Topic: This free album stuff (ie: Radiohead)

[Ian Sane]

Recently Radiohead annouced that they were making their latest album available for download by donation (for lack of a better word).  As Homer Simpson once said "what if I wish to donate... NOTHING!"  Now there is word that Oasis and Jamiroquai are considering free albums as well.

I've heard some people hail this as the FUTURE OF MUSIC and praising this idea as some great business strategy.  So I want to ask: does anyone ACTUALLY think this is a good idea or is it just "YAY! FREE MUSIC!" and they're trying to defend this idea so that they can get more free music?  Because this doesn't make any f*cking sense at all to me.  It reminds me a lot of the infamous dotcom crash.

The members of Radiohead are f*cking rich.  Ditto those other bands.  They can live a life more more extravagant than you or I probably ever will without working another day in their lives.  So donation music where 90% of the customers will just take it for free works fine because it doesn't have to work.

But how would something like this EVER work for a new band?  I write songs.  I play guitar.  My friends and I would love to record a professional album.  But if we did we sure as well would not give it away for free.  I don't want to anyway but even if I did I couldn't afford it.  I don't have a big nest egg to live off of.  I have to work for a living so it's either real job or music career.  Can't do both full time and whatever one I do has to make money.

So if this is the future then does that mean the future is that only rich people who are already successful can release professionally recorded albums on a worldwide scale?  Because that's sounds pretty corporate.

Thoughts?

[that Baby guy]

I agree.  It's like Publix offering some medications for free.  The medicine gets paid for through something else.  In my case, increased cost on other drugs or food.  In your case, Radio Head is paying for their own music.  Eventually, if enough follow this mechanism, there won't be anyone to pay for music, the bottom will fall out, and in reciprocation, music prices will sky-rocket.  I don't think too many will follow Radio Head's trend, so I doubt you have much to worry about.  However, if a big label announces this, then we should be a little more afraid.

[vudu]

I think it depends on the band.  Bands like Radiohead, Tool, & Nine Inch Nails can get away with this move because they have devoted followings.  (And, as you said, lots of money already.)  Bands like Fallout Boy might not be able to because they tend to have lots of casual fans who only listen to the radio hits.  It basically comes down to if you're an album band or a song band.

Personally, I'll wind up kicking in anywhere from $10 to $1/song, depending on how much I like the album.

[DAaaMan64]

Ya I think they are being a little too self richous, not putting into perspective those bands that simply couldn't do this.  I mean if a band wants to make some money, I don't blame 'em.  When NIN's point comes in tho is the lack of balance in the industry.  

[couchmonkey]

I think the thing is that technology is forcing the industry to change.  While I'm not too sure about this whole "free" album deal, the fact is that the opposite approach - suing people that use filesharing devices - shows a real lack of adaptation by the recording industry.

Technology giveth and technology taketh away.  100 years ago you made your money with live performances.  Maybe that's the way things will have to be again.  Maybe you'll use merchandise...or maybe someone will donate to you...the trick is to figure out a new way to hawk your wares!  It's the difference between capitalism and fascism.  

[vudu]

Quote
Originally posted by: couchmonkey
100 years ago you made your money with live performances.  Maybe that's the way things will have to be again.

Most bands make very little money from album sales.  It's been that way for years.  The profit comes from ticket sales, merchandise sales, etc.  In fact, lots of recent album deals have the record companies taking a portion of tour profits in exchange for either some sort of advance payment to the band or a portion of album sales.

[mantidor]

This works because people already can get music for free if the want to, the scare tactics of the RIAA and their absurd lawsuits and fines do nothing, NOTHING at all to stop it. Bands have to go back to the old ways when musicians mantained a living by doing, and charging of course, for live presentations as has been said.

This isn't bad for starting or not mainstream bands either, the exposure internet gives its huge, its literally the whole world, they simply couldn't have that with a normal publisher, not even with radio stations. Besides this enviroment is ideal for bands to be succesful not because of the marketing campaign behind them but because of their quality. Donations is a fantastic idea, the problem is culture, and this is a way to educate people.



I just had a crazy idea, what if bands set a goal for donations that their fans need to meet in order for them to start working in the next album?

[Ian Sane]

"100 years ago you made your money with live performances. Maybe that's the way things will have to be again."

I don't really like that because being a performer and a songwriter are different skills.  I can't sing very well but I can write.  What if someone else gets a hit with my song?  The record sales are where my share of the profits would come from.  Meanwhile he makes a big career after that and sells out concerts and doesn't play my song at the concert because he doesn't have to anymore.  Plus I think if songwriting isn't a rewarded skill we're going to see less creativity in music.  The ability to record sound has created major innovations in music.  Remove that and everything will stagnate.

I think a big problem these days is most music sucks donkey dick.  I buy albums that are good.  Make music that doesn't suck and I will buy it.  Rock music has taken a major dive and I don't like rap and pop is all image and no actual melody anymore.

"the fact is that the opposite approach - suing people that use filesharing devices - shows a real lack of adaptation by the recording industry."

They're such f*cking idiots.  Stealing music is wrong.  Some people try to bullsh!t about that but if I never paid for your song in any way shape or form and downloaded for free I've stolen it from you.  That's true and the recording industry has every right to go after that.  But they don't stop there.  They tell you that if you buy a CD that you shouldn't be able to burn that track to your MP3 player.  They want you to buy the MP3 track AGAIN.  They tell you that if you bought the song on vinyl or cassette or 8-track that downloading an MP3 is wrong.  They tell you you don't own the music you paid for, that you're just buying the right to listen to it.  They talk about crazy sh!t where having friends over and playing a CD that they haven't paid for is stealing.  People were legitmately stealing from them and they had a right to complain but because they're greedy corporate f*cks they decided to use that as a launching point for screwing us and now those of us who just want to record an album because we like music and make some money off of it probably can't.  They've turned everyone against them by being dickheads and they originally actually had a valid complaint.  Now few even sympathize with legitimate music theft and anti-copyright attitudes have become an ideology of sorts.  Any creative person can get sh!t on for suggesting they be paid for their work thanks to the recording industry.

Though I think the real future is just recording songs and offering them available as a purchasable download on something like iTunes and hope enough honest people like it to buy it.  Some people steal everything.  DVDs manage to do okay with sales despite people pirating movies.  Some people will always steal and you just have to not include them in your target demo.  At least there's no manufacturing cost that is lost when they steal from you and tons of people do buy songs on iTunes even though they could easily steal.  If you're an album band then new songs should be available in a bunch like a regular album.  If you're a singles band you release one song at a time in smaller intervals than albums.  Stay away from album filler so people want to buy and download everything.  It would be like releasing albums, double albums, EPs, and singles based on what your current level of song productivity is.

Though with things as they are my attitudes towards selling out is totally different.  If I got a break and someone wanted my song for an ad and would pay big money I'd do it now without thinking twice.  That's the only guarentee of big money now.

[vudu]

Alright, first of all, I can only pay for your goddamn album in pounds?  I live in America.  Piss off.  Second of all, $80 for a hard copy?  Psf.  I'll steal your album first and then decide if it's worth anything.

[wandering]

Quote
I've heard some people hail this as the FUTURE OF MUSIC and praising this idea as some great business strategy.  So I want to ask: does anyone ACTUALLY think this is a good idea or is it just "YAY! FREE MUSIC!" and they're trying to defend this idea so that they can get more free music?

I think this is an excellent idea, and the future of not just music, but all art. Is it a great business strategy? I don't know. Does it matter? Great art can be made for cheap.

[bustin98]

I think songwriters don't have anything to worry about. Just have the cost split two ways: a large amount for unlimited usage, or a royalty with a minimum usage/payment. And its not like just one artist/group will be using the songs.

I'm not really against capitalism, but there are some very successful people in the world who really do not need any more money and can afford to let things go for free. I love the fact that the Google executives, and Steve Jobs, have a $1 salary. Sure, their bonuses are more than I'll see in a lifetime, but the way corporate laws are they kinda have to accept something.

If you have a calling, you will do it for the love of doing it, not for the love of the riches it provides.

[Ian Sane]

"If you have a calling, you will do it for the love of doing it, not for the love of the riches it provides."

Yeah but most of us can't afford to do what we love.  We need to make some sort of a living to, you know, not starve to death and if you have a full time job that gives you less time for music or whatever you love.  I do agree that rich people who never need to work another day in their lives don't need to get richer.  But the rest of us who are just getting by, maybe comfortably, maybe not, and can't stop working a real job should be able to get lucky and make some big cash if we can.

I've never agreed with this starving artist crap.  You don't need money to make art but it helps.  Hell look at videogames.  I can't make something like Metroid Prime without MONEY.  Without a budget I'm very limited in what films I can make.  Without an expensive recording studio the quality of any songs I record is limited.  Business can interfere and ruin art but it also can provide the funds to allow some amazing stuff to be created.  If recording music is no longer something that can pay the bills then few are going to do it.

[Sessha]

I for the life of me can't find a job where I can safely say this is my calling this is a job that will keep me happy for as long as I need to work.  Right now I'm teaching english part time and slowly working towards my masters.  That wasn't even easy, I went through a lot of crap in highschool and my grades suffered A LOT so getting into college was a real bitch.  I'm not sure if I will always want to teach, now looking at them from the other side of the classroom, teachers have it rough.  I'm resigned to my fate of making a moderate living.  I can't splurge on anything expensive, my car will always be slightly old, my apartment vastly underfurnished.  Money doesn't make people happy, it distracts them from their problems.  

The ideal donation method would be for working class fans to donate as much as they could.  And the better off donate more.  But the mentality of both are the same but different.  "I don't have the damn money I'll donate $0"  and then on the other side of the spectrum "You mean I don't have to pay if I don't want to"  Rich people blow money on stupid things, expensive restraunts solid gold (Insert useless item) but for something like music this is one thing I can see them being cheap about.  If Musicans start getting underpaid, they might have to get another job, and when that happens they can't focus on their "job" or passion and then that suffers.  Songwriters are a niche market but they can have semi-steady work, a lot of bands "not usually good ones" don't write or compose their own songs.  Music needs to be easier to get online, it's too easy to download an album for free and what's the repruccusion?  You have no hard copy.  That seems irrelevant now everyone has a damn iPod or iPhone.  Musicans are infinitely better off then I will ever be, but they deserve to get paid for the work they did.

[FoldMeTwice]

I think at a time where good bands are offering their music for free download on websites like myspace it can get quite hard for a new band should they decide not to jump on the bandwagon. This might also have to do with mp3players becoming afordable for just about everyone during the last years. In my opinion getting on peoples mp3players has become somewhat crucial for a bands success. So at a time where many people have GB of music on their harddrives and mp3players, listening up and down their playlist all day, you really don't want your songs to be excluded. If you expect a person to visit your gigs, buy your albums, whatever, you have to get his or her attention first. Not allowing people to listen to your music when and where they want might be quite risky since there are so many other good bands willing to do so, not to mention that most people know how to get/steal all the songs they want anyway.
I play in a band myself and recently we recorded two songs, paying about 330€ each.. which is quite a lot considering that we're all still going to school or college. Still I wanted to make them available for free download for afore mentioned reasons, to get known, to make people give our music a chance. If more people like our music, whether they have payed for it or not, more people might come to our gigs. Bigger clubs, festivals, sponsors might get interested. I think nowadays it's all about reaching a large audience that opens the doors to a bands success and offering songs or albums for free (or for a donation) might be a good way of achieving that goal..

P.S.: still in the end I was outvoted by the other band members.. no downloading, just listening .. oh well .. ;-)  

P.P.S.: what I wrote might not completely apply to bands like radiohead ;-).. I guess they just like the idead of free music .. give (if you want) and (or) receive (anyway)

[Mario]

So basically you're just taking out your laziness on everything else.

[FoldMeTwice]

Quote
Originally posted by: Mario
So basically you're just taking out your laziness on everything else.

didn't quite get what you meant, care to explain?

[Renny]

Oh by the way, the album is great. I paid $5. 160kbps sucks.

[The_Rabbit]

I honestly can't hear a major difference between 160 and 180.

[Renny]

If I'm casually listening I don't notice. And that's probably helped by conditioning from interadio. But listening properly through my amp reveals artifacting.

Radiohead's manager agrees with me. CDs are, like, the most awesomest audio format ever. And should cost $50 a pop.

[vudu]

Speaking of free albums, anyone download The Inevitable Rise and Liberation of Niggy Tardust?  It's the new album by Saul Williams and it was produced by Trent Reznor.  I'm not normally a fan of rap/hip-hop, but this is really good.  It's closer to spoken-word placed over really raw samples/beats.  I'm enjoying it greatly.  I highly recommend it to anyone who (a) enjoys rap/hip-hop, (b) is bored with 98% of current music.

You can download the entire album for free from the link above.  You can also choose to donate $5 if you want (and you'll get an unnecessarily high quality mp3).

[Ian Sane]

Figures are in and 62% of people who downloaded Radiohead's new album decided to pay $0 for it.  Great business strategy there guys.

I think online distribution with a fixed price along with CDs for those that recognize the difference in quality and like owning something physical is where to go.  That and making music that doesn't suck donkey nuts.  They can point the finger at the relationship between the internet becoming mainstream and CD sales going down but I can also point to the relationship of those sales going down just as mainstream music started going WAY downhill.  When Nickleback is one of the top rock bands then no WONDER rock music CD sales are down.  These days the only people I know who listen to current mainstream music are mushheaded morons who don't even know what albums they already own, old fogies buying albums by nostalgia acts reuniting, or ignorant teenagers that think music from six months ago is old.  I can't think of any mainstream act targetting people within the 20-30 year old age group that have good taste in music.  The whole thing seems like a big con where marketing is used to get people to think they enjoy something substandard.  They've replaced the catchy pop hook with a big marketing campaign.  It's like I'm supposed to like mainstream artists because they're celebrities and their "music" is just the product I'm supposed to buy because I'm supposed to like celebrities because they're famous.  American Idol is a prime example of this as the "artists" are initially stars on a popular TV show.

[vudu]

If' you're going to report only half the stats of course it's going to seem like a failure.  The 38% of people who did pay for it paid an average of six dollars and change (I can't remember the exact figure off the top of my head).  If you average that out it's still about $2.50 per album "sold".  That's almost pure profit because the band doesn't have to share any of it with retailers, labels, etc.  No band makes even close to that figure on a traditional CD or iTunes sale.

Besides, they sort of shot themselves in the foot when they announced a traditional CD would be available in stores in the beginning of 2008.  A lot of people who are planning on buying the CD probably either paid nothing or paid less than what they would have normally.

[Stogi]

THIS IS AWESOME!

I love radiohead!

Free!

IT DOWNLOADED AT 3500K/Bs ahahahahahahaa

[vudu]

The new Nine Inch Nails album, The Slip has been released online.  You can download it for free at theslip.nin.com.

I'm still coming to terms that Trent is never going to do anything as amazing as The Downward Spiral or The Fragile again.

[blackfootsteps]

Besides, they sort of shot themselves in the foot when they announced a traditional CD would be available in stores in the beginning of 2008.  A lot of people who are planning on buying the CD probably either paid nothing or paid less than what they would have normally.

Yep that's what I did. $0 online and then bought the CD.