DISQUS

DISQUS Hello! Bob Caswell is using DISQUS, a powerful comment system, to manage its comments. Learn more.

Community Page

Bob Caswell

Media consumer, tech enthusiast, and blogger
Jump to original thread »
Author

Radiohead Responds to Download Stats: Says They’re False

Started by Bob Caswell · 10 months ago

No excerpt available. Jump to website »

99 comments

  • mike

    1 year ago

    Radiohead is actually selling the results of their social experiment for 3.4 million dollars.
    reply
  • Roger

    1 year ago

    Hmm... well, people should be aware that ComScore is based on panel measurements, etc. and they have a view of a select sample of the internet population and based on that they extrapolated out the sales worldwide.
    reply
  • John

    1 year ago

    Too bad Radiohead sucks.
    reply
  • Chris

    1 year ago

    It's a nice scam they're pulling. You know they're gonna release a CD in stores of the same album within a few weeks. What they're doing is the equivalent of McDonald's charging you for parking.
    reply
  • Ugly American

    1 year ago

    The bad numbers are from the record companies trying to scare other bands out of doing the same thing.
    reply
  • Abbazabba

    1 year ago

    Unfortunately people don't seem to realize that the numbers ComScore generates are dangerously inaccurate; they're extrapolating from such a tiny number of users there is no possible way they can give an accurate picture.

    Someday people will realize what a crock the comscore numbers are.. hopefully it's sooner rather than later.
    reply
  • Bob Caswell

    1 year ago

    @mike

    Source?
    reply
  • JOHN HATER

    1 year ago

    RADIOHEAD RULE!!! BEST BAND EVAR!!
    reply
  • ali

    1 year ago

    ali karathur po codakkal
    reply
  • j

    1 year ago

    I agree that the 'study' is a crock.
    It's being bandied about to show how Radiohead method is a failure. Who wants it to be a failure? The record companies will do anything to show it is!

    The truth is even if it WAS true that so many users pay nothing, most of the time major labels don't pay their artists anything, either! They give them 'advances', and have the bands pay for recording from that money. SO much gets wasted on expensive studios and producers and stuff, they often end up OWING the label money, for using their studio etc.

    Plus the bands only get a dollar or two a CD, at BEST.
    So even if the 62% was true Radiohead still made more money than usual.
    reply
  • S. K.

    1 year ago

    It seems to me that not releasing the scores is a part of the business model. If your fans know that you made multi-millions, next time they might not contribute as in their minds you already got your fair dues. Releasing the true numbers might be what all the tech geeks want, but it would not be a good move either by Radiohead or any other artist. It's better for them to simply say that it's a success and leave it at that.
    reply
  • petron

    1 year ago

    @Chris - you are an idiot. Scam?! Downloaders DIDN'T have to pay anything to get the album. How is that a scam? And now they are going to release "In Rainbows" the way they've released all their other albums via traditional distributor. STFU.
    reply
  • Chris

    1 year ago

    petron--

    Yeah.. cuz every other artist releases their album twice...

    They "sold it" to people who knew about the online promotion (those who paid), and now they'll "sell it" again in CD stores for $15 bucks a pop.


    Sounds like a scam to me. I wish my boss would pay me twice for the same work.
    reply
  • Chris

    1 year ago

    Tell me-- did you even read everything I wrote? Or just stop at the word "scam"? The latter seems more likely since you didn't address 99% of what I wrote.
    reply
  • Andre

    1 year ago

    Chris, you're an idiot. Are you suggesting that every person that bought the album online will be forced to purchase the album again in cd form? Radiohead is offering the album in multiple forms, physical and digital, and the price for the digital copy is negotiable. A scam suggests there is some fraud going on, clarify where this fraud takes place. Radiohead is not getting paid twice, they are getting paid per sold album, regardless of which form the album comes in.
    reply
  • Chris Grooms

    1 year ago

    Chris: "Sounds like a scam to me. I wish my boss would pay me twice for my work". As everyone else said, you're an idiot. Obviously anyone who downloaded the album for free and/or did pay anything for it will not go out and buy the album from stores considering they already own it now.

    Use some common sense.
    reply
  • no

    1 year ago

    "It’s a nice scam they’re pulling. You know they’re gonna release a CD in stores of the same album within a few weeks. What they’re doing is the equivalent of McDonald’s charging you for parking."


    Riiight. You didn't think that one through all the way. If i've already got the download, why would I buy it on CD unless they added something to the package. If you don't have internet and aren't able to download it, you can still buy it on CD.

    This would be what's called smart.
    reply
  • Brian

    1 year ago

    General concensus says that Chris is an idiot.

    Radiohead will release the album in digital format, on CD, perhaps even on LP (DJ's still buy those things) for a triple scam!!!! Then, they will most likely go on the road and sing the SAME SONGS that are on the album!!!!

    Chris, STFU
    reply
  • w1e0e3n9

    1 year ago

    I'm sure they had a goal outside of making money, that is why the project was a "true success". Musicians make music for the fans and themselves, not for a record company or money. Getting paid for what we love is just a bonus.
    reply
  • kraut

    1 year ago

    @ Chris

    OK Chris, let me make sure I have this right.. Your complaining about the option of downloading an album for free. Then claiming then they do use traditional method to sell their album it's a scam? So what part of that is a scam again? Were you forced to buy the album twice, no. Were you forced to pay extra, no. Were you able to receive the album for free if you wished, yes. Yeah, good scam. Moron.
    reply
  • SamuelHenderson

    1 year ago

    Yeah, I think this is a good idea. I'm assuming Radiohead has made a profit and I hope that other artists may follow suit in the long run.
    reply
  • Scott

    1 year ago

    Chris ... STFU
    reply
  • T. Servo

    1 year ago

    What many people seem to be missing is exactly what the major labels are missing: the music should be free(or cheap) because it promotes the band and makes their other products more valuable. The CD (hopefully) will have added features that people will want to pay for, even if they already paid for the tracks. Likewise, concerts and other merchandise become more profitable because more people know about the band than would if the music was not freely distributed.
    reply
  • Rick

    1 year ago

    Re: Chris

    I DONATED $10 for the download and I have already burnt it to CD, loaded it on both computers, put it on my iPod, and my xbox360. and guess what?

    I will not be buying the CD

    Wow thats some scam.. They really showed me. So Chris hiow much is the RIAA paying you?
    reply
  • PIRATE

    1 year ago

    ah hahahahha here's to piracy , i mean REALLY why buy something when you can just download it ? duuuuuhhh duuuuuhhhh , use common sense what are most people going to do duhhhhhhhhhh
    reply
  • theninja

    1 year ago

    i also enjoy how the average price paid for the album, as cited by the 3rd party, was less than $4. personally i would much rather see the AVERAGE price paid overall for those who paid, and not the overall % who paid less than $5. think of it this way. just as an example lets say 55% of people pay $4 or less. the rest decide to pay $20. the actual average cash value per sale would be well above the $4 mark they are quoting. another example is Trent Reznor. in an interview recently he said he paid $5000 for the download.
    reply
  • theninja

    1 year ago

    @pirate - youre right most people will download it for free, but there are those of us who will buy the download in order to support both the cause (digital music and profits in the hands of the band, not the record company) and the artists themselves (since radiohead sees 100% of the profits from the downloads). the experiment is broader reaching now with Saul Williams releasing niggytardust with trent reznor. its $5 for the download if you want a high quality copy, or free otherwise.
    reply
  • Mark

    1 year ago

    @Chris

    So, what label do you work for?
    reply
  • thom yorke

    1 year ago

    what they did is a scam actually, they did it to prove they didn't need a label but just used the press to sign to a better record deal, and lots of extras will be added to the cd set some copies will be like 80 bucks so lots of downloadeds will buy for the extras
    reply
  • theninja

    1 year ago

    @thom yorke - a scam implies that they did not share this information with the public and made the charges mandatory on the download. it ISNT a scam because 1. they announced the download along with the announcement of the $80 product. there was no misleading. and 2. the download could be downloaded for free. thats right no cost at all. aka no scam.
    reply
  • George

    1 year ago

    The funny thing is that Radio Head's music is actually worth nothing. So, people were paying the true value of the work. Seems like the experiment was a success to me. Anyone who paid, overpaid! When a good band tries this, I expect the results to be much better for the band.
    reply
  • Brian

    1 year ago

    Even if the study is accurate, which I think it probably is, it's still a win for Radiohead since they are getting most, if not all, of the proceeds. The only real loser is the record company. It's just like SPAM...you only need a small percentage to buy your product to be profitable. My guess is that Radiohead made more net profit from this experiment than from any album they have ever sold. THAT is the measure of it's success or failure.
    reply
  • Minion4Hire

    1 year ago

    @Chris

    "Obviously anyone who downloaded the album for free and/or did pay anything for it will not go out and buy the album from stores considering they already own it now."

    Exactly. So how is this a scam? It's like releasing a pay-what-you-want soft cover and fixed-price hardcover version of the same book; some will acquire one while some will acquire every possible release sue to fandom or devotion (LotR/HP anyone?).

    Anyways, it's a moot point as they already stated a while ago that they will be releasing a re-mastered version of this album. They're covering the market, getting people to listen to their music who may not have otherwise, and are getting decent publicity out of it to boot. You can't get much better.
    reply
  • thom yorke

    1 year ago

    @ ninja actually it is a scam they were trying to make themselves look independent saying they didn't need a label but it was just to get attention for them to get a higher paying record deal
    reply
  • i hate chris

    1 year ago

    what a fucking retard!
    reply
  • thom yorke

    1 year ago

    Any way radiohead pulled a stunt got a lot of publicity and is making money so they win, the label still wins cause they are still making more than radiohead, and we all lose cause that album is trash and sounds like they wrote and recorded it all in one day
    reply
  • Jim

    1 year ago

    It's not a scam if they leverage online success to get a better contract with a record label.

    In order to release a physical copy (as they plainly stated they intended to do) through the normal distribution channels a record label is necessary. What's wrong with trying to get a fair contract by proving that your CD is going to sell.

    Also, I am inclined to believe that they already had things worked out with the label (since they had a price/release set and announced already), which makes the other arguments defunct anyway
    reply
  • Jim

    1 year ago

    mr. thom yorke, it's not possible to record an album in one day. Also, I see no reason for people (including you) to litter the comments section of a blog with your negative comments. If you don't like it, fine. But why does everyone else have to hear about it?
    reply
  • thom yorke

    1 year ago

    the cd wasn't set to release for overs year they were just fishing around for the best offer they didn't have a deal until a week after rainbows release
    reply
  • Jake

    1 year ago

    Even if the figures were correct, Radiohead is making out great. 1.3 million DLs w/ 38% paying an average of $6. That's almost 500,000 x $6 or $3 million. This is all profit for the band, with no overhead. Do you know how much money a band actually sees for selling a million CDs? Not nearly $3 million.
    reply
  • jackel3415

    1 year ago

    @ thom yorke, using media and financial leverage to get a better record deal is not a scam its capitalism. There is nothing illegal or scam-like about what they did. A record company still puts up the money for recording studios, tours ect. If Virgin or Sony offered their artist's albums online for the same "pick-your-price" deal, then its no different to Radiohead. It's not a scam, no-one is being fraudulent about any claims. People are sick of cd-store prices and atmospheres, its only natural for companies/artists to evolve and market themselves more profitably. Don't be fooled, its always about making the most money. It's extremely cost effective to sell music online, its basically 100% profit.
    reply
  • thom yorke

    1 year ago

    @ jim it is very possible to record an album in one day trust me I have done it. I was just making reference to how unoriginal and foul sounding in rainbows is. And forums are fpr debating so knock off the litter nonsense i was just informing everyone it was all a stunt for them to get more money as if they didnt have enough already. I know labels dont give artists enough and it is good they released it without a label. But they called it a revolution and nothing really changed aside from a few other artists following the trend
    reply
  • Joel

    1 year ago

    "Any way radiohead pulled a stunt"

    What? Whatever you say clown. Just because you dislike the album doesn't change the fact that the band is trying something different, and actually caring about their fans... Plenty of options to hear their music - even a FREE one. That's revolutionary, and YOU are missing the point. Sorry dude. You got passed by :-)
    reply
  • Phil

    1 year ago

    Well, I would not have interpreted comScore's numbers as a failure. It probably did not bring in the same amount of money per listener but I am sure the total sales were greater than if they had released it solely on CD. Also, by releasing the album online, the overhead for distributing their music is almost nothing (Radiohead obviously did not spring for a high dollar website design company). So they made just as much money for less overhead and most probably they will have more people interested in paying to see them live when they come to your local venue (which is where the artists make most of their money anyway). There is no way to interpret this experiment as a failure.
    reply
  • thom yorke

    1 year ago

    joel, there was no revolution, radiohead has done nothing new, countless bands have released albums for free on their sites, but radiohead was the only one to do it to get a bigger deal, its not a revolution they are on one of the biggest labels they could easily produce actual cds and sell yhem from theor online store without a label
    reply
  • Paul

    1 year ago

    @Jim, they don't need a record contract, they merely need a distributor. There is a world of difference. With their name and money, I doubt they'll need to look far.
    reply
  • Jermiah

    1 year ago

    What they did was Awesome and most honest people will pay a decent price for the download and the people that get it for dirt cheap probably would have downloaded it for free the minute they could anyways.I was under the impression that if you pre ordered the CD from there site you also got the download as well.
    reply
  • ICECOLDCOKE

    1 year ago

    pictures or it didn't happen!
    reply
  • Ummmm

    1 year ago

    To be fair, Radiohead has no way of knowing how many illegal downloads there have been either. So the bottom line is, how much $$$ did they make? Are they ever going to say?
    reply
  • jacinda

    1 year ago

    give me a break. if people really want to know about what happens when you allow consumers to pay what they choose for an album contact magnatune.com. they've been doing it longer and their music is generally worth paying for.
    reply
  • Joel

    1 year ago

    thom said"
    "joel, there was no revolution, radiohead has done nothing new, countless bands have released albums for free on their sites, but radiohead was the only one to do it to get a bigger deal, its not a revolution they are on one of the biggest labels they could easily produce actual cds and sell yhem from theor online store without a label"

    Are you living under a rock? If this is "no big deal" then why is everyone paying close attention? Yes, countless bands hve released their music for free, but the little part you seem to be missing, is that the vast majority of those bands are completely unknown. Apparently you hate this fact, but Radiohead is one the biggest musical acts in the entire world. Secondly, your assertion that the only reason the did this, was to try and secure some kind of large record deal is just wrong. They simply decided to have someone distribute physical copies of their CD's to stores, to reach as many fans as possible. Some people out there just aren't into the whole digital/iPod thing man. They have CD collections and like them. Why did Radiohead choose not to send out tons of CD's from their garage? Hmmm... Maybe because it would be a pain in the ass? Maybe using an established distributer just made more sense?

    Why do you seem to be so bothered by the fact that Radiohead is cutting Big Labels right out of the picture and delivering music directly to the fans, and money directly into their pocket? Are you a record company guy who is trembling a bit that you job is threatened? Viva La Revolucion! Let's hope that Prince, Reznor/Williams Radiohead show the world that the industry as we know it is in crash and burn mode...
    reply
  • donkz

    1 year ago

    Chris, STFU
    reply
  • Ewen

    1 year ago

    "...how can we speculate on the fate of the music industry if we don’t know Radiohead’s “true success?”"

    Uh....ever considered that maybe you're NOT supposed to speculate on the fate of the music industry??? That's like saying that you want to sue weather forecasters because they got it wrong.

    And even the slightest bit of education would have taught you that extrapolation is a dangerous business that would make Shakespeare's disdain for lending (or borrowing) look puny.

    Or is that you speculate only because you really don't have anything else better, more intelligent things to do that will actually yield some substantiative results? Hmmm.....how's THAT for speculation? :oP
    reply
  • thom yorke

    1 year ago

    Joel, are you mentally handicapped, they did not cut the label out of the picture at all, that is my whole argumemt, yes they put out a free cd, good, but just as many would have downloaded it if it was never put up by radiohead, it was just to build up downloads to buildvpress, but just as manybor more downloaded torrents. For all we know radiohead and the label worked together to put it on the net just to build more press so more people will buy the real cd
    reply
  • Joel

    1 year ago

    thom says:
    "For all we know radiohead and the label worked together to put it on the net just to build more press so more people will buy the real cd"

    Offer your new album directly to their fans allowing them to pay what they can afford so they can pay for it again when it comes out on CD? And *I* am mentally handicapped? You really believe that was the original plan? Make people pay twice! Amazing strategy! Man, this is just getting too stupid to comment on. And yes, they did cut the label out of the profits from the downloads. As far as I have learned, the money goes directly to the band, not the label. The label is involved with the future CD distribution only. If I read wrong, then appologies...
    reply
  • Yclif

    1 year ago

    In Rainbows' true success will be evident when the CD is finally released. People who are pleased with this free preview will no doubt go out and buy the actual physical copy. I know i will.

    This is pure genius from a marketing perspective. It proves two things 1- you care about the fans 2- you aint selling them shit.
    reply
  • Joel

    1 year ago

    Perfectly said Yclif. I have quite a few friends that paid nothing for the download, but plan on buying the CD for two main reasons - First, ripping the CD at a higher bitrate, and Second, now they know they like the album!
    reply
  • Geekfish

    1 year ago

    You must all feel very smart insulting people like chris who might have a different opinion. Was it the word "scam" that bothered you? Cause I've seen worse in your replies.

    Anyway, I too believe that what Radiohead did was just for marketing. What's worse, they treated their fans as if they were stupid. Why donate to download mp3s (which are of lower quality of course than the music contained on a cd, which you can then rip in whatever format you wish), and that are actually not even the whole album?( because the cd version has more "new songs"). That's retarded. They are not giving out an album, they are offering a demo. And before you say "stfu" to me too, you should learn that even their manager has said that "If we didn't believe that when people hear the music they will want to buy the CD then we wouldn't do what we are doing." That means "Pay us double stupid fans".
    reply
  • MR ME

    1 year ago

    radiohead was cool years ago, now not so much. the fact that they would spend all this money on an album and then make it a free download is stupid.
    think about it...if someone came up to you and said "hey listen, i got this new cd right here, and you have two options: one, you can pay me any amount of money for it, or two, take it out of my hand and walk away." what the hell do you think 99.9% of the people are going to do? stupid radiohead, stupid stupid radiohead lol
    reply
  • ElmZ

    1 year ago

    They're going to release it for the few people like myself who truly appreciate them and music to have a physical copy.
    reply
  • Joel

    1 year ago

    Stupid Radiohead huh? You are a fool. The amount of money they will make by cutting out the middleman is just incredible. People like you and "geekfish" just come across as jealous. Sure plenty of people will download the music for free and then buy the CD... That's ballsy if you ask me. They are letting you actually use the product and enjoy it so you don't waste your money. Imagine that. It has nothing to do with "scamming" the consumer into paying double. You can be all conspiratorial about it if you want, but I think it's far more believable that Radiohead is trying to improve their situation, AND appreciate their fans. I think what Radiohead did is fantastic, and many big name artists will follow (as soon as they can break from the death-grip of their current big label contracts)
    reply
  • Boo

    1 year ago

    Who the hell would pay $4 for a Radiohead album?
    reply
  • Joel

    1 year ago

    Hey Boo. Doesn't Walmart have Britneys new one on sale for 12.95?
    reply
  • master of cerimonies

    1 year ago

    all radioheads base r belong to pirates
    reply
  • bryan

    1 year ago

    ummm, that doesnt make any sense "CHRIS". a scam? if they released the CD in stores, why would any buy it if they can DL it??? you dont make any sense.
    reply
  • Chris

    1 year ago

    LOL@ radiohead fanboys. It's a scam. period.
    reply
  • Chris

    1 year ago

    From where I sit, it appears to be a way to milk every last bit of money out of a mediocre album. It was only available online for a limited time, correct? Yet the CD will be in stores forever. Would you cry foul if some band released a CD, then released the same CD a few weeks later?

    And to everyone who's like, "z0mg!!! they're revolutionary!! U nevar herd of such a new idea faggit!!!!!11one!!1" Need I remind you that having mp3s available to download for money is hardly a novel idea?

    You accuse ME of working for a record company, and yet all you tools are clamoring to justify radiohead, the band and corporate entity, selling their album twice. Who's got their lips wrapped around the dong of corporate america now?
    reply
  • Trace Elemental

    1 year ago

    I paid $7.00 and felt good about giving them my money. The recording was amazing and was worth every penny.

    The music is first - and that is the point that many people are missing here.
    reply
  • Chris

    1 year ago

    Minority opinion FTW
    reply
  • Chris

    1 year ago

    ElmZ says:
    November 9th, 2007 at 4:20 pm

    They’re going to release it for the few people like myself who truly appreciate them and music to have a physical copy.


    See-- comments like that make me hate radiohead. All their fans are self important jackasses.
    reply
  • Joel

    1 year ago

    Chris you sound like a jerk. Nobody is expected to pay twice for the album. There is no reason to. I downloaded it for free and plan on buying the physical copy. A good friend of mine downloaded and paid 10 bucks. He has no interest in the physical CD. Another friend paid for the 80 dollar deluxe vinyl, 2 CD package being released in December, and got free download in the meantime. ALL parties involved paid ONCE for the format of their choice. Period dude. Relax. If somebody want to pay mulitiple times for the same album who cares? I wouldn't personally, but some richer folks might. And pull your head out of the sand man. What Radiohead did is perhaps the most ANTI-corporate thing done in the music industry, along with Prince giving his CD away for free with a newspaper in Britain.
    reply
  • Joel

    1 year ago

    ...And let me say this - You Chris's and Thom's just dislike the band, so you have a negative opinion of them releasing their material in a new and creative way, AND you are just HATING all the attention the band is receiving from blowing the lid off of the label/corp/distribution model... I hope Radiohead make tons of money, and I hope they make alot of new fans who are willing to take a listen to a free download, rather that have to risk buying a CD and hating it. Genious.
    reply
  • Jeff

    1 year ago

    Well, I'm a huge fan of Radiohead, and even I am a little disappointed in this. Like most other people, I was hoping that they were doing the online distribution in lieu of the traditional method.

    I know that they had already stated that they would be releasing the album via a recording company next year or so, but when the announcement came out that they were doing their online "experiment" I thought they had changed their minds.

    Thom Yorke has long been a proponent of downloading music. I thought the band was just finally practicing what he preached.

    The download is not the complete album. Its only about half. I would say that if you're one of the people who payed $16 for the download, you shouldn't feel any moral stigma about downloading the rest of the tracks from p2p when the album comes out.

    Unlike some people on here, I'm not enraged, I'm not pissed at them, and I'm not going to boycott them. I'm just disappointed. Not because I feel lied to, but because for a moment, I had hoped that this experiment was more than marketing.

    I wrote the band via their website contact(a)waste.co.uk and let them know how I feel, and also how it feels to hear so many people trash-talking a band that I care so deeply about.

    I've not heard any definite news on the state of the album contract. They could still decide to do what we all hoped they were doing. The question remains to be seen, will they sign another multi-year contract? Will they enter again into creative slavery?

    I dunno. But I do know that if you have something to say about them, you should say it to them. Not just in a back-alley venue like this.

    Tell them how you feel. Have some balls. Maybe they will too.

    (is my punctuation and spelling good enough for the english teachers in the room? sheesh!)
    reply
  • Joel

    1 year ago

    Hey Jeff. A couple of things that I thought might be wrong in your post. I was understanding the available download is the same album and track listing that will be on the in store CD release. Perhaps you thought it was "half" the album because of the "deluxe" 2-CD/vinyl release coming in September. The 2nd CD has tracks that didn't make the album - B-sides if you will.

    Also, the band did not sign with a major label. They signed a distribution deal with the same indie record company that released Thom Yorke's album. I have some knowledge of the music distribution business, and for a band to attempt that themselves would be a monster undertaking - especially with the demand that a new Radiohead album brings. I suspect it was smarter and much easier to pay a smaller company that you have a good relationship with, to get your tons of CD's pressed, packaged and distributed to stores literally all over the world. Perhaps in years to come, Radiohead can set up a self-run squad of people to handle direct online distribution... that would be cool, but I give them a break on that. The band is certainly practicing what it preaches. I don't think their decisions will amount to creative slavery at all... certainly not like the majority of the trapped musicians in this sad current state of the music biz. This is a fantastic step in the right direction, by a band that people pay attention to...
    reply
  • Bob Caswell

    1 year ago

    "Uh….ever considered that maybe you’re NOT supposed to speculate on the fate of the music industry???"

    @Ewen: Wow, sorry to disappoint, but I was being sarcastic. Even so, unauthorized speculation seems to be a pretty serious deal, in your mind. I'll make sure to get your permission next time.
    reply
  • Doug

    1 year ago

    Now I’m curious to know why Radiohead is uninterested in sharing. “People still downloading” is a weak excuse at best; the band could simply release numbers for the initial month of October. What do they have to hide?

    They probably feel that if they say "Yeah!! Awesome!! We made $xx million from this!!" then less people will be willing to pay for the album.
    reply
  • Joel

    1 year ago

    Or maybe because what they make for a living isn't anybody else's business?
    reply
  • Bob Caswell

    1 year ago

    @Doug:

    They could just state the facts without any of the "yeah, awesome" emotion.

    @Joel:

    Valid point, but they could release the numbers without disclosing how much they actually made. If they released what the averages were and what percentage of downloaders paid how much -- but without discussing total number of downloads -- they could successfully hide their numbers but give the industry/world valuable information.
    reply
  • Jeff

    1 year ago

    Joel says:
    November 9th, 2007 at 7:25 pm

    Hey Jeff. A couple of things that I thought might be wrong in your post. I was understanding the available download is the same album and track listing that will be on the in store CD release. Perhaps you thought it was “half” the album because of the “deluxe” 2-CD/vinyl release coming in September. The 2nd CD has tracks that didn’t make the album - B-sides if you will. Et cetera...



    Thanks, I feel a bit better. I had heard they were going RIAA, I was heartbroken.
    reply
  • yes yes yall

    1 year ago

    i hope they never release the "numbers".
    Success to me = IN RAINBOWS is great and i listen to it everyday. Classic radiohead, exactly what i needed right now.

    Success for radiohead = getting the music out to as many as possible, then release good quality media thats worth spending money for the real fans and not the wanna bees.... Why should radiohead care about the numbers? They never had before, yet they continue to outshine every band out there.

    Success for the general population = The fail of the record industry and the return to quality music with talent instead of the pop shit that surrounds us.

    If they numbers come out, they can be manipulated the wrong way.
    reply
  • Paul

    1 year ago

    Also important to note that most people first downloaded the songs and then downloaded it a second time to donate. That would skew the statistics completely. Even if their stats were correct for 62%, in context it doesn't mean much.

    Although it's nice that a band is releasing their music essential free and just asking for donations, putting it out on a CD through a label in the end is sort of contradictory to the initial idea of removing the middleman. If anything this just created huge free publicity for their CD. However, Radiohead fans seem to be satisfied, the band has more $$ in their own pockets and even the label will generate more profits in the end so I guess everybody wins.
    reply
  • Joel

    1 year ago

    @Paul

    It's a distribution deal with a tiny indie label. Why in the world is Radiohead getting criticsized for not ONLY producing, recording, promoting internet distributing their new album and NOT handling worldwide distribution of a future CD release? Distrbution at Radioheads level would require major manpower and dedicatied facilities. Give them a break already people. In Rainbows is a step in the right direction.
    reply
  • Geekfish

    1 year ago

    @Joel
    "People like you and “geekfish” just come across as jealous."

    Listen, fanboy:

    Radiohead said they wanted to make a "revolutionary" move and release an album first on the web.
    Their fans where to pay anything they wished in order to download, and even get it for free.
    Let's suppose that I, being a great fan of Radiohead, decided to buy their (mp3)album online and to pay $16 for it, cause I wanted to support the band and I found their music great (which I do).
    But then, hey, there will be also a cd version!! I could buy that one for the same price! It has artwork, and I can rip better quality music out of it than the 160kbps the downloadable version offers.
    Let me put it straight.
    160kbps and no artwork is not releasing an album, nor making revolution, it's like "here, take a taste" - and I don't give a crap if iTunes has also low bit-rates, I don't support them either.

    I won't even respond to your accusation of me being jealous, cause it's just childish. Everyone thinks of money in the showbiz, and that's perfectly normal. But what they expected from their fans (see what their manager declared in my previous comment which you probably didn't even read) was insulting. If they were just saying "we release that version for free, and if you want it a bit better you can buy the disc. Of course you can donate to us at any time if you wish to show more of your support", that would be perfectly ok. But now they say "please, pay whatever you think it's worth (we are probably waiting for your support and that's why it's an eshop and not a simple download page)", supposing that at least their dedicated fans would pay an amount of money (BEFORE downloading). And that is before any cd version is released. In my dictionary, that give us the definition of "lame".
    On the other hand, if you find that ok, then there is not much more I can say.
    reply
  • Music Nerd

    1 year ago

    The 'success' was when Radiohead did this whole thing. It's more than a lot of us would've done in their position, despite what we may claim or wish to be so. Newness and experimentation, especially in this area, is rare and welcomed.

    And of course a bunch of people paid $0.00, I'm sure that was more than expected.
    reply
  • Joel

    1 year ago

    Hi there geekfish. Relax.

    Not only do I find what Radiohead did "ok" I think it's freaking AWESOME. A 160kbs rip is perfect for most iPod joggin' travelin' folks. My sister downloaded it - 10 bux, and she could care less about the CD. My good friend spent 2 bux, and plans to buy the CD. I downloaded it for free, because like you, I want it at a much higher bitrate, and am purchasing the CD. My boss loves vinyl and bought the uber 82 dollar package with the free download while he waits. Perhaps I am not as bitter as you are, because I was aware that a CD version was coming - not just the "deluxe" edition in December, but an indie distribution early in 2008. You just can't stand the fact that for once, the consumer (or "fanboy") has an actual CHOICE. You've taken their managers quote completely out of context to spin the bands intention was to "screw the fans." You should be ashamed of yourself, and I am not gonna let that BS fly here. Do you read anything the band has to say? I am glad that the majority of music fans and those of us who hate the stranglehold the RIAA has on many artists, can really appreciate what Radiohead is trying to accomplish on a level no other band has. There will always be those who shout "LAME!" when art and technology are on the very verge of major change. You are one of those people. Sorry they pooped on your parade man :-) Maybe it will help you dislike the music more...
    reply
  • Joel

    1 year ago

    Dear Radiohead. Next time you contemplate a "revolution," please provide a special audiophile link to a 320kbs lossless version with spended artwork okay? Some geekfish, never satisfied, whiner fans need their cake and eat it too. Please, in the course of smacking the music industry on the backside, don't forget to wash the backsides of the minority crybabies.
    reply
  • Geekfish

    1 year ago

    "You just can’t stand the fact that for once, the consumer (or “fanboy”) has an actual CHOICE"
    "You should be ashamed of yourself, and I am not gonna let that BS fly here"
    "There will always be those who shout “LAME!” when art and technology are on the very verge of major change. You are one of those people. Sorry they pooped on your parade man :-) Maybe it will help you dislike the music more…"

    Did I mock you? Did I question the right of anyone to have a different opinion than me? Then why the hell do you speak the way you do? Why the should I be ashamed to have a different opinion? Or are you their lawyer or something?
    I DON'T respect you, but I believe conversations should be of a certain LEVEL. And writing "Dear Radiohead" type of answers is just immature. Yeah, an "I don't agree with you + arguments" answer would be too serious.

    First of all, I gave you an example, I didn't say I actually gave money for the download, so no bitterness from that part. It was a HYPOTHETICAL situation. I knew there was going to be a CD distribution.
    Secondly, I DON'T support the RIAA more than you do.
    Revolution in music has already happened. Of course it wasn't with Radiohead. It's been going on for years now, as soon as digital music became popular. The big distribution companies don't seem to accept that. They didn't change the way they work, they didn't adapt to the situation. They kept on producing ridiculously overpriced CDs in the same old way they are used to. However most CONSUMERS, like you and me, prefer downloading songs to have them on the computer and mp3 player, and find it more smart and easy to do so than to buy a CD. Stupid distributors, I say, they lose people support and they keep on losing it while they try to hunt down the million pirates. Indie labels, on the other hand, are trying, and trying, but they don't really make a great revolution on the market, even though they ARE doing a great job by supporting the bands that deserve it and not all the best selling pop crap the major ones do.
    Radiohead didn't make a revolution: they are still stuck on the CD model. Yeah, 160kbps is not BAD. But they are not giving a full product on the web that is to replace the production of a CD. Revolution would be "here, you can buy the album on the web as well, CD quality, the same you can get by buying a physical copy, and of course, without booklets and anything material, you can get it at a lower (logical) price". But no, they didn't cause, that would ruin the CD distribution model, that would be less money.
    They are still playing the old game. They are making profit from it, which is NORMAL. I didn't say I hate them for that, if I wanted to hate someone there are all kinds of people out there who deserve it more. What I didn't like was them shouting out loud that they did a revolutionary thing, and that they did it for their fans. I still like their music.

    If you answer and do not intend to keep a relatively adult tone then I won't continue the conversation, and if so don't feel smart about it.
    reply
  • Chris

    1 year ago

    I'm glad clear heads finally prevailed. I just didn't phrase it as well as geekfish did. Kudos.

    I can't believe they actually tried to pull "you're just jealous"
    reply
  • Joel

    1 year ago

    Hmmmm.... thread locked?
    reply
  • Joel

    1 year ago

    Geekfish I don't need your respect to feel good about my opinion. I am sticking up for Radioheads decision to try something different. You claim plenty of big label bands have been doing this for a long time. If I missed all that, then so be it. if what you say is correct, then I guess Radiohead is just doing what every other big name band does when their contract runs out, and that's excellent. It only gives the consumer the ability to download for free a band they wanna check out, and decide if they wanna spend their money on the CD. Or not. Or maybe just flip them 5 bux like I did for the high Q version of the NIN/Williams new disc. Just like the amazing days of Napster. I never bought more CD's in my life then when I was actively exploring new music via Napster.

    ...and I never claimed you should be ashamed of yourself for your opinion. Hell no. Speak out freely against the "scammers" that are Radiohead - what I was referring to was your quote of the manager saying basically that they were sure as hell hoping the downloads of the album would help move CD's. You took that quote out of context, spinning it like Radioheads intent was to double charge and/or in some way rip off their fans, and I disagree with you. I have read 3 members of the bands thoughts on it, and you are simply wrong, but why argue? We will believe what we want. I just felt the opposing viewpoint should be shared.

    Maybe this is just business as usual as you say. I don't think so. I think the industry is really paying attention to this one, as evidenced by this thread... perhaps you are just way more plugged in than the rest of the world.

    Maybe Radiohead will, one day, be able to handle the manufacture and direct distribution of their CD using their own staff and facilities, and never have to sign a CD distribution deal again - thereby being able to actually charge a FAIR price for a CD, rather than the garbage we have been overpaying for. That *would* truly be revolutionary.

    Maybe if this lil attempt for the band goes well, they *will* offer a 320kbs lossless version for the audiophile among us who can appreciate then difference... Yes, that would be awesome - and with great downloadable artwork, one really could get a great product in their home straight from the net. Cool!

    What is bothering me about this is, and has always been, the personal attacks to the band. In my opinion they are misplaced, and often delivered by people who really dislike the new album anyway. Sure, it may not be a perfect plan for everyone, this pay-want-you-want, or get-it-for-free, or wait for the deluxe version, or wait for the freaking CD plan they seem to have going, but it offers choice. It's a different path than the majority of bands right now, and it just may help move things in the right direction. AND they record companies and Big Label *hate it* - and thats cool with me :-) I support it. I applaud them. and I hope they make lots of money. It really is a heartfelt and fantastic album. I was blown away by "wierd fishes" on the way home from work today - my free download while I wait for my overpriced, old school CD to hit the shelves.

    Sorry if my smart-assed-ness bothered you.
    reply
  • Geekfish

    1 year ago

    @Joel
    "You claim plenty of big label bands have been doing this for a long time."
    I never said that. I said that music has already moved from the CDs to the computers and the web. And that the labels DIDN'T follow. Are you even reading what I'm writing?

    "It only gives the consumer the ability to download for free a band they wanna check out, and decide if they wanna spend their money on the CD."
    It does give that ability, yes. If you... "wanna". But they actually also SELL the download. Because theoretically you should pay if you want to BEFORE listening to it - if you want to pay afterwards then you have to make a 2nd ORDER! You don't DONATE, you BUY.
    Your Napster example is out of context, because what you were doing was also theoretically illegal. Yes, it was an excellent way to discover new music. The same you could do in Oink until the RIAA shut it down. The same you can do with Soulseek. But you don't seem to get that Radiohead still doesn't support that logic. Because THEY STILL FOCUS ON THE CD.
    "...charge a FAIR price for a CD..."
    Yes, that would be great, it has nothing to do with what we're saying, but it would be great. Sorry, still stuck to the old CD distribution model, only in a more fair way. They still concentrate on the CD production, not on a web distribution.

    If it is the personal attacks to the members of the band that bother you, you might continue to believe to that superb religion you've got there, Radiohead, I'm sure everyone would love to be worshipped as a god. And you should spread the word of the lord and take down the non-religious, fast, before anyone who dares to criticize or say that the band's strategy might not be so perfect after all.
    (and where the hell did I talk about anyone's person in specific so that it becomes personal? ).
    Ciao Joel
    reply
  • Joel

    1 year ago

    Mornin' Geekfish. Obviously from your last paragraph there, you think I am some sort of Radiohead zealot, and this assumption that you make is incorrect, but it doesn't matter. This conversation has devolved into a "destroy the commercial CD business model" conversation... I have had many of those and they go nowhere. They are unrealistic, and it's not gonna happen anytime soon. Blaming the artists for that is stupid. Not to mention all the people that would have not access to music. Not everyone is willing to have all their tunes purely digital, and not everyone is willing to download illegally, many don't have the ability to download anything at all, legal or illegal or even understand how to use the technology to do it. From an artists perspective also, it's a terrible idea to eleminate all physical/product forms of music. Part of the problem with your argument, is that it is tailored to YOU and YOUR habits and like and dislikes... not the desires of the artists, or ALL consumers. That's why I think Radioheads latest experiment is unique and very cool.

    Also, an artistic product is worth what people want to pay for it. I don't have ANY problem with someone paying what they want and enjoying the downloaded music, and then later deciding they want the album on CD and want to pay for that product at a store. That's cool. Who am I to judge? Who are you to judge? Hell, if I look my CD collection, I have vinyl versions, tapes, CD's and even a cheap digital download of the same stuff. I don't think of the band as crooks. Nor the album as a rip-off. It was my decision.

    Again, I think your criticism is misplaced on the band itself. Just because it's not good enough for you, doesn't mean we all agree with you.

    You realize, that if Radiohead had offered a big time high quality, lossless download for free or pay-what-you-want, with artwork, your entire argument collapses.
    reply
  • Joel

    1 year ago

    "Radiohead will today leak/sell their seventh studio album, In Rainbows, offering it as a digital download for your choice of payment. It's a neat way to, as fellow Pitchforker Brian Howe has said, "devise a model where they meet the culture on its own terms, rather than trying to bully us back into an obsolete [one]."
    reply
  • STFU Chris

    1 year ago

    @ Cgris, i don't know what you said but STFU anyway LOL
    reply
  • STFU Chris

    1 year ago

    @ Chris, I don't know what you said or did but STFU anyhow LOL
    reply
  • Joel

    1 year ago

    ummmmm... Translation anyone? Que?
    reply
  • little sara

    1 year ago

    blah blah blah, these guys are going to be better :P

    http://www.myspace.com/headway
    reply
  • SANICE

    1 year ago

    PLEASE SOMONE HELP ME. I GO TO THIS SITE WHIT GOOGLE SEARCH I SEARCHING SOME PROGRAM NAME IS STAT CHANGER FOR WORLD OF WARCKRAFT I NEED THAT PROGRAM BUT CANT FIDN . SO IS GOOD SITE BUT IF SOMONE HAVE THIS PROGRAM STAT CHANGER SEND ME TO EMAIL MY EMAIL ADRESS IS KOBA_GORDELADZE@MAIL.RU 10X
    reply
  • LOL

    1 year ago

    If you already paid for the low bitrate but you want the better quality bitrate, then download it. You've already paid for the right to listen to the music, I'm sure you can find it somewhere. No issue.

    I believe they announced the CD at the same time as the download? Except the download got all the hype so no one knew. I can see someone who would have preferred to buy a hardcopy but donated would be upset, but this is not an issue with the overall distribution model - just this one time. Because next time everyone will realize that they'll probably release a CD too, and you can decide weather to buy that or just get a download.
    reply

Add New Comment

Returning? Login