|
6
Nerd-Its
|
|
current event
by After Radiohead's contract with EMI/Capitol expired following their last album, Hail to the Thief, they decided to take a different path. Rather than sign a new contract for their upcoming record, In Rainbows, the extremely popular British rock band will post it exclusively for download on Radiohead.com beginning October 10th. The price? "It's up to you." Or, in other words, consumers can choose what amount (if any) they want to pay for the album.
Thom Yorke, Radiohead's lead singer, commented, "I like the people at our record company, but the time is at hand when you have to ask why anyone needs one. And, yes, it probably would give us some perverse pleasure to say 'F___ you' to this decaying business model."
Record label officials were stunned at the announcement. One lamented, "This feels like yet another death knell. If the best band in the world doesn't want a part of us, I'm not sure what's left for this business." A producer who works with American rap artist had a more economical outlook. "Radiohead is the best band in the world; if you can pay whatever you want for music by the best band in the world, why would you pay $13 dollars or $.99 cents for music by somebody less talented? Once you open that door and start giving music away legally, I'm not sure there's any going back."
Add a Comment (8)
Email This
Message Author
I just downloaded the album from Radiohead's site and noticed it doesn't have an album art image tagged on. After a little searching, the best one I could find was posted here. 600px, so it's nice and crisp, too.
Ironically enough, LegalSounds.com lists Radiohead's new album as their top seller.
It's a silly, silly world.
RSS
The ideal music industry by Brandon :: NR9 :: on 02 October 2007
The key part of the article, in my opinion, is at the very end:
Twenty-one consecutive concerts sold out in one city - even though each ticket probably cost over twice as much as a full-priced album. This, to me, should be the way musicians make their money (in addition to selling clothing, participating in endorsements, etc.). Free music for all, and the musicians still get rich.
Of course, most bands don't have the name recognition and popularity of either Radiohead or Prince - and they may want to enlist the help of a record company to assist in booking tours, finances, and publicity. Once again, however, free music doesn't seem to be a hindrance. In fact, many less-well-known artists use free music as an effective means of getting the word out. Those who run across their freely traded mp3s may be enticed to come to a concert, befriend them on MySpace, or - most importantly - to tell a friend.
RE: The ideal music industry by scottb :: NR7 :: on 02 October 2007
This, to me, should be the way musicians make their money
Actually, that is the way musicians make their money - well, what money they actually make. Check out this transcript of a speech Courtney Love gave to the Digital Hollywood online entertainment conference in 2000. She goes through the numbers.
RE: The ideal music industry by ldsudduth :: NR7 :: on 02 October 2007
She goes through the numbers.
It's a crappie (fishy?) situation any way you slice it. The only musicians making any real money are the ones who own their record labels or have studios in their homes. Some muscians have enough clout so that the Record Label doesn't own their songs, but they are few and far between.
Digital music isn't any better either--check this which includes a comment by Wierd Al Yankovic. Apple takes roughly 20-35% for themselves, and gives the rest to the label. Further down, the article cites the Allman Brothers lawsuit; it looks like the artist may only get a measly 4%. Fans buying songs by CD might actually allow the artist to get paid more.
As to the payola in the Radio market; it's always existed..it just changed forms.
Although..I'd like to see statistics drawn up by Christian Artists...maybe I'll dig for that later tonite--makes me wonder if the Christian labels are more just.
RE: The ideal music industry by scottb :: NR7 :: on 02 October 2007
Some muscians have enough clout so that the Record Label doesn't own their songs, but they are few and far between.
Well, like Courtney Love pointed out in the article I linked, it's very significant that the copyright on a book is almost always owned by the author, but the copyright on a song is almost always owned by the publisher.
I think that really indicates where the root of the problem lies.
Back in the early "rock and roll" days somebody got really clever and set up a "standard" for the industry where the artists signed over their rights to the publishers. You could even argue that the pattern Love describes actually made some kind of sense, once upon a time. But today, the real costs of producing a CD is almost nothing. For a few thousand dollars, anyone can set up a high quality recording studio. Production costs for CDs is likewise minimal.
But when the recording industry gives a recording contract, they get to specify which studio the artist use - and of course, it's one the publisher owns. And of course, they do the CDs. So is it any wonder the artists are billed rather a lot more than actual costs for these things?
The reality is that the recording industry doesn't add much "true" value to the process anymore. They control - albeit indirectly - what gets played on the radio. That's something valuable they offer the artists - an audience - but they control that illegally. Every other aspect of the process can be done for a tiny fraction of what it used to cost.
The net of it, in my opinion, is that the recording industry actually takes value out of the process. Rather than artists becoming popular because people like their music, the industry "decides" who they think will become popular and that's who gets the play time. They "manufacture" popularity. The result is that we get mediocre acts that appear popular because they get a lot of air time.
The recording industry needs seriously overhauled. What Radiohead is doing here and the similar giveaway Prince did in July are great news. They're finally taking back control of the industry.
RE: The ideal music industry by ldsudduth :: NR7 :: on 02 October 2007
it's very significant that the copyright on a book is almost always owned by the author, but the copyright on a song is almost always owned by the publisher.
I think 'very significant' is a vast understatement; it's borderline criminal. The labels 'coerce' the artists (effectively) into signing away those rights.
You're right that the industry adds very little intrinsic value to the process; all they do is tell us, the fans, who to like.
For me, I typically don't hear music unless someone else is playing it on their radio. I rarely listen to music radio, unless it's a Christian station. I do make a habit of collecting music from the two music forms I don't mind paying for--Blues or Jazz.
I think the artists would do well to run far away from the big labels, and give more business to the smaller independent labels. Or, promote and publish themselves.
RE: The ideal music industry by twabulldogg :: NR5 :: on 05 October 2007
I think the artists would do well to run far away from the big labels, and give more business to the smaller independent labels. Or, promote and publish themselves.
The issue with this is that in order for an artist to "make it," the record label needs to one that reports to the RIAA. The RIAA and its members are stuck in an old mindset where they dictate what is listened produced, played on the radio, and what is popular. They have yet to grasp the the power of the internet and how to leverage it. Before their collective monopoly can be broken, more artists need to take the step that Radiohead and Prince have already taken.
I found this nice breakdown of CD price distribution. It is a bit dated, but the amount that goes to the artist has probably not increased significantly. Most artists to not make the majority of their money from album sales; only "big time" acts that get guaranteed amounts of money beforehand get rich selling albums. The money for musicians comes from their live performances.
Radiohead and Prince should be applauded. However, to go a step further, check out what the Counting Crows support. They allow free trading of concert bootlegs, as long as no one profits from the trading.