Do you believe that In Rainbows marketing idea was good?
Comfis
Posts: 117
As most of you know, Radiohead decided to give fans the chance to pay how much they like for their last album In Rainbows.
Other artists like Madonna, Jay Z, Lily Allen agreed or disagreed with the Radiohead idea.
What is your opinion? is it good for the music, for fans, for the music industry?
Other artists like Madonna, Jay Z, Lily Allen agreed or disagreed with the Radiohead idea.
What is your opinion? is it good for the music, for fans, for the music industry?
My choice for Radiohead News is InRadiobows.com
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
And Lily Allen's comment there about eggs and music baffles me.
Yeah I understand where you are coming from on that one, it really is only feasible for well established bands to do that. I think Trent Reznor's method with Ghosts was far better, it gave options to pretty much everyone, from those who wanted to spend nothing, to those who wanted a limited edition physical copy.
- the great Sir Leo Harrison
and as a customer, I prefer to pay $15 for a CD in a store than a few $ for mp3s...
2007: Copenhagen, Werchter
2009: Rotterdam, London
2010: MSG, Arras, Werchter
2012: Amsterdam, Prague, Berlin
2014: Amsterdam, Stockholm
The good things:
-Releasing an album online when its just been recorded. Artists always moan when albums leak but these days it's inevitable, so they may as well give an official download that people can pay for.
-Releasing only moderate quality mp3s to encourage people to buy the albums.
The Bad things:
-Letting people choose a price is never a good idea. Trent Reznor's way of releasing Ghosts makes much more sense, releasing lots of different options with different pricings, with only a few tracks free as a demo.
-Saying it'll revolutionise the record industry. It hasn't and it won't. It picked up press because it had never been done before, but if everyone did it no one would pick up press and very few bands would make money out of it.
-Not releasing official figures. People have lost faith in record labels, especially with labels moaning all the time about how no one buys music. I think it'd do bands good to announce how well these things do to try and reinstate some faith in the music industry.
All in all Radiohead obviously went to the extreme to pick up more publicity, but Trent Reznor's experiements with Saul Williams and Ghosts are much more realistic. But it still isn't going to make a huge impact on the music industry in the long term.
'06 - London, Dublin, Reading
'07 - Katowice, Wembley, Dusseldorf, Copenhagen, Nijmegen
'09 - London, Manchester, London
'12 - Manchester, Manchester, Berlin, Stockholm, Copenhagen
I probably would not have bought it otherwise, and I am glad I did.
It is not something many artists can afford to do, but good on them for trying it out.
Kids genuinely believe that recorded music is free.
I agree that there was a lot of clever marketing involved, but at least the release opened a debate.
That was pretty much what Radiohead did do, though. When it was first released via their website, you could pay nothing (or something if you felt generous) for a download, or spend $40 (I think) on a limited edition diskbox version which included 2 CDs inc. extra tracks, plus artwork and a book, plus the whole thing on vinyl as well.
Then later they marketed it as a CD in the shops in the normal way at the normal price to satisfy the demand from those members of Joe Public who weren't internet types.
www.chriscornell.org.uk
'06 - London, Dublin, Reading
'07 - Katowice, Wembley, Dusseldorf, Copenhagen, Nijmegen
'09 - London, Manchester, London
'12 - Manchester, Manchester, Berlin, Stockholm, Copenhagen
With the NIN one, you could get a 'sampler' for free (about a disk worth of music) or the whole thing for about $5 in good quality. There were other options as well for higher bitrates, and vinyl options I think.
I'm a very critical shopper in my daily life, but every time I open up that disc box, I feel good about participating in this clever marketing idea. They gambled on our loyalty, and I think it paid off.
Knowledge is not wisdom.
Wisdom is not truth.
Truth is not beauty.
Beauty is not love.
Love is not music.
Music is the best."
~ FZ ~
Ah, but there are one or two rich prats with indulgent parents, making music out there and harping on about how music should be free, because they're on their gap year and haven't any overheads. I know. I've met them. They usually wear Radiohead t-shirts.
Admittedly I am perfectly fine with giving my music away for free but that's only as long as it isn't costing me anything to make. I'm perfectly happy with making lo-fidelity music and can handle the cost of some CD-Rs. Any kind of more professional venture is going to involve the cunts who've been handed it for free making some hefty donations
Yeah but the NIN album was a better quality download than In Rainbows - you got the same bit rate if you paid zero as you did if you paid up to £100 (or whatever they capped it at).
It was still good marketing for them though
And you're not leaving here without me, I don't wanna be without
My best... friend. Wake up, to see you could have it all
2010: Newark 5/18 MSG 5/20-21 2011: PJ20 9/3-4 2012: Made In America 9/2
2013: Brooklyn 10/18-19 Philly 10/21-22 Hartford 10/25 2014: ACL10/12
2015: NYC 9/23 2016: Tampa 4/11 Philly 4/28-29 MSG 5/1-2 Fenway 8/5+8/7
2017: RRHoF 4/7 2018: Fenway 9/2+9/4 2021: Sea Hear Now 9/18
2022: MSG 9/11 2024: MSG 9/3-4 Philly 9/7+9/9 Fenway 9/15+9/17
thats how i roll!!!
no more shows
Its clear it worked out for them too. It wasnt a flop, in fact many have argued they made more on this record than they would have made had they signed to a label.
Most people download music now. Its a fact, and no matter how much lars ulrich or whoever wants to disown that fact, its a fact. Most people dont go to the cd store. its too expensive. No amount of "is it fair or not fair" is going to change that. Its a situation. And the dam has been broken. No one, no band, no company is going to shut it down or stop it. People download and will continue to do so, even if the ridiculous lawsuits from RIAA continue (remember the woman fined 1,000 for each song she downloaded, 22 songs in all?).
Radiohead have always been experimental, genrebusting and hearing the beat of their own drummer. Their decision to do this was just another example.
The question isnt whether it was successful, the question is, who is their right mind remains on majors and doesnt do something along the lines of radiohead now? The bands will follow radioheads lead. Its just a matter of time.
Indeed. All this talk about how, although Radiohead could do this, most other bands, especially bands still developing their fanbase, still need the infrastructure being on a major label provides. This may be true, and the music industry will not change overnight, but there is no doubt that the easy access of music over the Internet has changed the way music can be distributed and sold irrevocably. And although Radiohead's method may not be the best, tidiest, or most often used model in the future, they were one of the first bands, and certainly the first band with their stature, to make such a definitive break from the major label industry and release their album on their own terms. In almost every way the album could be viewed as a success, it was. It was critically accalimed, they made far more money than they would have had they released it on a major label, and they will be credited with being a vital part, if not the spearhead, of the gradual collapse of major labels as we understand them today.
This past fall and winter, I basically listened to them more than any band.
EV- 08/09,10/2008.06/08,09/2009