I don't know what to make of this. On the one hand, I applaud Radiohead for striking out on their own, doing things their own way - the state of the music industry pretty much assures successful bands that they'll have even more success on their own, without the greedy fingers of industry reaching into their pockets at every turn. However, I'm not sure how I feel about how they've chosen to go about releasing their latest album In Rainbows. You see, they're doing something unique, from what I can tell. The album will be available to download October 9. You just pull up the band's In Rainbows site, and choose one of two options.
The first option is simple - a download, and that's all. There's a twist, and this is an interesting one: you can choose to pay whatever you feel like paying. That's right - if having the new Radiohead feels like it's worth $10 to you, go for it (in whatever that equates to in British pounds, that is). If it's worth 50 cents, go for it. If it's not worth anything, you're still good. All you have to pay is a small credit card fee (something like less than a dollar, from what I read). And then you download your DRM-free mp3s. That's right - not only do you choose what to pay, you also get music that you can choose to do with as you please, no hobbling from some ridiculous rights-management scheme that tells you where you can play it and what you can do with the files.
The other option, however, is where things get complicated. The band will be pressing up CDs of the new album, and they'll be included with two vinyl slabs of the music as well as an additional disc of music from the sessions for the album, all packaged in a special box with artwork and the like. AND you still get a download next week. That's right - not only do you get analog and digital formats on actual media, you get those files just like the "choose whatever price" buyers do. The catch? This option costs over $80 (40 British pounds.) Ouch. "Hail to the Thief" indeed.
What remains to be seen is if the band will find a route through which to later offer the album - and maybe that bonus disc of material as well. Oh, and it also remains to be seen if this venture is a complete financial disaster for the band. Who but the most die-hard collectors will be buying that box? Who but the most honest of listeners will pay more than a few dollars for the download, knowing there may be something in the form of a hardcopy at a later date? We have all been burned by "deluxe editions" only months after the original version came out, after all . . .
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Glen Boyd
I honestly don't know what to make of this.
I heard quite a few of the songs -- at least in their early form -- when I saw Radiohead in Berkeley last year. And they are quite good. I'm not sure if they are "$80. good" (remember I'm the guy who bitched about Neil Young's ticket prices in an article here). But I know I'll be taking advantage of the downloads, cause I love Radiohead.
I don't know though, call me old-fashioned but I just like to have something tangible that I can hold in my hands. I also liked what I saw of the artwork. I just know if I'm ready to shell out eighty bucks for it.
This whole thing really brings up the larger questions of how music is being marketed today. Change is clearly in the air, and something has to give here. I just don't like the extremes being offered --- give it away on one end, restrict it to millionaires on the other ya know?
I really think that the whole digital revolution is a double edged sword. What I know I don't like is the way music is being depersonalized and the way things have become more song driven than album driven.
What motivation is there for the next Brian Wilson to make the next Pet Sounds ya know?
Like I said, color me old-fashioned I guess.
-Glen
2 - Sterfish
I think this is a brilliant idea for Radiohead. They're essentially monetizing an album leak. Hail To The Thief was widely available on the net before it came out but still managed to debut at #1 in the U.S.
Many Radiohead fans (including me) will probably download the files and pick up the eventual standard CD release. Those of us who want to support the band can do so directly by paying for the download, even though we don't have to. The discbox that's available is pretty much an extreme version of the limited editions that Radiohead has always released.
3 - Chicken
Im still a bit aghast that people actualy think that $80/£40 is too much for this discbox.
I think they are near throwing it away for that price, you get plenty from it, each format and extras, so whats up? :)
4 - Brian aka Guppusmaximus
You forgot the 3rd option: Download it for free.
Seriously, though I'm not a fan, I think this was a decent concept as the people who really dig their stuff will shell out the cash and the people who just want a glimpse will take the Mp3s.
I think,essentially,the question(or focus)should be:
What streaming quality are the Mp3s that are available for d/l? If they are a mere 128kbps then I would suggest waiting for the CD release.
5 - Tom Johnson
I wish I had enough money to see an $80 price tag as "throwing it away."
6 - Jason H
so far, the box set is actually the most popular, the website have been having troubles cause the number of people preordering it are much higher than anticipated. I think that's saying something.
and I think its rediculous to say that 80 bucks for that big of a package is "Hail To The Thief", because you know as well as i do that the record industry would sell such a set for a much higher price.
7 - Bernie
This is just brilliant from every perspective. According the multiple articles and research, the average artist makes approximately only .80 - $1.13 per album sold (after record label take, record costs, and retail costs). Radiohead is about to make pure profits from selling their album via mp3s alone (I'm not going to even think about their disk set). Even when they release their CDs in 2008, they already have enough pocket money from the mp3 donations to not even care. All they got to to is average $10 for every 10 albums download and they make the average profit of a normal CD; plus I'm sure their huge rabid fans will pay more than average. Freakin' brilliant brits.
8 - Tom Johnson
I think the website has just been having problems handling the load, period, Jason - not that it's purely the Disc Box purchases that are causing the problems.
And, Bernie, it's brilliant for them, but I really wonder if it's brilliant for us fans. If this works, can we expect to see more things like this? More ridiculously expensive packages and dirt-cheap/free downloads for just the audio? I don't particularly like the idea of that. I'd really rather the band offer downloads with a purchase commitment for a yet-to-be pressed CD. That way the band doesn't waste money pressing up more copies than they can sell and they continue to offer up the complete package that they seem to want to offer (otherwise, why bother with this Disc Box at all?)
9 - Constantin
You also forget that is the dollar going down that makes the box package so expensive. Another thing, overseas cd-s cost more than in US, I remember I bought a Shankar cd for 140 francs($24 at the time)and that was from Hyper Media which is like Best buy in US.
10 - Workman
I agree with those who think this whole setup is brilliant.
The people buying the $80 deluxe sets are pretty much subsidizing the kids who pay almost nothing for it.
What I'm curious about is bandwidth. If they're surprised by the traffic now, imagine what it's going to be like on October 10th. If the server crashes, it won't seem like such a brilliant move after all.
Either way, we'll know in a week.
As for the songs, I heard some of the new stuff in Los Angeles last year, and I thought it was excellent. In Rainbows has the potential to be a great album.
11 - Dave
I think it's amazing. Radiohead will make more money on the digital side (without even taking the $80 version into consideration) than if they had released it through EMI as a regular release (as they did with Hail to the Thief). Record companies, for the most part, have become bloated fat cats that sit around and do little and collect a lot. I'd rather the artist make 100% (or as close as possible) of whatever than a label take 15%, the distributor take 25% and the artist wind up with about 10% after all of the deductions etc. Do the math. I applaud the revolution.
12 - John
What I still am fuzzy on is why anyone would pay anything for a lossy format like mp3. I don't understand I-tunes, napster, etc., and this is just another extension - albeit one that at least gives the money to the artist. Until technology is advanced enough to download 44.1Hz, 16-bit .wav files at a minimum, this is not an acceptable option for those of us that like to listen to music somewhere besides our I-pods.
13 - Junior
I love the digitalization of music. I have a subscription through rhapsody and pay $15 a month (way less than what I normally would spendn on CD's) to download whatever I want and put it on my player. Yeah I like looking at album art but CD's are going the way of the Tape cassette. Look at tower records. I think its a survival move for Radiohead. They wanna make money but probly dont want to constantly tour.
14 - seymour
The old model of the music business is a corpse. Sharing digital media is so unstoppable its naive to continue basing your model of profitability on songs themselves. Bands and record labels have to get creative like this to test out the best means to have that balance; providing a quality product and making a profit. Its inevitable that the truly tangible aspects of music are going to be the most profitable in the future; performance and physical media such as art, books, clothing and the like. Whatever judgement you tack onto it is irrelevent. Its simply a reality for now and will only continue to evolve in dramatic ways in the future.
15 - Tom Johnson
By your logic, isn't it naive for Radiohead to think anyone would pay anything for the album? The truth is that people want to buy music, and the reaction to this shows it (as well as Itunes.) I also believe that we're going to see the market divide where some people only want files and don't feel any particular tie to the music in a physical way like they do books, and the others do regard music like books - something to be collected and stored in a way that can be viewed and referenced. It's just a reflection of what music means to people.
16 - seymour
Actually, I think its quite brilliant for them to do this. Yes, people are willing to pay, and will continue to. But, music is a business plain and simple and the woes of the industry are directly the result of file sharing. The economics of the business have divided like you say, but its gone to wide extremes; people who who want it all free and people who fork out $2,500.00 a ticket for a live show. I think Radiohead's approach is great because it directly taps into the heart of you point; let people fork over what value they feel they get from the music. If this all helps sustain artists in a profitabel way....its all good !
17 - El Bicho
"the way things have become more song driven than album driven."
That's the way music was before the albums of the late '60s, so I don't see that as an issue. Plus, if there had ever been a point where music was truly album driven, why would best-of albums be so successful? I am sure The Eagles are fine with the way it's gone. If an artist wants to make a long piece of work, there's nothing stopping him/her.
18 - Jeff Slider
"'Hail to the thief' indeed?"
Are you serious? Or were you just trying to get a rise out of people to boost your traffic?
This band has just changed the landscape of the music industry. How can you possibly knock someone who defies the greedy record labels with such a bold, kick-ass move like this? If they were really all about the money, you think they would be offering the download for free?
I give up. Deducing your logic is like pulling shit from a pig's ass
I can't believe I even landed on this page...
go back to Devry and have them re-name your site to 'BestBuy.com'
19 - Mark Saleski
"'Hail to the thief' indeed?"
Are you serious? Or were you just trying to get a rise out of people to boost your traffic?
so you don't see $80 for the discs and packaging as being a little steep?
20 - Tom Johnson
El Bicho: I think that's the real future of music. Some artists (certainly the pop music ones) will put out singles or maybe EPs, others will focus on albums as statements. I think there's going to be a strong, viable market - albeit a smaller market - not only for the album but for the album as a physical product for a long, long time.
Jeff Sidler: Absolutely serious. I'm not knocking Radiohead for doing it on their own - if you read my whole piece you'd know that already. Radiohead could have chosen a number of ways to approach self-releasing this music, as many, many other bands have, but chose to go this route which is the most inconvenient for fans in order to make a point. They could easily have offered the downloads for "any price you want," then offered a single CD of the album at a higher, set price, plus an even higher price for the full two-disc set of music, and finally the very expensive disc box. It would not have cost them significantly more - they could still have opted to go with minimal artwork for the single disc and more elaborate artwork for the two disc, saving the best for the box. This is what many other truly independent artists would and have done. But they chose not to, and to what end? Who does this serve? Them - it gets their name in the news more than a sensible, fan-friendly approach. I love Radiohead, but this aspect of them - always trying to be controversial and provocative (and this is outside of their music) - has gotten very tiring.
21 - Frankie G
If you want somthing you can hold in your hand then burn a CD. This is the future of music and that is kinda sad in a way. I too love the album art but most people don't care about it. Everyone is getting pissed about the extra CD... you can d/l the extra tracks on limewire if you want them that badly
22 - Frankie G
Just found out that there is a hard copy that is going to be in stores in 2008
23 - Arie
{Who but the most die-hard collectors will be buying that box? Who but the most honest of listeners will pay more than a few dollars for the download...}
*Chuckles*
Oh honey pie, you don't really know much about this band or their barking mad fan base, do you? ;)
24 - RyanWM
Tom Johnson: "Who does this serve? Them - it gets their name in the news more than a sensible, fan-friendly approach."
As Arie pointed out, Radiohead fans are more than happy to go over the river and through the woods to get their hands on new material (see Worm Buffet). If it's too much for the Johnny Come Lately's then piss off! And of course they want their name in the news. What better way to distribute fear to the record industry than to make such ado over it? If you have to ask, then just give up trying to understand it.....
25 - Mark
This is my question. Do we really have the option of either buying the album for whatever we want or spending $80 for the special edition, or is it REALLY that we have the option of either paying for HALF an album, or paying $80 for the WHOLE album, as a means of having this expensive vinyl crap forced on us?
What other Radiohead cd has had only 10 songs? I'm pretty mad that Bangers and Mash isn't on the album but Nude is..