netted a dime...

 

I've got my fingers crossed for them. And I'll probably buy the album but things are kind of tight right now... :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

If it was a simple download button separated from the pay interface, I'd be worried that folks would DL the album with the idea of "trying it out" and then figure they could pay later...

 

I, uh, have done that with a couple of their previous releases... ended up ordering the CD after I'd DL'd and listened a few times... and I probably wouldn't have bought the CD's otherwise, they definitely fall into the "have to listen several times before you really like it" category for me. And they intentionally leaked their last record to the download sites a week or two before its release. So, it seems to be working for them. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

The Radiohead thing can't work as a model for the entire industry. Right now it's an exception, a news-grabber, an attention-getter. Interesting, I must admit, but if the idea was mainstreamed, we'd all be back to zero sum, everyone downloading and hardly anyone paying for it.

 

It's like Mom always said, "What if EVERYONE did that?" To which you replied, "Mom, EVERYONE is not going to do that so it makes no difference".

 

nat whilk ii

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

The Radiohead thing can't work as a model for the entire industry.

 

 

Part of me agrees with you, but perhaps for a different reasons than you expect.

 

I believe that the crucial aspect of this lives within the maturity of the fans. Note I didn't say "age". I said "maturity".

 

A mature fan will understand that the music has an intrinsic value, and is happy to offer some compensation for the pleasure of owning the music. When the mature fan is aware that his/her money isn't being routed through record labels and other points in a distribution chain that removes profit to the artists themselves, he/she would be more likely to pay a fair amount for the music.

 

So, the reason this DOESN'T work for the industry at large is that MOST artists (at least in the pop world) have been focused on an immature audience that would never voluntarily pay for the music if they didn't have to.

 

Radiohead is a good band to try this method, and I applaud them. It would NOT work for most hip-hop artists, nor the emo bands selling to high school kids. I'm trying not to generalize, but you can see where the model breaks down.

 

Anyway, good for Radiohead's adventurousness. Bravo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

hell yeah! :cool:

 

i'll probably give 'em like 30 bucks for it, out of principle. i think a lot of people will, and this will probably turn out better for them than had they sold it in stores.

 

sucks you can't get a hard copy though, i'd still like to own it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I dunno, I read on wikipedia that there are rumours that they're going to release a CD of it. They come with the box set anyway, but if you're just after the album, then that's a bit hefty, price-wise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Gee, I remember a band that did pretty well letting people record & copy their music... Grateful Dead

 

Saying 'what if everyone did it' is facetious at best, simply because everyone won't do it. Sort of like saying "What if they shut off gravity tomorrow?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

The Grateful Dead are sort of an anomaly given the touring support they had through the years. And keep in mind they only let people record/copy their live shows, not the studio stuff.

 

 

Well, OK, point taken... but it does not change the fact that bands make their money today in live shows; only the label gets outrageous profits from albums - bands are extremely fortunate if they break even on a label release.

 

So, if an album release is destined to be a loss leader anyway, why not give it away?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Well, OK, point taken... but it does not change the fact that bands make their money today in live shows; only the label gets outrageous profits from albums - bands are extremely fortunate if they break even on a label release.


So, if an album release is destined to be a loss leader anyway, why not give it away?

 

 

+1

The only downside to that model is that it puts the musician in the position of having to make the recording as inexpensively as possible since they will have to eat all that cost.

 

SOT: WRT the Greatful Dead, most Deadheads like the live recordings much better than the studio stuff anyways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

+1

The only downside to that model is that it puts the musician in the position of having to make the recording as inexpensively as possible since they will have to eat all that cost.

 

 

They've always had to anyway as all those expenses are recoupable by the label. Even many famous artists barely saw a dime in record royalties by the time they got done "recouping." Most of their money came from song royalties, touring and merch sales. So you can see why many of them now think it makes more sense to make it themselves and give it away or sell it cheap.

 

And nowadays the labels won't spend much money on a recording either, in most cases.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

They've always had to anyway as all those expenses are recoupable by the label.

 

 

Precisely. In my job, I've had the chance to talk with many artists who you'd assume would be millionaires. In far too many cases, these folks would end up OWING their labels money, even after a gold record.

 

Owing them money. I'm serious.

 

 

And nowadays the labels won't spend much money on a recording either, in most cases.

 

 

The basic expectation is that you're going to record the {censored} on your own dime in all but a few cases. As a new unproven artist, it's extremely rare to get a recording budget at all these days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Precisely. In my job, I've had the chance to talk with many artists who you'd assume would be millionaires. In far too many cases, these folks would end up OWING their labels money, even after a gold record.


Owing them money. I'm serious.

 

 

Yep. I've known quite a number of people in this situation.

 

 

The basic expectation is that you're going to record the {censored} on your own dime in all but a few cases. As a new unproven artist, it's extremely rare to get a recording budget at all these days.

 

 

Yep. As a new artist you don't get a recording budget or tour support anymore, and as an established artist you can keep more money by releasing your records yourself. So what exactly is the point of having a label anymore? Many people have already answered that question: "There isn't one."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

This was discussed in another forum, and the example of Steven King was brought up. Someone who has sold more books probably than Radiohead has sold albums so he's in as good a position to do this as anyway. He did one where he serialized a book in chapters and charged just a dollar per chapter. As long as 80% of the downloaders paid for it, he'd keep doing it. But of course that didn't happen and they stopped it.

 

I doubt seriously Radiohead will do any better. People are freeloaders, man. They will take what they can for free and most won't pay for it most of the time if they don't have to. Look at public radio and their donation vs. audience ratio, which is in the handful of percent I believe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Anyone download the album yet? How much did you pay? In Rainbows You can download for free, just enter zeros for pounds and pence. I'm not a huge Radiohead fan so am downloading for free. If I like it I will either go back and pay or wait for the CD to be released next year and buy it then.

 

Download is going pretty fast. The site put me in a cue before I could register so I think they are controlling how many people can access the site at once. 40% downloaded in about 3 minutes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

When I logged on the page kept crashing when I tried to enter any value in the 'pay what you want' field. The only way I could get past it was to pay nothing :S Maybe this was just coincidence but I found it funny/weird. Never mind, i'm surely going to be paying painful amounts of money to see them on tour next year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Precisely. In my job, I've had the chance to talk with many artists who you'd assume would be millionaires. In far too many cases, these folks would end up OWING their labels money, even after a gold record.


Owing them money. I'm serious.




The basic expectation is that you're going to record the {censored} on your own dime in all but a few cases. As a new unproven artist, it's extremely rare to get a recording budget at all these days.

I had pals who were out on Mercury, got produced by Spooner Oldham, had a number 2 single in Detroit for a short period...

 

... and ended up getting sued by the label for $18,000 of recoupable costs. This was back in the early 70s when $18,000 was a union working man's wages for a year.

 

And these were three poor kids from Santa Ana who'd always dreamed of being musicians -- they had had a very popular, jazzy, quite progressive horn band making very good money on rental hall gigs, they had a huge, loyal following in OC and East LA -- before the label got a hold of them, leveraged the key songwriter/singers into firing everyone else in the band (basically they told them it was that or nothing -- these were all old friends who grew up together -- it was nasty).

 

Then Oldham and the label went to work on the songs... the guys left considered themselves serious songwriters but pretty soon they were down to only two songs on their own album -- the rest filled with gawdawful tripe from Oldham and his cronies. I mean it was just garbage.

 

I don't even think the second album came out -- though it went in the can and the label kept promising. Maybe it did but by then the band was effectively over and it must have gone straight to the cut-out bin. (And, of course, followers of 70s and 80s era record industry machinations know that the cut-out bit amounted to an effective underground black market currency used in making illegal payments and kickbacks. But that's another story, innit?)

 

_______________________

 

 

Anyhow, I put my money where my mouth is and bought the Radiohead album -- my first by them, never been a fan, really, but I always wanted to give them a good going over (though I'll admit I heard OK Computer and Kid-A a whole lot out of the corner of my ear in my favorite coffee joint).

 

At 160 kbps, the fi could be a bit higher (I also recently bought a single from Amazon's 256kbps non-DRM Mp3 shop and I would have liked to have seen something along those lines -- though the single I got is kinda on the lo fi, if glossy, side: Amy Winehouse's delightful "Rehab" -- too bad it's a bit squashed. It's so infectious I had to play it twice -- but by the second time through, my ears were fatiguing pretty good).

 

But the purchase process was slick enough (once you found your way through their somewhat coy site navigation, which flummoxed a few folks over at Gearslutz) and when I DL'd the album early in the morning, Cali time, it was super fast, I got the whole 49 or so MB in just a few minutes.

 

The album itself was pretty enjoyable... after having listened to it twice (in one day -- pretty heady praise from me, right there), I can't say that I think it's going to change my life or anything -- unlike some of the dyed-in-the-wool RH fans I've been running into... you think the Mac has a cult around it, hoo boy! :D

 

But I think it's overall a very well put together album -- modern production issues notwithstanding, perhaps. While not nearly as buss-squashed as most contemporary pop seems to be, In Rainbows struck me as somewhat uncomfortably over-program-compressed. There are also a few seemingly obligatory uses of nasty, fluttering over mod distortion ins some places, presumably to show they've got street cred. ;)

 

In some places, cymbals sound pretty detailed, there's a bit of air around them. In others, cymbals sound small and pushed in. Someone (elsewhere) suggested that the sound of the cymbals was an aesthetic decision and he thought they sounded "perfect" (I think was the word)... but if they were "perfect" in one place on the album, I would have expected that aesthetic to carry over... I thought it was a bit squeezed. But those who spend a lot of time with contemporary pop apparently seem to feel it's wide open and luxurious. I guess we'll never get the big, wide open hi fi of a half century ago again? Too bad... we have the technology.

 

 

I'm glad to have the album. I'll probably listen again later today. I'm glad to support a simple, straightforward distribution arrangement that cuts out the unnecessary middle men. The sooner we musicians have the vampiric parasites who run the music biz -- and who have been running it into the ground -- off our backs, the better.

 

 

__________________

 

 

Will this model work in the long run? (Pay what you want.)

 

I heard an economist who specializes in new and unconventional distribution models and, while he thought this would work out very well for RH, he felt that the next band to do it would have less success and that, if more adopted it, that people would soon start paying next to nothing.

 

And I'm afraid that sounds all too believable.

 

Still, it's nice to send a message.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 


So, if an album release is destined to be a loss leader anyway, why not give it away?

 

 

I'll tell you why not.

 

For bands with a huge following, like Radiohead, they can give away recordings if they want to and write them off as a tax deduction and still be swimming in cash from live shows. For bands like them, CDs are in large part promo for live shows anyway, where for them the real money lies.

 

However, for entry and mid-level bands, it's the opposite: you play live shows for almost nothing in hopes of getting people to buy your CDs so you can buy enough gas, frozen 7-11 burritos and guitar strings to get to the next gig, and God help you if you blow a transmission.

 

But if the big boys are giving CDs away, and everyone's condiitoned to believe that all recorded music is now or should be free, who's going to buy one from Bob and the Unknowns?

 

To me, the whole give away thing (or letting consumers set their price) is just another example of musicians thinking they're watering the roses when in fact, they're merely pissing in their own shoes. The fact that some of it gets on the roses doesn't mean harm isn't being done.

 

Like many things in the music business, such as bands offering to do all the promo and bring crowds for gigs in exchange for the door, or the 5 band a night whirlygigs, or paying to play, the guys who do these things first wind up making some money in the short run, but the long term unintended consequences always seem to have a way of turning out to be disastrous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 


I'm glad to have the album. I'll probably listen again later today. I'm glad to support a simple, straightforward distribution arrangement that cuts out the unnecessary middle men. The sooner we musicians have the vampiric parasites who run the music biz -- and who have been running it into the ground -- off our backs, the better.


 

 

Hey, I'm in no sympathy with record companies, and yes they are victims of their own greed, but I fail to see where doing away with them has made the business better. What I see is a vastly larger quantity of poorly produced and poorly written music flooding the market and less money for everyone except those at the top of the heap.

 

yeah, the indie musicians can make his own records, set up his own tours bla bla bla but it hasn't paid off. If anything, the business has been taken over by ignorant amatures (not a slam, just a fact, and I include myself) who largely know nothing of how anything works. Some guy the other day on one of the other forums thought you could copyright music at the local library. We have other guys thinking ASCAP and BMI handle copyrights and distribution. This is the type of guys we have making records and entering the marketplace.

 

It's all fine to kill the gatekeeprs, but if they aren't replaced with anything, we have chaos. Which is pretty much the state of things today. Sadly, I haven't seen anyone come up with anything better than what has been destroyed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I know a few people who've got what they considered a good ride out of the record industry -- but a whole lot more who feel bitter and ripped off. Now, yeah, there may well be extenuating circumstances -- some of those bitter folks are bitter because they didn't get what they were promised, even though, in reality, there was no way in hell that those promises would ever be fulfilled-- but who made those promises to them?

 

And with regard to knowledge of the music biz -- the same type of 'ignorant' folks were every bit as ignorant of how things worked before -- and then compounded the problem by putting themselves in the hands of sharpies and crooks who manipulated the hell out of that ignorance.

 

 

The vested interests of the music biz similarly circled the wagons a number of times in the past: the folk music revival of the 60s, which many see as more or less the start of the modern DIY movement; the punk/new music explosion of the mid-late 70s; and now the move to find new distribution models in an era when old physical distribution models are outmoded and ill-equipped to deal with -- or control and manipulate -- the burgeoning reality digital distribution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...