now if they can just find a way to price it so you really pay for the new album AND what you would have paid for the last one, then they'd be on par with the government

Wait, you mean the freeloader business model doesn't work? Imagine that.

Translation:

We only gave away the last CD because all our real revenue was coming from concerts.

Now we have a deal where we might actually get paid for our recordings.

Whatever. Their last album was farking amazing and possibly their best, but no one would know that because everyone couldn't hear it over the masturbation over the fact that they could get it for free.

RobThomas PowerHour: Whatever. Their last album was farking amazing and possibly their best, but no one would know that because everyone couldn't hear it over the masturbation over the fact that they could get it for free.

I've listened to it a couple times and it just didn't click. I need to go revisit it again. I would consider myself a fan but I couldn't tell you the names of 90% of their songs because I put the cd in and just go for the whole aural experience.

Translation: We thought our fans would pay something -- anything -- for our music, but we were sadly disappointed to see that they enthusiastically took it for zip, zilch, nada, nothing. Hail to the Thieves, perhaps...but not Next Time.

I downloaded it fror free from the website, then downloaded a higher bitrate copy from a torrent after the CD was released.

RobThomas PowerHour: Whatever. Their last album was farking amazing and possibly their best, but no one would know that because everyone couldn't hear it over the masturbation over the fact that they could get it for free.

WORD.

THIS.

/whatever, I agree

where the hell is valdes? either he's seriously ill or has really been slipping on his radiohead trolling. get better buddy.

That's a shocker. :P

its funny, this album was downloaded three times as much via torrent and p2p sites than through radiohead's website
better bandwidth?
better bitrate?
i dunno...folks just like free, pirated stuff.
i still saw it in stores for 18 damn euros...thats about $25

I heard it for free, liked it and paid for a CD copy.

As far as Radiohead are concerned, MISSION ACCOMPLISHED.


the fact that the CD was only $10 canadian was also very reasonable and encouraged my purchase.


PS if you think they made no money, you're an idiot.
no record companies, execs, wholesalers, middlemen....

According to this, 38% of the people who downloaded the album paid an average of $6. I bet a normal album has a lower percentage of people who pay, and the artist definitely doesn't get $6 a sale.

I bought the boxset of this, and all I can say is that is was worth the money. The vinyl copy is amazing. 2 LPs cut at 45rpm. They sound much better than the CDs that came with it.

/Radiohead fan

I've never really understood the idea about "art" that you have to view/listen to repeated times in order to gain its aesthetic value. If you have to condition yourself to like something, maybe you don't like it.

bthemonarch: I've never really understood the idea about "art" that you have to view/listen to repeated times in order to gain its aesthetic value. If you have to condition yourself to like something, maybe you don't like it.

I suppose I could give an example.

I'm currently taking a class about the director Wong Kar-wai. I like most of his films, but we just finished "Ashes of Time," which was the most jumbled, incoherent, movie I have ever scene, yet the professor kept telling us, "I know it doesn't make sense, but you really have to watch it like 12 twelve time to appreciate it." Which just seemed like an academic way of putting, just watch it enough times, in hope of understanding, until you project your viewing on the film, then you'll come around. I wonder what it is about inaccesability to the viewer that translates to "art."

bthemonarch: I've never really understood the idea about "art" that you have to view/listen to repeated times in order to gain its aesthetic value. If you have to condition yourself to like something, maybe you don't like it.

That's... just stupid. I completely and utterly disagree with that sentiment.

bthemonarch: I've never really understood the idea about "art" that you have to view/listen to repeated times in order to gain its aesthetic value. If you have to condition yourself to like something, maybe you don't like it.

Then it would simply be entertainment. It's not as much having to "condition" yourself as much as "digesting" what is being presented.

That being said, I'm not a Radiohead fan and no amount of listening to their music will change my mind. Their artsyness seems disingenuous to me.

Or maybe I JUST DON'T GET IT.

Passive Aggressive Larry: bthemonarch: I've never really understood the idea about "art" that you have to view/listen to repeated times in order to gain its aesthetic value. If you have to condition yourself to like something, maybe you don't like it.

That's... just stupid. I completely and utterly disagree with that sentiment.

Whats stupid is to disagree with an arguement like, "Your stupid, cause I disagree with you."

I was just trying to conjure some discussion.

It would read better like this....

Radiohead will not release their next album on the "pay whatever the hell you want to" marketing scheme

Radiohead sucks worse than a crackwhore with mouthcancer.

I think the scheme that NIN used, where you got a partial download of the album in MP3 and you paid for the full download in better codecs (or on physical CD's or in "deluxe packs") is a better plan, actually.

bthemonarch: I've never really understood the idea about "art" that you have to view/listen to repeated times in order to gain its aesthetic value. If you have to condition yourself to like something, maybe you don't like it.


because surely you've liked all of your favorite tracks the first time you heard it?

Generally, the first time I hear an album, it's more like a skimming. Repeated listens have more to do with understanding what the artist is intending to purvey.


In Rainbows was good, but not really anything the band hasn't done before.

Trent Reznor provided the perfect model with Ghosts, do the same damn thing.

I like my albums aged a bit. Rarely does an album become a favorite right away.

Maybe I've just convinced myself I like them, but I don't care, because I still feel attached to them somehow, which is all I care about.

As for Radiohead... I think Yorke feels a biatcheated. He calls it 'giving something away' rather than 'revolutionizing an industry'

Yeah, I said biatcheated, wanna fight about it?

It was all just a publicity stunt anyway, as the leech crowd was told repeatedly.

Those morans actually believed that EVERYONE was going to start giving new albums away.

In Rainbows was amazing. When you look at the radiohead catalog in 30-40 years it will stand out in many ways and the whole "we tried something new on the business side of that one" deal will be a footnote.
/perspective
//OK Computer FTW

whydoIlovethevikings: In Rainbows was amazing. When you look at the radiohead catalog in 30-40 years it will stand out in many ways and the whole "we tried something new on the business side of that one" deal will be a footnote.
/perspective
//OK Computer FTW

i heard it averaged out to about $20 per copy sold anyway. my friend paid a few bucks then burnt me a copy...and i listened to it for about two weeks straight.

I'm an unabashed fan of pop songs. While I enjoyed "In Rainbows" (short disclaimer: I'm not a big fan of radiohead....lots of wanking by them and their fans don't help matters) I listened to it once and haven't listened to it since.

Also, I was in the camp from the beginning that eyed the method of release with a lot of suspicion. The "pay what you want" thing is far from a solution and a lot of aspiring journlists (:cough: Pitchfork: cough:) took it hook, line, and sinker just because it was Radiohead.

ConnieLingus: I'm an unabashed fan of pop songs. While I enjoyed "In Rainbows" (short disclaimer: I'm not a big fan of radiohead....lots of wanking by them and their fans don't help matters) I listened to it once and haven't listened to it since.

Also, I was in the camp from the beginning that eyed the method of release with a lot of suspicion. The "pay what you want" thing is far from a solution and a lot of aspiring journlists (:cough: Pitchfork: cough:) took it hook, line, and sinker just because it was Radiohead.

ha, you called the hipster douchebags at Pitchfork journalists....comedy gold.

To be exact, I called them "aspiring" journalists....the crew at Pitchfork are the ones who consider themselves real journalists. All I see are people who write something snarky in a news article and then cut and paste tour dates. More like low level bloggers if anything.

ConnieLingus: To be exact, I called them "aspiring" journalists....the crew at Pitchfork are the ones who consider themselves real journalists. All I see are people who write something snarky in a news article and then cut and paste tour dates. More like low level bloggers if anything.

This. Perhaps if they took off their Chuckss and quit drinking so much PBR all the damn time, they could learn to do better shiate.

ConnieLingus: To be exact, I called them "aspiring" journalists....the crew at Pitchfork are the ones who consider themselves real journalists. All I see are people who write something snarky in a news article and then cut and paste tour dates. More like low level bloggers if anything.

I stand corrected. My apologies. I give this apology a 2/10.