Did Radiohead change the record business forever?

[SixStringGeek]

If you've been living under a rock, you might not know that Radiohead is offering their new album "In Rainbows" on a "pay us what you think it is worth" basis through their own website.

Have albums gone from product to marketing vehicle - and if so - what is the product now? Concerts and T-shirts? Seems like more and more artists are choosing to bail on their labels and try to go it alone.

[Timeline]

No. And... they have a compilation album coming out that will cost a bundle.

[Spikey Horse]

Also no .. they can only do it because:

-they are loaded to begin with

- they already have a monstrously large fan base and more importantly the nature of their fan base which consists of a lot of middle class proffesional types (or even simply 'grown ups' with 'an income') who truly belive radiohead are high art / the first and last word in musical experimentalism / etc etc .... and are more than happy to fork out $80 on the box set (which includes authentic THICK viny after alll!!! LOL!)

- given their status mp3's (and the album is only a free download in mp3 format) would be all over the interweb anyway 10 mins after a release - at least this way they get half of those downloading to cough up a dollar or two ... and...

- they are planning to release a standard CD version anyway next year!

I don't mean to sound cynical - I'm not ! - I think it was/is a great idea totally win/ win /win for all concerned.

I like tracks 1,2, 4 (a lot) , 7 and I guess 10

[Timeline]

Great marketing ploy I must admit. Wish my projects were that popular and i could do that.

No worries though folks. Pay to get a cd will live on.

[guyreilly]

But do you think that our children will walk into a record store and pay $17.98 or whatever inflation will be in 20 years for an album?

I personally can't remeber the last time I was at a music store and I consume a whole lotta music. iTunes, Amazon, buying music straight from the performers, etc are just so easy.

Yes, the MP3 forever changed the game for the music business. But that also happened to be the same time when CD-Rs became dirt cheap and folks started making copies of music like it was nothing... I think the cheap CD-R did way more to devalue recorded music than filesharing did, so far at least.

I simply don't envision artists making money selling recordings in the future UNLESS the world starts to value high fidelity again, in while case artists would have control over the hi-fi recorded meduum (Radiohead's trick of course was to release relatively lo-fi MP3's and make the audiophiles buy the boxset) except that bandwidth and hard drive space are getting cheaper everyday so transfering and storing large files may not be an obstacle.

Bottom line is people will always love good music, but the only way artists will be able to make money from it is live performance and royalties from licensing, plus merch, etc. While tools like DP and the 896HD so widespread there is HIGH supply of good quality recorded music. The MP3 is an awesome promotional tool that helps me get pluged into new bands... I learned about Iron and Wine by listening through the iTunes music sharing at my work ( you can listen to full tracks but not download) and now I am going to their show in december. MAybe i'll buy their CD... but I'll probably just but it on itunes or or maybe a friend will burn a copy for me.

It really sucsk about how hard it is to make money doing music, and how everything has changed so much in the past 10 years or so, but that is life. Technology has definately 100% changed the game in the music business in many good and bad ways, but its always a good time to ride the wave...

At least I didn't decide to make a career our of being a travel agent. Or a typewriter salesman....

[Timeline]

But do you think that our children will walk into a record store and pay $17.98 or whatever inflation will be in 20 years for an album?


It really sucsk about how hard it is to make money doing music, and how everything has changed so much in the past 10 years or so, but that is life. Technology has definately 100% changed the game in the music business in many good and bad ways, but its always a good time to ride the wave...

At least I didn't decide to make a career our of being a travel agent. Or a typewriter salesman....

In 20 years that price is likely low but you might be right. All soft media will be electronic so I doubt there will be a CD or record stores except on the net.

Yep. It's very hard and maybe in the future only live will exist for hire.

[janglyrecords]

The marketing of the record is clever. Most of the comments in this thread are right on.

It does seem to me that being a Radiohead fan is for some just instant street-cred and most of the so-called fans are poseurs. I saw this with Pavement as well in the 90's.

I am a huge Pavement (and Stephen Malkmus solo work) fan, but I couldn't care less about Radiohead. I'be bought the CD's and given ol' Thom my money, but he's given me nothing in return. However, he has seemingly influenced a ton of kids who are making great music. So, for that I thank him and his cohorts.

At the end of the day, the music business is awful, but the music lives. Distribution methods aside I hope we'll all continue to record interesting stuff and find a way to share it.

I'll suggest you find Rian Adkinson on MySpace and see how Thom Yorke has influenced him. he is worth hearing.

[James Steele]

Radiohead succeeded in proving to themselves what I think most of us already knew and that is if people can get something from you without paying anything they will. 62% of their "fans" didn't give them a penny:

http://www.motunation.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=181560

[Timeline]

That's amazing James. Wow. Thanks for sharing the info.

[Spikey Horse]

Radiohead succeeded in proving to themselves what I think most of us already knew and that is if people can get something from you without paying anything they will. 62% of their "fans" didn't give them a penny:

http://www.motunation.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=181560

James, I think that is a very 'halfempty' way to see it..... If you don't mind me saying

You say 62% of their "fans' did not pay ... how do we know they were all fans?

The 62% might have been 'non fans' ... people who are maybe 'radiohead curious' who downloaded the songs in the same way people check out other bands' music on myspace etc

And anyway they were only giving away mp3s ... with regular CDs due out after crimble ... maybe people are holding out to buy the CD next year (the ones not able to quite cough up the $80 for the box set!) and having a listen to the mp3s in the meantime...

Also, many may not have CCs or paypal accounts or whatever...

IMHO opinion 38% is quite an staggeringly HIGH proportion of people paying for the download... all things considered.

Just my two dads....

[Timeline]

But how much of the 38% paid even 10 bucks? I bet they paid like a couple of bucks. That's the real deal. Yes there is the promo angle for sure.

[Spikey Horse]

Timeline I think there is a breakdown on the other thread (which I only just noticed!)

Another factor I thought of

People downloading at work first and then later at home - but paying only once.

I still see it all as very positive.

The only negative is that I think other bands would be unlikely to get such a good ratio as 62/38 .. probably nowhere near that!

[James Steele]

IMHO opinion 38% is quite an staggeringly HIGH proportion of people paying for the download... all things considered.

And THAT is what's unfortunate.

I don't think people who aren't fans would have even necessarily bothered to download at all. Why download a band you don't really care for?

I don't really know where all this is going, other than it seems bands today are going to be in the T-Shirt business. Well, it just continues to get harder to make a buck any more, doesn't it?

[stickwolf]

I don't want to get into a rant here, but a good perspective on the history of all this would be warranted.

The fact is that the musician's union originally fought the entire idea of recorded music and tried to make it illegal to play recorded music on the radio, instead hoping live musicians would be hired. When they couldn't get that, they insisted union members be hired as the disc jockeys.

The entire basis of paying for albums relates to a PHYSICAL process of getting a physical product, which customers obviously could then give as gifts, sell, or trade later.

It is simply unfair to compare mp3 downloading to any of this. Nobody 200 years ago thought they should pay whenever they sat around singing songs they remembered. The did buy sheet music, but those who had a good ear and memory didn't bother. Should they have chipped in some money anyway? Nobody then even thought that way.

We don't pay for beautiful sunsets etc etc. and that doesn't make them less valuable. 68% of downloaders not paying is NOT an indication that they see the music or the band as low value. It is only an indication that their view of the nature of modern economics doesn't drive them to think they should pay for the download. You can feel free to disagree and lament and even be worried about this popular perception of economics! It is a real issue. But it doesn't show any correlation to anyone's views of the inherent value of music.

To be simple, I love the public library. I read a lot of books I get there. I pay taxes to support it, but overall the authors are not getting rich off the library sales. You can't tell me that I think a book is of no value because I went to the library instead of buying it.

Peace,
Aaron

[Timeline]

The library analogy is interesting. You can even take home videos and cd's free there these days.

As far as sunsets, this is not a performance so that doesn't work AFAIC.