Bob Caswell - Latest Comments in Radiohead Responds to Download Stats: Says They’re False

Re: Radiohead Responds to Download Stats: Says They’re False

LOL — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 18:20:16 -0000

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.

Re: Radiohead Responds to Download Stats: Says They’re False

SANICE — Sun, 13 Apr 2008 11:11:45 -0000

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

Re: Radiohead Responds to Download Stats: Says They’re False

little sara — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 20:19:45 -0000

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

http://www.myspace.com/headway

Re: Radiohead Responds to Download Stats: Says They’re False

Joel — Sun, 25 Nov 2007 15:38:07 -0000

ummmmm... Translation anyone? Que?

Re: Radiohead Responds to Download Stats: Says They’re False

STFU Chris — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 05:26:45 -0000

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

Re: Radiohead Responds to Download Stats: Says They’re False

STFU Chris — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 05:26:11 -0000

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

Re: Radiohead Responds to Download Stats: Says They’re False

Joel — Mon, 12 Nov 2007 22:00:09 -0000

"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]."

Re: Radiohead Responds to Download Stats: Says They’re False

Joel — Mon, 12 Nov 2007 13:38:18 -0000

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.

Re: Radiohead Responds to Download Stats: Says They’re False

Geekfish — Mon, 12 Nov 2007 03:09:46 -0000

@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

Re: Radiohead Responds to Download Stats: Says They’re False

Joel — Sun, 11 Nov 2007 20:41:30 -0000

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.

Re: Radiohead Responds to Download Stats: Says They’re False

Joel — Sun, 11 Nov 2007 14:53:55 -0000

Hmmmm.... thread locked?

Re: Radiohead Responds to Download Stats: Says They’re False

Chris — Sun, 11 Nov 2007 10:46:34 -0000

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"

Re: Radiohead Responds to Download Stats: Says They’re False

Geekfish — Sun, 11 Nov 2007 07:46:08 -0000

"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.

Re: Radiohead Responds to Download Stats: Says They’re False

Joel — Sat, 10 Nov 2007 16:05:31 -0000

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.

Re: Radiohead Responds to Download Stats: Says They’re False

Joel — Sat, 10 Nov 2007 15:58:34 -0000

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...

Re: Radiohead Responds to Download Stats: Says They’re False

Music Nerd — Sat, 10 Nov 2007 14:46:04 -0000

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.

Re: Radiohead Responds to Download Stats: Says They’re False

Geekfish — Sat, 10 Nov 2007 13:34:50 -0000

@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.

Re: Radiohead Responds to Download Stats: Says They’re False

Joel — Sat, 10 Nov 2007 09:32:39 -0000

@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.

Re: Radiohead Responds to Download Stats: Says They’re False

Paul — Sat, 10 Nov 2007 04:25:00 -0000

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.

Re: Radiohead Responds to Download Stats: Says They’re False

yes yes yall — Sat, 10 Nov 2007 01:13:54 -0000

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.

Re: Radiohead Responds to Download Stats: Says They’re False

Jeff — Fri, 09 Nov 2007 23:08:38 -0000

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.

Re: Radiohead Responds to Download Stats: Says They’re False

bobcaswell — Fri, 09 Nov 2007 22:21:42 -0000

@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.

Re: Radiohead Responds to Download Stats: Says They’re False

Joel — Fri, 09 Nov 2007 22:02:50 -0000

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

Re: Radiohead Responds to Download Stats: Says They’re False

Doug — Fri, 09 Nov 2007 21:55:26 -0000

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.

Re: Radiohead Responds to Download Stats: Says They’re False

Bob Caswell — Fri, 09 Nov 2007 20:51:40 -0000

"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.