NEW RADIOHEAD ALBUM!!!!!!!!
Comments
-
its more than giving away music for free though. just the whole 10 days announcement for In Rainbows, and the 6 days advance notice for TKOL. The lack of press. You dont have to give music away for free, but at least do something new and exciting and more interesting than selling a physical cd for 18 bucks at the local cd store. i mean jesus...
record contracts are the elephant in the room. they are a fact and reality but i think we need to start thinking about a new kind of artist relationship with their labels, one that doesnt involve explotiation by the labels.0 -
Tiki Barber wrote:musicismylife78 wrote:its more than that. radiohead are considered the vanguard of cutting edge music for a reason. they took chances and risks that deserve to be praised from here until eternity. they could have rested on their laurels and redone creep over and over and over again. instead they released Kid A, with songs like Idioteque and Kid A the song. Or Like Spinning Plates off Amnesiac. Ive said it before, and ill say it again, radiohead push the boundaries of what modern music is and what it sounds like and we need those types of bands.
they constantly surprise and challenge their fans. thats another thing they deserve heaps of praise for. i went into In Rainbows thinking it would sound like Kid A or Amnesiac, experimental, odd electronic music. Instead In Rainbows was their most accessible album ever.
Radiohead are one of those special bands. there is a reason they appeared at number 1 or number 2 of basically EVERY SINGLE best of decade list in 2009, when people were looking back at 2000-2009.
this is the kind of talk that i find extremely annoying. i love radiohead, they are one of my favorite bands, but this gushing over what they do as if they are the second coming of the beatles is ridiculous. what do you mean "they push the boundaries of what modern music is and what it sounds like"? there are loads of other bands pushing the boundaries much further and they don't get nearly this much credit.
i also think it's funny when i hear people praising the way they released their last two albums (great idea), claiming that this is the future and this is how bands should be releasing their music.....ridiculous.
the only reason radiohead can get away with this is because they are fucking radiohead and the only promotion they need is an announcement. if someone like the antlers tried to release an album like that, no one would ever know that it even came out. it's just not a practical way to market unless you already have an established fanbase. and if you do, then it's a perfect strategy, but not really a genius idea.
i threw that last paragraph in there, because i'm specifically referring to something i read here posted by you on how other bands should be following their lead.
I agree with Tiki here - Radiohead are not pushing any boundaries by any means with their music. Plenty of smaller bands, groups and individulas who are making more experimental music then anything they have put out, by far. Radiohead have done well to constantly change their style and release different sounding albums each time. Great band that deserve a lot of respect but i'm a 'call a spade a spade' kind of guy, lets not over state them. Their huge fan base and success has allowed them to do what they do and keep constantly changing but it's all within the 'popular music' frame work.
As for their business model and how they release their material - I think it is great and I like how they do it but to say thats how all bands should do it is just silly. It works for them and they have the resources to do such things but most bands won't.0 -
musicismylife78 wrote:so how do you release albums in 2011? You do the crappy thing that PJ did, which was do interviews with dead and dying media outlets like rolling stone and spin and alt rock radio stations that play PJ every day once a day as part of their "1990's at noon" special?
PJ went to numnber 1 didn't it?musicismylife78 wrote:How big is Girl Talk? Again, his new album he gave away for free in November and it crashed the internet.
My internet was fine all throughout Novemeber
musicismylife78 wrote:the whole bands couldnt do what radiohead did because those bands are small and tiny is stupid.
The only thing small and tiny and stupid here is this comment :?0 -
and of course, you arent going to be the next radiohead by releasing an album for free online, if you are a small band. that isnt the issue. the issue is, can a band survive financially that way. and the fact is, bands no longer receive much revenue from physical cd sales. thats the same if you are radiohead, one of the biggest bands in the world, or if you are the new band on a small indie label in your local town.
I think you confuse the desire of intent here. you just arent going to end up making money ANYWAYS even if you sell your record for 18 bucks at the local cd store. Its a non issue. Even established artists like Bruce get a buck thirty at most PER CD when you buy the cd at the store. thats a paltry and sickening sum of money.
when you realize this, that buying a cd from the store, or stealing it, is a question of a buck thirty, the conclusion one must come to is that artists need to find other sources of income.
Like maybe putting on amazing live shows, or putting out great t shirts, selling a ton of merch,etc... is the answer?
You are a new tiny band, what makes more sense? To put energy and waste time in creating a physical cd, and try to get ink in RS and Spin, and do an interview with your local alt rock station? Or...does it make more sense to leak your album to blogs like stereogum and brooklyn vegan, and to try and get press in P4k, and to do interviews with KEXP and KCRW, 2 of the most important radio stations in the world, and to try and get Greys Anatomy to play your song over some emotional scene, and to put on this amazing live show that people are hyped about, and to create artistic and stunning merch? Is their even a debate?0 -
im all for bands getting as much money as they want and can. but i just live in the real world. Any band, small or large, doing press with RS, SPin, and selling their albums at a store, thats the least successful and wise way to sell music and make cash. Thats all im saying.
No one is saying the small tiny local band could put out their album for free tonight and become the newest P4k darlings. the argument never was that. the point is, maximizing profit and gaining as many fans as one can.
a tiny indie band releasing music for free will get press. maybe not in p4k, but i would be local news would cover it.
playing a ton of shows that are transcendent and life changing. thats gonna win some new listeners and get your a ton of press.
making compelling music period, thats gonna win some fans and get some press.
creating unique and creative merch, that draws peoples attention to the bands name on the shirt, or is just visually stunning thats gonna win new fans, make some cash, and could cause people on the street, to ask. "what a cool shirt, what does it say, what band is that". that will win new fans and gain press.
the idea of a band promoting an album via talk show performances and doing the cover story for RS, and putting out a physical cd in stores, seems so incredibly boring to me and i know im not the only person. its boring for a reason, and it isnt working for a reason.0 -
musicismylife78 wrote:You are a new tiny band, what makes more sense? To put energy and waste time in creating a physical cd, and try to get ink in RS and Spin, and do an interview with your local alt rock station? Or...does it make more sense to leak your album to blogs like stereogum and brooklyn vegan, and to try and get press in P4k, and to do interviews with KEXP and KCRW, 2 of the most important radio stations in the world, and to try and get Greys Anatomy to play your song over some emotional scene, and to put on this amazing live show that people are hyped about, and to create artistic and stunning merch? Is their even a debate?
Well yeah. Give the album away? What album? It costs money to produce a top quality production. Sure these days the can put an album together fairly cheaply but it won't be of the highest quality. The issue is not just how much you make from individual sales from a cd but having the financial backing from a company to help you promote your material and the vast connections that comes with it.
Free music is not a viable model for the music industry, I wish it was but it's not.0 -
Digital Twilight wrote:[
I agree with Tiki here - Radiohead are not pushing any boundaries by any means with their music. Plenty of smaller bands, groups and individulas who are making more experimental music then anything they have put out, by far. Radiohead have done well to constantly change their style and release different sounding albums each time. Great band that deserve a lot of respect but i'm a 'call a spade a spade' kind of guy, lets not over state them. Their huge fan base and success has allowed them to do what they do and keep constantly changing but it's all within the 'popular music' frame work.
As for their business model and how they release their material - I think it is great and I like how they do it but to say thats how all bands should do it is just silly. It works for them and they have the resources to do such things but most bands won't.[/quote]
while the popular music is apt as radiohead are no doubt popular as any band could be, the idea they release music inside that box or inside that vacuum is absurd to me. Kid A wasnt nor is it a pop album, or a popular music album. The song Kid A, the song, that to me, doesnt sound like it falls within the popular music frame work. Nor are Pulk Pull or Packt like Sardines, or Like Spinning Plates off Amnesiac. Those may have been released by the popular band Radiohead, but they are not in the popular music framework at all. those are challenging songs, experimental by any definition, beautiful and gorgeous yes, but not the song a typically popular band releases.
to assert that radiohead have been influential is not overstating the case. it can only be understated. again, there was a reason radiohead appeared at either 1 or 2 on nearly every single end of decade best albums of the decade list.
and i said it before, how many bands or musicians have launched in the past few years, because they posted their songs, for free on their myspace profile?0 -
Digital Twilight wrote:Tiki Barber wrote:musicismylife78 wrote:its more than that. radiohead are considered the vanguard of cutting edge music for a reason. they took chances and risks that deserve to be praised from here until eternity. they could have rested on their laurels and redone creep over and over and over again. instead they released Kid A, with songs like Idioteque and Kid A the song. Or Like Spinning Plates off Amnesiac. Ive said it before, and ill say it again, radiohead push the boundaries of what modern music is and what it sounds like and we need those types of bands.
they constantly surprise and challenge their fans. thats another thing they deserve heaps of praise for. i went into In Rainbows thinking it would sound like Kid A or Amnesiac, experimental, odd electronic music. Instead In Rainbows was their most accessible album ever.
Radiohead are one of those special bands. there is a reason they appeared at number 1 or number 2 of basically EVERY SINGLE best of decade list in 2009, when people were looking back at 2000-2009.
this is the kind of talk that i find extremely annoying. i love radiohead, they are one of my favorite bands, but this gushing over what they do as if they are the second coming of the beatles is ridiculous. what do you mean "they push the boundaries of what modern music is and what it sounds like"? there are loads of other bands pushing the boundaries much further and they don't get nearly this much credit.
i also think it's funny when i hear people praising the way they released their last two albums (great idea), claiming that this is the future and this is how bands should be releasing their music.....ridiculous.
the only reason radiohead can get away with this is because they are fucking radiohead and the only promotion they need is an announcement. if someone like the antlers tried to release an album like that, no one would ever know that it even came out. it's just not a practical way to market unless you already have an established fanbase. and if you do, then it's a perfect strategy, but not really a genius idea.
i threw that last paragraph in there, because i'm specifically referring to something i read here posted by you on how other bands should be following their lead.
I agree with Tiki here - Radiohead are not pushing any boundaries by any means with their music. Plenty of smaller bands, groups and individulas who are making more experimental music then anything they have put out, by far. Radiohead have done well to constantly change their style and release different sounding albums each time. Great band that deserve a lot of respect but i'm a 'call a spade a spade' kind of guy, lets not over state them. Their huge fan base and success has allowed them to do what they do and keep constantly changing but it's all within the 'popular music' frame work.
As for their business model and how they release their material - I think it is great and I like how they do it but to say thats how all bands should do it is just silly. It works for them and they have the resources to do such things but most bands won't.
i think you were better at articulating my point than i was. thank you. this should end the discussion right here.....0 -
musicismylife78 wrote:and i said it before, how many bands or musicians have launched in the past few years, because they posted their songs, for free on their myspace profile?
7?0 -
Well yeah. Give the album away? What album? It costs money to produce a top quality production. Sure these days the can put an album together fairly cheaply but it won't be of the highest quality. The issue is not just how much you make from individual sales from a cd but having the financial backing from a company to help you promote your material and the vast connections that comes with it.
Free music is not a viable model for the music industry, I wish it was but it's not.[/quote]
you heard of bon iver, or How to Dress well? Bon Iver put out one of the best albums of the decade, recorded it on bedroom tapes, leaked it to blogs and is a huge musician now. You read that right, he leaked it to a few blogs and his album is a modern day classic. How to Dress well, is extremely lo fi, bedroom sounding vocals, and appeared on a ton of best of 2010 lists. you heard of lo fi, and chillwave? p4k even went as far as suggesting the album would cause kids to emulate the style. Both are about making music that is not high quality in terms of sound quality, but quality in terms of tunes.
free music isnt a viable option for the music industry? What music industry? Selling 12 songs on a physical cd for 15 bucks isnt a viable model either. So what else are you suggesting then?
even without an album to give away, you do what ive said time and time again. great live shows, quality merch, interacting with fans via twitter/facebook/myspace, doing press with the tastemakers.0 -
that two people could agree that radiohead releases music within the popular music framework is a mindboggler to me that rivals any david lynch film. how to you listen to kid a or amnesiac and come away thinking, "oh yeah, radiohead, they release music within the standard music formula"? Wait...huh?
You guys are on drugs or something.0 -
additionally postal service, and iron and wine, josh radin, william fitzsimmons etc... all released huge albums, some of the most important albums of the decade and all, with the exception of the last 2 iron and wine albums were about lo fi, hushed vocals.0
-
the other people on this forum who still listen to alt rock radio, thats one thing, but you of all people tiki, you obviously read p4k and we share alot of the same musical taste as far as indie music. so how you could tell me, or tell anyone that radiohead releasing music online is not viable for other bands is beyond me. You not following the indie scene anymore tiki? Thats obviously fine, but you seriously read p4k, and stereogum and brooklyn vegan and can tell me the bands that are the huge things in indie, p4k's best new music and what not, all wouldnt be huge or viable if they released their music for free online?0
-
musicismylife78 wrote:that two people could agree that radiohead releases music within the popular music framework is a mindboggler to me that rivals any david lynch film. how to you listen to kid a or amnesiac and come away thinking, "oh yeah, radiohead, they release music within the standard music formula"? Wait...huh?
You guys are on drugs or something.
no one said that. it's pop music whether you like or not though. that doesn't mean it's not unique. i think you are just confused with what popular music is.....see you have a few major categories, classical, jazz, world, pop etc. radiohead is pop. fact.
and your whole argument about bon iver and whatnot....how many frickin artists do you think try and do the same thing and fail? thousands. just cause justin vernon pulled it off, doesn't mean it should be the standard buisness model. he got lucky, and that's a big part of what it takes to break through. that is a great album though.Post edited by Lifted on0 -
musicismylife78 wrote:you heard of bon iver, or How to Dress well? Bon Iver put out one of the best albums of the decade, recorded it on bedroom tapes, leaked it to blogs and is a huge musician now. You read that right, he leaked it to a few blogs and his album is a modern day classic. How to Dress well, is extremely lo fi, bedroom sounding vocals, and appeared on a ton of best of 2010 lists. you heard of lo fi, and chillwave? p4k even went as far as suggesting the album would cause kids to emulate the style. Both are about making music that is not high quality in terms of sound quality, but quality in terms of tunes.
free music isnt a viable option for the music industry? What music industry? Selling 12 songs on a physical cd for 15 bucks isnt a viable model either. So what else are you suggesting then?
even without an album to give away, you do what ive said time and time again. great live shows, quality merch, interacting with fans via twitter/facebook/myspace, doing press with the tastemakers.
That kind of release suits Bon Iver as it does with XX but it won't work with every band and style. Not everyone can just release some music for free and then make it big.
It looks like subscription based models will be the next thing and I think that might be good way. Pay a flat rate and you can listen to all the music you desire. You then just buy what you want to have in your car or ipod. If people have access to as much music as possible then maybe you can get people interested in it more but the industry still needs the money too. These record companies are the ones who invest in research and development of new sound, recording techniques, speakers, headphones ect. There has to be a balance somewhere. The record companies need to realise that they can't charge stupid prices for their cds that they are doing now, they need to adapt as well. I want muisc to keep getting better and better in terms of sound and quality.
Free musis is not a viable model but your right neither is charging £15 for a cd. I think you just need to step a little away from the mind set that all record companies are evil entities that eat babies and devours the musicians soul. There are some really good companies who are pushing some great music out there, look around.0 -
musicismylife78 wrote:the other people on this forum who still listen to alt rock radio, thats one thing, but you of all people tiki, you obviously read p4k and we share alot of the same musical taste as far as indie music. so how you could tell me, or tell anyone that radiohead releasing music online is not viable for other bands is beyond me. You not following the indie scene anymore tiki? Thats obviously fine, but you seriously read p4k, and stereogum and brooklyn vegan and can tell me the bands that are the huge things in indie, p4k's best new music and what not, all wouldnt be huge or viable if they released their music for free online?
i don't read any of that stuff actually. where did you get that from? the only time i really read pitchfork is if i'm linked there for an article or something. i'm not into any scene really. i love a lot of the "indie" music, i love all kinds of music, but i don't agree with much of what you are saying.0 -
Tiki Barber wrote:musicismylife78 wrote:the other people on this forum who still listen to alt rock radio, thats one thing, but you of all people tiki, you obviously read p4k and we share alot of the same musical taste as far as indie music. so how you could tell me, or tell anyone that radiohead releasing music online is not viable for other bands is beyond me. You not following the indie scene anymore tiki? Thats obviously fine, but you seriously read p4k, and stereogum and brooklyn vegan and can tell me the bands that are the huge things in indie, p4k's best new music and what not, all wouldnt be huge or viable if they released their music for free online?
i don't read any of that stuff actually. where did you get that from? the only time i really read pitchfork is if i'm linked there for an article or something. i'm not into any scene really. i love a lot of the "indie" music, i love all kinds of music, but i don't agree with much that you are saying.
i know your a fan of the national, broken social scene, arcade fire right? all are p4k favorites.0 -
Digital Twilight wrote:musicismylife78 wrote:you heard of bon iver, or How to Dress well? Bon Iver put out one of the best albums of the decade, recorded it on bedroom tapes, leaked it to blogs and is a huge musician now. You read that right, he leaked it to a few blogs and his album is a modern day classic. How to Dress well, is extremely lo fi, bedroom sounding vocals, and appeared on a ton of best of 2010 lists. you heard of lo fi, and chillwave? p4k even went as far as suggesting the album would cause kids to emulate the style. Both are about making music that is not high quality in terms of sound quality, but quality in terms of tunes.
free music isnt a viable option for the music industry? What music industry? Selling 12 songs on a physical cd for 15 bucks isnt a viable model either. So what else are you suggesting then?
even without an album to give away, you do what ive said time and time again. great live shows, quality merch, interacting with fans via twitter/facebook/myspace, doing press with the tastemakers.
That kind of release suits Bon Iver as it does with XX but it won't work with every band and style. Not everyone can just release some music for free and then make it big.
It looks like subscription based models will be the next thing and I think that might be good way. Pay a flat rate and you can listen to all the music you desire. You then just buy what you want to have in your car or ipod. If people have access to as much music as possible then maybe you can get people interested in it more but the industry still needs the money too. These record companies are the ones who invest in research and development of new sound, recording techniques, speakers, headphones ect. There has to be a balance somewhere. The record companies need to realise that they can't charge stupid prices for their cds that they are doing now, they need to adapt as well. I want muisc to keep getting better and better in terms of sound and quality.
Free musis is not a viable model but your right neither is charging £15 for a cd. I think you just need to step a little away from the mind set that all record companies are evil entities that eat babies and devours the musicians soul. There are some really good companies who are pushing some great music out there, look around.
a subscription based model died in 1999. back when napster first appeared this is exactly what all the record labels should have done. made it like the tv and internet bill. every month you would be charged 10 bucks and you could download as many songs as you wanted. thats what should have happened when napster hit. but instead the labels fought it and treated downloaders as criminals.
now the vast majority of people download. billions of people download. every single computer/laptop that a college freshmen brings to his or her dorm room is equipped with a CD burner.
Subscription based ideas wont fly. too many people get music for free now. Youd merely siphon off maybe 1 percent or 2 percent of the people. The rest would just download it for free. Who would pay 20 or 10 bucks a month to download music, when they can get it for free now?
Would have worked in 1999, but now its a silly idea, no offense to you intended, but thats the reality0 -
i agree not all record labels are bad. i like merge, sub pop, among others. but none of the big 4 or 5, EMI, Sony, Arista etc... are good or even moral. If you are telling me not all majors are bad, i'd have to seriously disagree. all are bad. but i;d also argue most indies are good.0
-
musicismylife78 wrote:Tiki Barber wrote:musicismylife78 wrote:the other people on this forum who still listen to alt rock radio, thats one thing, but you of all people tiki, you obviously read p4k and we share alot of the same musical taste as far as indie music. so how you could tell me, or tell anyone that radiohead releasing music online is not viable for other bands is beyond me. You not following the indie scene anymore tiki? Thats obviously fine, but you seriously read p4k, and stereogum and brooklyn vegan and can tell me the bands that are the huge things in indie, p4k's best new music and what not, all wouldnt be huge or viable if they released their music for free online?
i don't read any of that stuff actually. where did you get that from? the only time i really read pitchfork is if i'm linked there for an article or something. i'm not into any scene really. i love a lot of the "indie" music, i love all kinds of music, but i don't agree with much that you are saying.
i know your a fan of the national, broken social scene, arcade fire right? all are p4k favorites.
yep. three of my favorite bands. i'm familiar with pitchfork, but i don't read or follow it. they piss me off. they shit on a lot of my favorite artists every time they release an album for some reason. i think it's cause they don't like old established acts. i don't know. pj, and wilco in particular. and most recently bright eyes. for wilco, they gushed over yankee, and then panned everything since. i think it's a usefull site they got over there, pretty cool to hear about new artists and stuff, and occassionally they'll have interesting articles....but their reviewers tend to rub me the wrong way.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 148.8K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110K The Porch
- 274 Vitalogy
- 35K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.1K Flea Market
- 39.1K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.8K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help