Radiohead has secretly been releasing new music under the guise of several new indie bands for the last few years. We wanted a completely objective audience in which to gauge our recent progressions.
There are lessons to be learned from Radiohead and music in general over the last few years in respect to the rights, distribution and payment of creative works. Architecture might have something to learn. You might be being a little bit cynical.
Radiohead are present on my rather short list entitled "They that can do whatsoever the F*ck they want'. Also on that list is Olafur Eliasson, H&deM and Donna Sink.
Either that lesson isn't obvious, you're not sharing, or I'm too much of a dum dum to see it.
Radiohead made their brazillions before the mp3 revolution. At this point they can do as they please. The fact that they embraced a radical new approach to music distribution, only to abandon it on their very next album, without a word of explanation, is kind of puzzling. Irresponsible, really.
Whatever. I'm not getting their $53 "newspaper" gimmick.
These days I'm into Donna Sink's slam poetry. Which is still free (at least until Archinect ME comes out).
So its ok for them to dump traditional CD sales for a 'pay-what-you-want' model, but its not ok to then adopt a hybrid?
Responsiblility or its opposite has nothing to do with it - I dont understand the idea of 'responsibility' as it applies to this situation, unless you regard Radiohead as a fundamental need, in which case for $9 you can buy the album.
I didn't really explain what I meant with 'irresponsible".
When they released "In rainbows" a lot of people took notice. A lot of bands that were trying to break into the industry were giving music away for free (still are), while the RIAA was suing "illegal" downloaders left and right (still is).
Here was Radiohead embracing the pay-as-you-wish model. Kind of a big deal. Others did this as well before them (NIN comes to mind), but this was fucking Radiohead! They were reinventing the music industry! While squeezing out the middle guy. Exciting!
4 years later and.... meh. Nevermind. Nine bucks please. iTunes store takes 30% so this is better for the bottom line.
Many people read too deeply into Radiohead's actions. Including me. I feel a bit disappointed.
Also, most bands are lucky to make anywhere from 0.0001¢ to 10¢ from online sales. Most artists are lucky to make anywhere from 1¢ to 25¢ per album sold. Where bands make their real money is from royalties and touring.
This whole direct-to-consumer marketing of music is pure hogwash. Albums really only function as a marketing device, a postcard of sound, advertising their shows and derivative works that use their music.
The problem with touring and royalties is that most middlemen don't get them and the middlemen that do get them often only hold onto them for a period of time.
So, you can sit around and bitch quantifying the value of music consumption versus music production...
But these assholes are all laughing once one of their songs ends up on a Ford commercial!
The new album sounds good. If it's anything like In Rainbows, it's going to take awhile for it to hit me. I thought that album was just meh... and it eventually brought on a full on revival for me.
@rustystubs
I'm sorry, but when a band is capable of moving millions of records, it has huge ramifications when they let you pay what you want. Obviously. But I don't see Radiohead ditching the idea because they wanted more money. They'll get that either way. They ditched the idea because in the end it wasn't a good one. It was a statement at the time, it would be redundant for them to continue on with it. It's not good for the industry... and that includes indie bands.
As you point out, many bands are giving their music away. They are only doing it in response to the current sate of the industry and, if lucky, recognition. Radiohead doesn't need that. Nor do more recent huge successes like Arcade Fire and The National. If these types of bands are willing to give their albums away, what does that say for much smaller bands? What does that say for the smaller recording studios that are dropping off the face of the earth?
Music is a product. An easily stolen one. That doesn't mean we shouldn't be told what it is worth. It should still be valued, and Radiohead should sell their albums accordingly.
Assuming that, their take on 999,000 sales is $999,000 dollars. There are five members of radio. Let's assume each one takes an equal cut. That's $199,800 per band member.
In total, Radiohead has maybe sold 10,000,000 albums. That's $2,000,000 a piece per band member. However, Thom Yorke's estimate net worth is between $45,000,000 to $55,000,000.
So, album sales only account for 4% of his total wealth. Where did the other $43,000,000 come from?
glitter - you answered it earlier: touring, merchandise, and everything else but the album sales.
The brilliance to me of what radiohead's doing with this model is as follows: by selling direct for the first, oh, say 100 days, they get the maximum number of people shilling out for a digital copy because they love the band (I put up $3 for the digital copy of In Rainbows). Then, after the initial rush, they cut their distribution deals - either directly with Apple (in which case they still get roughly $7 back on each $10 album if they are their own label). They can also then cut a more traditional deal with a label for wider distribution of a physical cd (I don't buy that the newspaper edition will be the only physical copy - it's just going to take a while. And, yes, I plunked down $10 more to get the physical cd of In Rainbows months later). They may make $1-2 of each of those, but don't have the need to sell as many. Let's say they move 200,000 copies this first week - pretty reasonable - at an average of 7L each - they're going to clear 1.4M pounds. If they sell 500,000 before branching out to Apple, etc., then they're clearing 3.5M pounds. Not too shabby - it would have taken 3M cd's to get there, probably 2M digital downloads.
So, to review: provide an exclusive digital content only version for the highest volume selling time, which is the easiest to set up, manage, and distribute for the maximum profit. Once you've milked that cow, then do the downstream deals with Apple and everyone else. Tour and merchandise to follow. Genius!
(of course, the one small problem with this equation is that you've got to be pretty popular to begin with or figure out some way to juice the underground to get there. Because, if you're a nobody, nobody's going to show up on your doorstep to buy anything...)
As Greg Walker has alluded to, EMI created a monster. Luckily for them their relationship was mutually beneficial while it lasted. But not all musicians can do what Radiohead has done.
In 2008, I spent over $80 on my ticket to their show. I also spent $30 on a water bottle for my girlfriend. If just one of those dollars went to Thom, he made well over $30 grand that night... considering the size of that crowd, he probably made 50. And it was well worth my $80.
How much do you think they get for headlining an event like Bonnaroo? Any headliner gets a lot... they probably get more being the draw that they are. And how many bands do you think get that kind of opportunity?
I used to be under the same belief that musicians could make a living off of touring. I guess I just wanted to justify my downloading. There's a pretty big difference between selling tickets for $20 to a few hundred people, and selling them for $80 to thirty thousand. In other words, Radiohead is amongst a select few.
There are thousands of talented bands in the former category. Most bands don't make a living off of touring and they don't get endorsements. They desperately want you to pay a visit to the merch stand. Just like Radiohead, they get a hell of a lot more than pennies from the sales. They aren't on major labels, and iTunes isn't there to take the money for them.
Hell, isn't it possible for a band to be an undesirable live act, but have a stellar album? I like certain electronic music, but I don't have much desire in seeing it live. I guess those musicians should go find a Ford commercial. I don't want to convolute this, but if highly successful bands start selling their albums for $2 a piece because they have other sources of income, there's more of a risk that it shrinks the market. Less music, less variety. Less room for an artist to prove themselves. Not as much fun.
I agree with you. Radiohead doesn't need to earn a dime off of the actual sales of their album. But I can think of tons of bands that do. Perhaps even more importantly, I can name tons of bands that did have to in order to get to where they are today. Not everyone has a path paved for them by a major label. Most any good band doesn't these days.
Everything is changing in a permanent way and there is no denying that musicians need to be creative in how they earn their money. Touring is definitely a huge part of that. But albums aren't merely marketing devices as you suggest. Not for everyone at least.
if your unemployment check hasn't cleared yet, and you need to hear the new album, you can stream it from here.
My review:
It's Radiohead. At this point they could release a spoken word lasagna recipe to critical acclaim. This time around their sound is heavy on knobs and buttons. If you like Thom's dick in your mouth, you'll like how this one tastes.
Bloom - Brilliant
Codex - Brilliant
Feral - The gloaming is sounding better this time.
Give up the Ghost - Gorgeously sad
Little by Little - I might be go to sleep
Lotus Flower - Brilliant
Morning Mr Magpie - fun enough
Separator - Meh, its nice.
Title - Shite
Art - worse.
Length - Actually, I kinda like.
radiohead: in rainbows
oooooooooh... can't wait for the tour.
anyone else who paid for the download when it was given away feel foolish?
i should've downloaded those lesser mp3's for free and paid for the better quality ones. d'oh!
anyone else notice the radiohead banner add?
is it possible their distributer noticed how often we discuss them here and decided to advertise their album here?
Oh my, oh my. I've been dying to see Radiohead again. I think I may try the Atlanta or Indy shows.
FYI - Radiohead was my very first concert. The year was 1995 and I was in 6th grade. They opened for R.E.M. Ahhhhh, memories.
wow, radiohead and r.e.m. as your first concert? that's awesome.
hey this was released a year ago 10/10
happy birthday in rainbows!
happy 3rd birthday + 1 day in rain bows woahs !!
now put out lp8 *angry*
Radiohead has secretly been releasing new music under the guise of several new indie bands for the last few years. We wanted a completely objective audience in which to gauge our recent progressions.
The King of Limbs - preorder!
http://www.thekingoflimbs.com/DIGBP.htm
but i have no money !?! :'(
why don't they just give this one away like last time damn you t. yorke !!
I know I guess I'll just be stealing this one like I do everything else.
It shows that In rainbows pay-as-you-wish:
a) wasn't as profitable to their likings.
b) they only did it for attention whoring. Which is odd for a band like that.
It must be a). Upkeep of 20 room villas is kind of expensive.
Rusty,
There are lessons to be learned from Radiohead and music in general over the last few years in respect to the rights, distribution and payment of creative works. Architecture might have something to learn. You might be being a little bit cynical.
Radiohead are present on my rather short list entitled "They that can do whatsoever the F*ck they want'. Also on that list is Olafur Eliasson, H&deM and Donna Sink.
d
diabase,
Either that lesson isn't obvious, you're not sharing, or I'm too much of a dum dum to see it.
Radiohead made their brazillions before the mp3 revolution. At this point they can do as they please. The fact that they embraced a radical new approach to music distribution, only to abandon it on their very next album, without a word of explanation, is kind of puzzling. Irresponsible, really.
Whatever. I'm not getting their $53 "newspaper" gimmick.
These days I'm into Donna Sink's slam poetry. Which is still free (at least until Archinect ME comes out).
So its ok for them to dump traditional CD sales for a 'pay-what-you-want' model, but its not ok to then adopt a hybrid?
Responsiblility or its opposite has nothing to do with it - I dont understand the idea of 'responsibility' as it applies to this situation, unless you regard Radiohead as a fundamental need, in which case for $9 you can buy the album.
you would think that Thom would get his damn eye fixed with all the $$$ he has made
I didn't really explain what I meant with 'irresponsible".
When they released "In rainbows" a lot of people took notice. A lot of bands that were trying to break into the industry were giving music away for free (still are), while the RIAA was suing "illegal" downloaders left and right (still is).
Here was Radiohead embracing the pay-as-you-wish model. Kind of a big deal. Others did this as well before them (NIN comes to mind), but this was fucking Radiohead! They were reinventing the music industry! While squeezing out the middle guy. Exciting!
4 years later and.... meh. Nevermind. Nine bucks please. iTunes store takes 30% so this is better for the bottom line.
Many people read too deeply into Radiohead's actions. Including me. I feel a bit disappointed.
I dont see it like that, but I understand disappointment.
I need money this time around. sorry mates!
hey yorkey did ya finally finish big boots?
¥€$ i'll pay money for that!
A brazillion is apparently only worth $599,161,000.00 USD.
Also, most bands are lucky to make anywhere from 0.0001¢ to 10¢ from online sales. Most artists are lucky to make anywhere from 1¢ to 25¢ per album sold. Where bands make their real money is from royalties and touring.
This whole direct-to-consumer marketing of music is pure hogwash. Albums really only function as a marketing device, a postcard of sound, advertising their shows and derivative works that use their music.
The problem with touring and royalties is that most middlemen don't get them and the middlemen that do get them often only hold onto them for a period of time.
So, you can sit around and bitch quantifying the value of music consumption versus music production...
But these assholes are all laughing once one of their songs ends up on a Ford commercial!
Video for what i presume is first single is out Lotus Flower
Not bad, definetely more on the non-rock tip but still here johhny et al on those guitars and ed with the drums..
The new album sounds good. If it's anything like In Rainbows, it's going to take awhile for it to hit me. I thought that album was just meh... and it eventually brought on a full on revival for me.
@rustystubs
I'm sorry, but when a band is capable of moving millions of records, it has huge ramifications when they let you pay what you want. Obviously. But I don't see Radiohead ditching the idea because they wanted more money. They'll get that either way. They ditched the idea because in the end it wasn't a good one. It was a statement at the time, it would be redundant for them to continue on with it. It's not good for the industry... and that includes indie bands.
As you point out, many bands are giving their music away. They are only doing it in response to the current sate of the industry and, if lucky, recognition. Radiohead doesn't need that. Nor do more recent huge successes like Arcade Fire and The National. If these types of bands are willing to give their albums away, what does that say for much smaller bands? What does that say for the smaller recording studios that are dropping off the face of the earth?
Music is a product. An easily stolen one. That doesn't mean we shouldn't be told what it is worth. It should still be valued, and Radiohead should sell their albums accordingly.
"teach me how to thommie. teach me, teach me how to thommie"
@persimmons...
Riddle me this, "Hail to the Thief" is only a RIAA Gold Certified album.
Meaning, it has sold somewhere between 500,000 and 999,999 copies (technically, the qualification for Platinum is 700,000).
But sake of argument, we'll go with 999,000 copies. We'll use this-- http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/2010/how-much-do-music-artists-earn-online/ -- as a comparison point. We can assume that Radiohead is a "high end royalty deal" on a major label and their records are "retail album CDs."
Assuming that, their take on 999,000 sales is $999,000 dollars. There are five members of radio. Let's assume each one takes an equal cut. That's $199,800 per band member.
In total, Radiohead has maybe sold 10,000,000 albums. That's $2,000,000 a piece per band member. However, Thom Yorke's estimate net worth is between $45,000,000 to $55,000,000.
So, album sales only account for 4% of his total wealth. Where did the other $43,000,000 come from?
glitter - you answered it earlier: touring, merchandise, and everything else but the album sales.
The brilliance to me of what radiohead's doing with this model is as follows: by selling direct for the first, oh, say 100 days, they get the maximum number of people shilling out for a digital copy because they love the band (I put up $3 for the digital copy of In Rainbows). Then, after the initial rush, they cut their distribution deals - either directly with Apple (in which case they still get roughly $7 back on each $10 album if they are their own label). They can also then cut a more traditional deal with a label for wider distribution of a physical cd (I don't buy that the newspaper edition will be the only physical copy - it's just going to take a while. And, yes, I plunked down $10 more to get the physical cd of In Rainbows months later). They may make $1-2 of each of those, but don't have the need to sell as many. Let's say they move 200,000 copies this first week - pretty reasonable - at an average of 7L each - they're going to clear 1.4M pounds. If they sell 500,000 before branching out to Apple, etc., then they're clearing 3.5M pounds. Not too shabby - it would have taken 3M cd's to get there, probably 2M digital downloads.
So, to review: provide an exclusive digital content only version for the highest volume selling time, which is the easiest to set up, manage, and distribute for the maximum profit. Once you've milked that cow, then do the downstream deals with Apple and everyone else. Tour and merchandise to follow. Genius!
(of course, the one small problem with this equation is that you've got to be pretty popular to begin with or figure out some way to juice the underground to get there. Because, if you're a nobody, nobody's going to show up on your doorstep to buy anything...)
Oh my god. there are so many funny posts in this thread haha.
I fucking love the new shit. Its smooth, its subtle, but its really, really nice.
@glitter centaur
As Greg Walker has alluded to, EMI created a monster. Luckily for them their relationship was mutually beneficial while it lasted. But not all musicians can do what Radiohead has done.
In 2008, I spent over $80 on my ticket to their show. I also spent $30 on a water bottle for my girlfriend. If just one of those dollars went to Thom, he made well over $30 grand that night... considering the size of that crowd, he probably made 50. And it was well worth my $80.
How much do you think they get for headlining an event like Bonnaroo? Any headliner gets a lot... they probably get more being the draw that they are. And how many bands do you think get that kind of opportunity?
I used to be under the same belief that musicians could make a living off of touring. I guess I just wanted to justify my downloading. There's a pretty big difference between selling tickets for $20 to a few hundred people, and selling them for $80 to thirty thousand. In other words, Radiohead is amongst a select few.
There are thousands of talented bands in the former category. Most bands don't make a living off of touring and they don't get endorsements. They desperately want you to pay a visit to the merch stand. Just like Radiohead, they get a hell of a lot more than pennies from the sales. They aren't on major labels, and iTunes isn't there to take the money for them.
Hell, isn't it possible for a band to be an undesirable live act, but have a stellar album? I like certain electronic music, but I don't have much desire in seeing it live. I guess those musicians should go find a Ford commercial. I don't want to convolute this, but if highly successful bands start selling their albums for $2 a piece because they have other sources of income, there's more of a risk that it shrinks the market. Less music, less variety. Less room for an artist to prove themselves. Not as much fun.
I agree with you. Radiohead doesn't need to earn a dime off of the actual sales of their album. But I can think of tons of bands that do. Perhaps even more importantly, I can name tons of bands that did have to in order to get to where they are today. Not everyone has a path paved for them by a major label. Most any good band doesn't these days.
Everything is changing in a permanent way and there is no denying that musicians need to be creative in how they earn their money. Touring is definitely a huge part of that. But albums aren't merely marketing devices as you suggest. Not for everyone at least.
ATpersimmons:
is you callin' out jónsi ?!? oh no you din't !!
if your unemployment check hasn't cleared yet, and you need to hear the new album, you can stream it from here.
My review:
It's Radiohead. At this point they could release a spoken word lasagna recipe to critical acclaim. This time around their sound is heavy on knobs and buttons. If you like Thom's dick in your mouth, you'll like how this one tastes.
I give it 4 jaw breaking yawns (out of 7.4).
^ puts dicks in his lasagna. interesting!
Bloom - Brilliant
Codex - Brilliant
Feral - The gloaming is sounding better this time.
Give up the Ghost - Gorgeously sad
Little by Little - I might be go to sleep
Lotus Flower - Brilliant
Morning Mr Magpie - fun enough
Separator - Meh, its nice.
Title - Shite
Art - worse.
Length - Actually, I kinda like.
All in all pretty damn gorgeous the way through.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.