Gizmodo
Radiohead dropped a bomb on the music industry last night, announcing their new album In Rainbows. What's the big deal? Well, first of all, it'll be released in a mere 9 days, catching everyone off guard (it was expected sometime next year) and keeping the tracks from leaking to the web. Secondly, you'll be able to download the album from their official site for any price you want to pay. Yes, it's pay what you want, including free. Really.
If you want a physical copy, you'll need to drop a whopping $82 on the "discbox," which includes both CD and vinyl versions of the album, plus an additional CD/vinyl of more new songs, with the CD also including digital pictures and other such goodies. It also comes with a big photo/art book. That version also comes with the digital download, as the physical copy won't drop 'til December 3rd (the delay to help prevent leaks, presumably).
What Radiohead is essentially doing is making piracy useless for their album. It won't leak, so you can't get it early by pirating. And, assuming they'll be selling high-quality MP3s as they do with all their other albums, there's no reason to avoid DRM by pirating. And, since it's essentially free if that's what you think it's worth, you won't save any money by pirating. By making this the best way to get the album, chances are good that people will actually, you know, pay for it, even though they don't have to. And since this is OMG Radiohead, you know boatloads of people are going to drop $82 on the collectors-item discbox, which is sure to help them make their ducats.
Oh, did I mention they're doing this without a record label? Yes, that sound you just heard was the music industry collectively crapping its pants. [Radiohead via Idolator]
Comments
This folks, is the future of music.
Indeed. This is how it should be done.
Bravo... Someday, perhaps the RIAA will just a monolith I can tell me kids about.
Unfortunately, its the future of music ONLY to bands that have made their millions!
As a former struggling band member who shrieked with glee when he got paid $30 for his 20th gig when all the others had been no free performances, I cant see many up and coming (read poor) bands doing this.
When your have the millions, then you can start sticking it to the man. Up until that point you need the man to help you out and stop you making those bad decisions.
But I congratulate radiohead for doing this.
Brilliant!
What a great experiment! No matter what you think of Radiohead, you have to love them for this.
I paid $15 cause I felt they deserve it. I'd shake their hands if I could.
I was pretty amazed until that last line - my mind is blown. I think i did hear a squishy, wet sound when i read it. They could sell a million albums for a buck or two a piece and still make more money than they would going through a label. ^^^ Future of music indeed, sir. Im glad someone actually sat down and thought about really, how do we stop piracy? and they didn't invariabley come up with "put more locks on it"
Radiohead is totally gay, but i think we can all put that aside for now. I, for one, wont let their uncoolness sully this boldest of moves in my minds eye. Bravo.
I don't like much Radiohead, but I love what they're doing. I'd send them money even if I don't like the music just to show support for the idea.
I was waiting for some bigger bands to start doing this. I always thought the Beastie Boys would be first, they're usually ahead on the tech and trying new things. And yes, I would pay AT LEAST $10 for an album for a band I like. I hope a huge trend starts with the bigger bands.
@scoobydoo:
I wouldn't be so sure.
It's easy to take this approach when you're a millionaire band with one of the biggest brand names in music and little financial interest in your releases. What do you say to all the little bands out there crowding onto distribution platforms and competing against free, high-quality music from top competition? This sort of behavior crushes markets.
This essentially makes the argument that the music is just a marketing platform for the tour. I'm not sure that's a viable or sustainable strategy, particularly for borderline bands or new acts.
DJHEATH is right . . . and wrong -- if you are an up and coming band or artist these days it takes every bit of good exposure to "make it" (whatever that means) -- the point is, artists should be playing enough shows with the right kind of audiences and networking with the right kind of media (myspace, etc.) to hit it. But then again, it might not happen at all, and their brilliance might fade away, just like the store for the new radiohead album when i clicked on it.
Although this is a step in the right direction, I highly doubt this will "change the music industry" because this only works if, like radiohead, you NEED no label, PR, marketing, etc... like djheath said, unless you can fund producing a potentially free album, only the "big boys" can play this game.
@djheath: There are plenty of bands on small independent labels getting paid for their work. You don't need a giant record label to put out music and get paid for it.
Even if you don't like them, go download the album. Every single download will help get the number up and be a demonstration that people will pay a reasonable amount for an album. That reasonable amount isn't $16, and probably not $10. I'd pay $5 for it, as I'm not a huge fan, but it's worth $5 to support the idea and effort.
Somehow I don't doubt the record companies will make money off of this album somehow. Self released or not.
Perhaps by collecting those "Royalty" fees from various commercial and non-commercial online/offline radio stations. The ones that apply no matter what the artists who create the music played say concerning the rights and usage of their tunes.
The ironic thing is, everyone thinks this is such an awesome idea that most people will give $10 or $15 anyway in tribute, and without a record label with their hand in Radiohead's pocket they'll be making insane amounts of coin.
God bless you scraggly british geniuses
makes sense to me.
the artists make so little for the actual albums, while the record companies make the majority of it.
Everyone makes money touring to support the album.
Hence, the future of music is in pushing the tours and using the albums to get people to the shows.
Simple.
Too bad the record companies don't understand this.
@SlightlyLessDeliciousNoise: you mean it crushes the market for bands that have low quality sucky music? That's a shame...
I think it's a completely sustainable model, and it actually might have the effect of limiting the amount of crap music pushed out. Maybe if people didn't think they could record something in the studio for an hour and make a million dollars, and they actually had to work for a living, we wouldn't get so many crap "artists" out there.
@Nauthiz: Wait, I don't understand how though, this album has not been released under any label (their contract with EMI ended), so how is a record company is allowed to charge/collect royalty for something they don't own.
The future is now. I am going to race to plunk $10 and support this model...
For another cool idea, check out [www.slicethepie.com.] Let the fans fund the making of the album!
I love radiohead stuff, and this is fucking awesome.
I'm still going to download this album over a torrent tracker....you know....just to keep it consistent....
My compliments to Radiohead. This is a great new business model for artists who already have audiences. If you think about how much they get from a $15.99 mall store CD sale (about a buck), I bet they will make a lot more money with this model than the RIAA way with 5 middlemen.
Courtney Love made a great speech about the economics of being a recording artist a couple of years ago (google "sucka vc's" if you want to read it), and in it she referred to the "Tip Jar" as being the most direct and efficient way to reward artists. Radiohead has perfected the "Tip Jar" in my opinion.
Can new and upcoming bands make this model work? They are already doing it. How does a new band "Break Out" without RIAA-sponsored payola and marketing? Social networks like MySpace and FaceBook are already showing the way.
Great stuff.
Die Music Industry Moguls. Die!
I, like millions of people downloading their this album, are not going to pay shit.
Shun itunes and give your album away for free. Sounds like a plan.
I think this is a great idea, but I have to say it still irritates me - just because it's Radiohead.
So, I'm going to go out on a limb, write a too long comment, and be the jerk on this one.
When Prince took all of his music, set up his own website where you could download his music and distributed the physical copies of his own music in the manner he wanted, people painted him as a crazy whiny-baby who took his ball and went home.
Since I love Prince, I thought it was an amazing act of taking full ownership over his own career. (He mishandled the whole thing ultimately, but I still liked the idea.)
On the flip side, Radiohead always strike me as cooler-than-thou and smug as $#!+. So this just strikes me as one more waaaay pretentious - "aren't we cool" move.
Like the celebrity that only eats organic and local in their solar powered house (all very good things), and then makes everyone else feel like a prick for not being able to afford to do the same.
This is a terrible business model, and CERTAINLY not the future of the music industry. The majority of music consumers these days do not believe they should pay for music. If given the option to pay or not to pay, trust me, they won't pay.
I could feasibly see this being somewhat effective for an up-and-coming band, but not a superpower like Radiohead. They aren't going to get my "charity" money that's for sure. I'm fairly sure that Thom York has plenty of cash and I'm also fairly sure that I don't.
I pre-ordered the download for $0.00. I also pre-ordered the box for about $82 bucks. They totally caught everyone off guard with this. Just last week my girlfriend and I were bitching about how we'd probably have to wait until next summer to see Radiohead on tour again. With the physical album out in December, they might be touring in early spring!
@eduardjm: Aaaarrrrr!!
@mjmahon: You're not going to pay because you're a dick? Nothing new about that, people pirate all the time. Radiohead will end up making more through direct sales than they used to with EMI, and, as usual, they'll rake it in through their tour. Bands make most of their money on tour, not through album sales.
@mjmahon: I disagree. Theres some music I would never think of pirating. I support the band, and I buy their albums. Even when I know I don't have to cause I could download it for free. If it's some other band I heard of and want to check out I'll download some tracks for free. If I really like it, I'll buy their next album.
@weatherman: I agree. Its a system where the consumer decides how much the product is worth to them. Is the product is cookie-cutter, one-hit-wonder, run-of-the-mill rock/pop song-of-the week, then they'll probably just download it for free, or off a P2P network, listen to it while its the in-thing to do, then discard it.
If the product is worthy of keeping, adding to a collection, and effecting us at a deeper emotional level, then we will feel better about exchanging our money for that product in return. I think the addition of the 'discbox' is a great idea, because it provides a complete, physical product that reinforces that emotional connection to the product.
I love Radiohead.
@djheath: Agreed..this will be good for established bands/groups. The new, upcoming and struggling artistes will still need the big bad RIAA (unfortunately).
This is, unquestionably, one of the coolest methods of release I've ever heard. Gives all the people who claim they'd be willing to stop pirating if the price was reasonable and went to the artist the chance to put their money where their mouth is for once, and the people who really value the band the chance to really show it. And everyone else can enjoy their music for free, but officially. Too damn cool.
Not only will I download this album (I honestly never paid a lot of attention to Radiohead, but I hear so much good buzz about them that this puts it over the top), but I'll at least throw in a few dollars that I wouldn't have if I had been forced to pirate it to hear it. Good going, guys.
Way to go, Radiohead!
This makes me want to buy this album and I'm not even a Radiohead fan. [Ok, I do like Creep, but that's about the extent of my Radiohead fandom..]
F#%K the RIAA!
PS, it has been reported elsewhere that the minimum purchase price is about 42p [the cost for the fund transfer]... still that's what, about a dollar for a whole album?
ultimately, all i care is that i get a new radiohead album in 9 days. that makes me the happiest boy ever. and i'll be getting the $82 option because it's radiohead.
@mjmahon: This is a GREAT business model! There's practically no overhead [no Record Company, no RIAA] so ALL the proceeds go to the BAND.
Thus, it only takes a few people actually paying to turn a profit... [as opposed to getting a few pennies per copy via Record Company accounting..]
Look, People can only purchase the album on a specific website, which you only know because it's mentioned on a blog, which is only mentioned because it's radiohead: an already famous band. Not only will unknown bands have trouble getting their website(or facebook or whatever) known, but most consumers wouldn't download anything from new "untrusted" web servers. It's a whole lot to ask for the potential of someone paying for a track. Would radiohead like to also "host" indie bands albums through their servers? doubt it.
@KAHRI: "unless you can fund producing a potentially free album, only the "big boys" can play this game."
With plethora of professional-grade home-recording equipment available today, almost anybody with a few thousand dollars to invest can play this game.
Now how many of them are worth paying for is another question...
I paid just over $15 US (including the credit card of £.45).
Sure I could have downloaded this for free, but I would rather send an artist like Radiohead the money directly than give it to RIAA so they can continue to fund their fucked up process of suing their customers.
Im just going to DL it for free. Well, I have like 89 cents in my paypal account, so its all theirs.
@djheath:
This line of thinking assumes that musicians are inherently entitled to become rich and famous for their work. I can think of plenty of artists, musicians among them, who produce their craft knowing full well that they'll never "make their millions."
I guess it's all about the motivation. Personally, I'd think twice about supporting an artist financially if I knew they were only in it for the money.
@djheath: I don't think that's the case. Have you heard of Clap Your Hands Say Yeah? They've never been on any label--major, minor, or otherwise--and have released two full albums completely on their own, both of which have sold boatloads.
radiohead = sheer brilliance
bravo to thom and the boys!
@mjmahon: Terrible business model? I'm considering giving Radiohead $2 or something and not even listening to the album, just because I want to see this model succeed.
I'll take zero dollars. kthxbye
@lafond66: While this is admirable on your count, it is NOT the stance of most people, and certainly not most Giz readers. Most people, as it has been said, justify stealing music because "the RIAA is satan" or "all bands are rich anyway" or rather don't think it's stealing at all.
Even if you think about the cosm of people who will read / comment on this post: the people who are interested enough in the ever-expanding concave problem of music piracy to read this post are willing to care about the music.
Most people, won't.
All you naysayers need to look up Clap Your Hands Say Yeah. They rose to success via social networking and by letting people listen to their music for free (and yet the initial run of their first CD sold out). They're not multi-millionaires, but they make a living selling music and performing (as they did at Lollapalooza). I personally think they suck, but I respect their accomplishments and for showing that independent artists can find success through the Internet if they work at it. Radiohead's approach is new for a major recording artist, but hardly new for indies.
Think about this. I would wager that most musicians on a label make a buck or two per CD sold, if that much. Now, a musician decides to off their album as a digital download for $3. That's for the ENTIRE album. Let's also say that this is a "struggling" artist, unable to get signed on with a label. BUT, they're a popular local band, and have about 2000-3000 loyal fans.
If those fans, being the good groupies they are, each download the album, that's about $9000 (minus the cost of whatever website/download service the band might have to pay). I don't know...sounds like a pretty nice model to me.
@ideaman2020: Good point. Actually it's not even thousands needed anymore.
My point is that radiohead can do this now because they were able to use that "evil record industry" to get their name out. They had years of MTV, radio & TV/Film soundtracks before they could say "let our consumers come to us". There are already thousands of artist w/ free downloads on their sites, but they're not backed by a known identity so you don't know who they are. I still think this is a good idea, but only for already known talent.