digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Radiohead won't repeat 'In Rainbows' giveaway

news.com — Radiohead made it official: the band won't be giving away music like it did with the album In Rainbows. "I think it was a one-off situation" said Thom Yorke. "I don't think it would have the same significance now anyway, if we chose to give something away again. It was a moment in time."

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • nicholasdog, on 05/01/2008, -6/+28because there are not enough other places to get free music on the Internet
    • keatonkeaton998, on 05/01/2008, -26/+8"Radiohead at best was after publicity." Exactly what I thought when they were first doing it. Again, I was right form the start, everyone should listen to me from now on and subscribe to my blog and good weblog internet videos to get the real facts about the internet. Also, Radiohead is a terrible band and I hope they can't sell their music anymore because they are retarded.
      • ngmcs8203, on 05/01/2008, -6/+4Wow, you're a douche.
      • naysayer1, on 05/02/2008, -0/+0Come on guys, despite his woeful taste in music and questionable debating skills, you can trust this guy, he's from the internet.
    • mlrigsby, on 05/01/2008, -12/+10Radiohead is one of the biggest bands in the world. They don't need a gimmick to get publicity. For over a decade now, anytime Radiohead has releases an album has been an international event.
    • CrazyRedHatter, on 05/01/2008, -4/+23I think you are missing the point. Radiohead was praised as a innovator when they released this albumn on a 'pay what you feel it's worth' basis, because they were going well outside the tradtional way of distributing music. Because they were the first to try something like this, they had the attention of major artists from around the world in a variety of different genres. The problem with this, is that they (Radiohead) are pretty much saying that the model doesn't work and that they didn't feel like it was worth it. So what was once a step in the right direction for reforming the music industry, has become two giant steps back. I really hope that more people pay closer attention to Trent Reznor's ideas and comments. He did it right, and I think that it shows that artists can be successful, make money, and consumers can enjoy their music in a way that cuts out most of the unneccesary middle men.
      • mlrigsby, on 05/01/2008, -3/+4Or they could just mean exactly what they're saying: that this was a special "one-off" case because they happened to be in limbo without a label and wanted to try something different. Maybe I missed the part where this was supposed to change the world, but I never thought Radiohead was committing themselves to a pay-what-you-will model now and forever more.

        Regardless, middle men in the record industry have been irrelevant well before In Rainbows and Ghosts. Even ignoring illegal filesharing networks, independent artists and labels are able to market their work so well on the internet that they can just sell their CD's/LP's directly to the consumer or through independent record stores. The main purposes of traditional record companies (marketing and distribution) are now completely negated. I can't even remember the last time I purchased a CD from a major label, and I get my music (and lots of it) legally.
      • spiralout123, on 05/05/2008, -0/+1I agree completely and I think they also messed up with charging to remix "nude" when trent has the files to remix his songs all over every website he has.
    • michaelGregoire, on 05/01/2008, -0/+11It didn't work for THEM. Primarily because of the crappy 128kbs mp3 format.
  • kazzyD, on 05/01/2008, -3/+21Here's another take:

    http://www.techconsumer.com/2008/04/30/radiohead-g ...
    • benitojuarez, on 05/01/2008, -4/+49That's exactly what it is. They didn't make anywhere near as much money as they had hoped. Theyre just being really nice about how they say it.
    • HibikiRush, on 05/01/2008, -16/+8Stopped bothering to read after they misspelled "Coldplay" in the title. Writer obviously has no clue about music or the industry.
      • loquedesea, on 05/01/2008, -8/+17get over yourself...
        • richardhenry, on 05/01/2008, -9/+8Are you joking? That's a pretty big error, especially considering these people are *paid* to do this. It's like the doctor who's about to perform an operation on you spelling "heart" and "liver" incorrectly in the letter he sent you.
          • loquedesea, on 05/01/2008, -1/+5what a ridiculously improportionate comparison.
          • saisumimen, on 05/01/2008, -4/+2You want to talk about doctors? What about the fact most of them have handwriting like a 4 year old?

            How is it that you'll allow a doctor to hold a scalpel near your HEART when he can't even make a straight line with a PEN? You fail.
        • KingGorilla, on 05/01/2008, -2/+6Because spelling= operating skills
  • Hamsterpotpies, on 05/01/2008, -10/+41That sucks. The free version was the only reason I went out and got it.
    • objectcode, on 05/01/2008, -2/+8i guess now you are gonna download it
  • webefools, on 05/01/2008, -18/+5I can feel death, can see its beady eyes
    All these things into position
    All these things will one day swallow whole
    Fade out again, Fade out again
  • andrew606, on 05/01/2008, -16/+11they prolly do something like NIN did tho. sample for free, 5 bucks for the whole thing
    • monospaced, on 05/01/2008, -18/+7NIN gave you the whole thing free. $5 was for a lossless copy.
      • andrew606, on 05/01/2008, -5/+19no, 9 tracks out of 36 is 1/4. which is what he gave away.
        • treed, on 05/01/2008, -1/+12But the whole thing was CC-licensed.
        • Rendonsmug, on 05/01/2008, -5/+11No he liscenced them all under creative commons. He only linked to 9 of them, but he legally gave away all of them.
        • cawpin, on 05/01/2008, -11/+4"No he liscenced them all under creative commons. He only linked to 9 of them, but he legally gave away all of them."

          No, he didn't.
          • rabidmonkey1, on 05/01/2008, -1/+13"Ghosts I-IV is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial Share Alike license. "

            http://ghosts.nin.com/main/faq

            It isn't hard to look these things up before you speak about them.
      • spiralout123, on 05/05/2008, -0/+1trent gave away the first 9 for free, the rest were $5 but he supports torrents so you could have just gone and downloaded it that way and gotten all of them for free. i personally bought the $300 edition.
    • Avaseal, on 05/01/2008, -12/+1Did the rest of the NIN songs have any vocals? It was nice hearing new music for free, but the reason why I went out and bought the actual Radiohead CD was because they actually worked on lyrics as well. Instead of just releasing free instrumental tracks.
      • op12, on 05/01/2008, -1/+10Why would the presence of lyrics indicate more work involved? It could be just as hard to come up with instrumental tracks.

        At any rate, the single they recently released for free download does have lyrics:
        http://dl.nin.com/discipline/nin
        • Myonosken, on 05/01/2008, -1/+1Given the quality of Radioheads' instrumental sections, I think it may do.
    • spiralout123, on 05/05/2008, -0/+1the point of the album was to give the fans a chance to contribute to the music. by not including lyrics or name titles fans are able to think of their own ideas for the songs and nin created a youtube film festival where anyone can create a video that they think goes with a certain song.
  • bananaspiders, on 05/01/2008, -14/+110it makes me regret paying for it...
    • topace3000, on 05/01/2008, -24/+11That makes no sense.
      • bgrah449, on 05/01/2008, -1/+43He's saying that a big reason why he paid for it was to push the agenda of artist-to-audience online distribution - to cut out the middlemen of record labels and brick-and-mortar stores. He was paying to support that market transition. Now that Radiohead has announced they won't be a part of the continued success of that transition, he feels like he threw his money away - he would not have paid what he paid strictly for the music.

        I hope that makes sense now.
        • topace3000, on 05/02/2008, -1/+1It makes sense only as a knee-jerk reaction, logically. "I regret supporting my candidate at all because he did not win the election."
          • bgrah449, on 05/02/2008, -0/+2No, it's not like that at all. It's more like saying, "I thought my candidate supported this policy, but now I see that he doesn't. I wish I'd given my support to someone who did."
        • spiralout123, on 05/05/2008, -0/+1exactly
    • fandyboy, on 05/01/2008, -24/+4They didn't make much money so you want to give them less? Yeah sure, that makes total sense...................
      • edwartica, on 05/01/2008, -17/+10It wasn't worth the space on my hard drive to begin with.
        • br0wnstar, on 05/01/2008, -10/+6disagreed
          • edwartica, on 05/01/2008, -10/+3Obviously you have no taste in music.
        • artfiend77, on 05/01/2008, -1/+3Obviously YOU don't think people might have a different opinion than yours.
          • edwartica, on 05/01/2008, -2/+1I'm special. I'm better then you. I break grammatical rules just so I can rewrite them in my own image.....

            Are you getting the sarcasm of my postings yet?
          • br0wnstar, on 05/02/2008, -0/+2no.
      • gr3yn3t, on 05/01/2008, -2/+13Radiohead made more on "in Rainbows" then their last 4 albums combined.
        • Matt2k, on 05/01/2008, -0/+3I wasn't aware they finally released their sales numbers. Everything I read a month or so afterwards was downplaying the results. Got a link?
        • edwartica, on 05/01/2008, -0/+1That's not saying too much. Hail to the thief was the most uninspired piece of tripe since Brittney Spears' first album!
  • jmkiii, on 05/01/2008, -9/+59I paid, and I would again. That's too bad.
    • tschau, on 05/01/2008, -8/+2Roughly half the people who listened paid no money at all. So good work you, but.... eh.
  • getbusyliving, on 05/01/2008, -10/+120Surprise, surprise. I never thought they were committed to actually changing the medium of artist subsidy anyway, like Trent Reznor obviously is.

    At least they make great music.
    • lamiaconfitor, on 05/01/2008, -3/+16yeah, if they were anyone else, Id tell them to ***** off. I am so torn between principles and fanboyism :(
      • mstoneburner, on 05/01/2008, -10/+3Heaven forbid people make money off their talents. IT's so unprincipled of them!
        • sodade, on 05/01/2008, -1/+11I am cool with musicians making a decent amount of money, but this world of mega-stars is lame.
        • spiralout123, on 05/05/2008, -0/+2they don't need more money, they are the most popular band in the world right now.
    • pegothejerk, on 05/01/2008, -9/+23Don't kid yourself.. Trent may believe in the new evolution of music distribution, but he's still in it for the money. He said himself he made a fortune off that giveaway move.
      • cthulhukb, on 05/01/2008, -4/+22So? Why shouldn't he make money? I thought the whole reason he was experimenting with new forms of distribution was to prove that you *can* put something up for "free" and still make money, that the whole idea that we are taking food from artists' mouths by downloading their albums is *****.
        • Myonosken, on 05/01/2008, -2/+2You're conceited if you think he doesn't care about making money.
        • KungFuJesus, on 05/01/2008, -1/+2Uh, Myonosken, re-read his comment, he never says that trent didn't care about making money, in fact the comment says the exact opposite of that
    • bethehammer, on 05/01/2008, -1/+15Yeah he made a fortune by providing a product that people would actually pay for e.g. the delux Ghosts packages - but he is still smart enough to know that people will download it 'free' elsewhere so he may as well give it to them directly for free while providing something for true fans to buy and enjoy
    • antibastard, on 05/01/2008, -3/+2this is precisely the comment i was going to make. and now i don't have to!
    • Kohaxx, on 05/01/2008, -0/+4More proof why Trent Reznor is the man, although I still like Radiohead. :/
    • naysayer1, on 05/02/2008, -1/+0The fact is Radiohead released something brilliant in a revolutionary way. Obviously the quality wasn't tops and all that but the songs were epic, sprawling and probably the best thing to happen to music in 2007. Reznor may have done something similar but the fact is, it's not an album proper. It's probably one of the most boring things I've ever heard. I doubt he'll release his next real album in this format.
  • BlackSheepx, on 05/01/2008, -8/+51It would be less significant the second time? Tell that to Trent :P NIN seems to be doing just fine.
    • thailand1972, on 05/01/2008, -5/+7Reznor is already so well-known that he can do anything and a million people will take notice everytime. This point is: unknown bands can't do the same. Reznor will come and go (and his fame was built by his label through their money to promote him in the 90s) : who will follow?

      Radiohead are talking about diminishing returns, so they admit it was all about the hype. Reznor is the same. He does it for the hype and publicity. It's a drug for him, or let's say: he enjoys it. Nothing wrong with that. But it makes you guys suckers.
    • cadmiumpaint, on 05/01/2008, -4/+5Reznor has a legion of cult like fans. He's not the best case study in how to sell music.
  • JohnDavis730, on 05/01/2008, -4/+27Why wouldn't they do it again? Didn't they make an unprecedented amount of money releasing it that way?
    • fandyboy, on 05/01/2008, -5/+28Obviously not.
    • thailand1972, on 05/01/2008, -1/+12Nope. If they did, they'd repeat it.
    • samoan27, on 05/01/2008, -0/+3He did make a lot but remember one data point doesn't determine a trend. People made examples of it by paying thousands for the album (off setting the freeloaders), that won't happen twice and he knows it.
  • damndj, on 05/01/2008, -12/+10I think they got burned pretty hard with the free giveaway. Thankfully, other artists such as Trent Reznor are paving the way for a profitable online distribution system that should allow Radiohead and other bands the ability to bypass the record labels while still being able to make money on their music.

    The bands win and we win as well!

    • Awspire, on 05/01/2008, -12/+4pulllease. Like the recording labels keep everything. These friggin bands make millions, as long as they're smart enough to get decent agents. I cant stand the ***** mindset that thinks record labels are holding bands hostage, while they make all the cash and the musicians are starving in the street.

      For ***** sake, these musicians play the commercial game like anyone else, and they get an unbelievable payout for playing a song.
      • thailand1972, on 05/01/2008, -6/+7AGREE. It's so sad Diggers (and it seems only to be people on Digg) think millionaire musicians are a cause to fight for. It's ***** hilarious. All the time I try to mention the lowly unknown musician and all I hear is *crickets*. And they worship only bands who were once signed (or are signed) to labels. It's ***** pathetic.
      • jdotter, on 05/01/2008, -2/+5It has nothing to do with agents and playing the commercial game. Artists make money playing live shows. That's why they have concert tours that last months and merchandise at these events is so over priced, cause that's where artists make their money. The record label promotes, and distributes their material and the artists perform that material for audiences. If all a band had to do was get a good agent and make a record every 12 or so months why wouldn't more of them be doing just that? Who wants to live out of a suit case for 15 months and never sleep in the same city for more than 2 days? Record labels keep the majority of the money CD sales create. If a band can make it without a label and bypass the middle man I say good for them and go for it.
        • shinyhappydan, on 05/01/2008, -1/+3"Who wants to live out of a suit case for 15 months and never sleep in the same city for more than 2 days?" Count me in
        • Awspire, on 05/01/2008, -3/+4"Who wants to live out of a suit case for 15 months and never sleep in the same city for more than 2 days?"

          Ya, who wants to tour the world, living in 5 star suites, having assistants cater to your every need. Are you seriously that disillusioned? As for the middle man, I'm quite sure most musicians don't mind handing over their share of the cut so they don't have to deal with all those pesky business details. Ya know, so they can concentrate on making music.

          If you don't like how much tickets or albums cost, then boycott the product, and when the demand goes down so will the price.
        • Matt2k, on 05/01/2008, -1/+2> Ya, who wants to tour the world, living in 5 star suites, having assistants cater to your every need. Are you seriously that disillusioned?

          You don't have a family or a kid, do you? And you propose to do this after every album release? When they could be, oh, writing new music? 5-star hotels and assistants? Yeah, if you want to pay for that out of your pocket!

          It is no one's business but the artist if they don't feel like traveling around and begging for whatever you feel like handing out.
        • solid12345, on 05/01/2008, -0/+1> You don't have a family or a kid, do you? And you propose to do this after every album release?

          Robert Plant had a kid and he still toured around screwing every groupie on the way.

          It used to be getting signed to a label and going on tour was the American rock star dream, when did that end?
  • fandyboy, on 05/01/2008, -14/+4mp3s suck in quality anyway, I'm sure a lot of people bought the CD, i can haz my killohurtz back?
    • Owwmykneecap, on 05/01/2008, -8/+5And Cds don't carry the warmth and depth of Vinyl.
      It's sampled sound, not the real thing.

      But like MP3s for the majority they will do just fine.

      That said I do want to get all my Led Zep Records on Vinyl...
      • bilbohicks, on 05/01/2008, -1/+1Luckily, the box-set they released has vinyl copies of both versions. Just wish I had a deck to play it on :(
  • RadiatedAnt, on 05/01/2008, -1/+10Even though they gave it away for free, statistics still showed it was ferverishly pirated on torrents.
    • br0ken1128, on 05/01/2008, -2/+27That's because it's way easier for someone who frequents a torrent site to just click on the link there than go off to the artist website and fill out a form.. I'm not at all surprised.
    • InsaneMachine, on 05/01/2008, -1/+3IIRC didn't their site also have major problems? (or was that NIN)
      • cawpin, on 05/01/2008, -1/+1Both had problems.
        • logicalnoise, on 05/01/2008, -0/+2luckily ghosts launched on amazons mp3 service as well so I was able to buy it easily.
        • hexydes, on 05/01/2008, -0/+2NIN's site was a bit slow, but I was able to buy it just fine, and download it at around 500KB/s. Radiohead's site wouldn't even load, so I planned to buy it later. Then I forgot. I ended up never even downloading it period. I'm glad I wasn't able to pay for it. Also, I'm glad I WAS able to pay for NIN's album. Obviously Trent wants to push this as a distribution model, whereas Radiohead was just screwing around.
        • Myonosken, on 05/01/2008, -0/+1I had no Radiohead problems.
    • gr3yn3t, on 05/01/2008, -2/+6That, and their site died on the release date. TPB Had it up though.
    • PueSi, on 05/01/2008, -2/+10If you're getting it for free by using bittorrent you're doing them a favor since they save the bandwidth cost.
    • nonsequitor, on 05/01/2008, -1/+6I stole it because it was free.
      • cliffski, on 05/01/2008, -2/+1it wasn't free you freetard, you were supposed to set your own price. obviously that went over your freetard head.
  • sarchosis, on 05/01/2008, -3/+10Because we need the artists to offer it for free to get it for free
  • v10vipe, on 05/01/2008, -0/+15but isn't this hypocritical to the whole idea in the first place? i'm a fan of radiohead but this kind of aggrivates me, so they're just going to go back onto a huge record label then? maybe its because other bands were voicing their complaint because they couldn't afford to give their music away so they only tried to set an example?
    • MisterNoMoniker, on 05/01/2008, -1/+9I think maybe it has something to do with discussion threads like this. They just wanted to put their album out there, label or no, and let people listen. But now I don't think they can without it being all about the politics of distribution or some sort of competition with Trent Reznor (who obviously has a more specific agenda). They don't want to be anti-corporate activists ahead of being a band.
      • pwnshaman, on 05/01/2008, -2/+4The music industry is dead - theres nothing to be an activist against. Reznor is just developing a new business model.
        • Myonosken, on 05/01/2008, -0/+2Huge sales suggest that its hyperbole to say the industry is *dead*, just evolving.
    • thailand1972, on 05/01/2008, -0/+6What makes Radiohead less greedy than their label? They're all millionaires for doing what is a hobby to most people. Do they need our sympathy? ***** no.
    • Myonosken, on 05/01/2008, -1/+1They're on a small label...
  • InspectorGadget, on 05/01/2008, -9/+15Yeah, 160kbps is really generous...Scene releases are -V 2 and lossless is available in plenty of places. Yawn.
    • LilJimmyNordin, on 05/01/2008, -7/+9When you're giving away something you paid to create with your own hands, it's generous. When you give away ***** someone else made that cost you nothing, you're just an *****. Big difference. Thanks for playing.
      • InspectorGadget, on 05/01/2008, -5/+2This isn't just giving away something they made. This is akin to painting something nice and selling that for a lot of money and then giving away the version you ***** up by cutting up the canvas in an obvious way. Thanks for playing.
        • LilJimmyNordin, on 05/02/2008, -0/+1Er, no. Not only do you COMPLETELY miss the point, but you make a totally baseless analogy. For many people, the MP3s were more than enough, and at very least provided an entirely reasonable basis from which to sample the product before deciding to buy it. In any case, you're an idiot. Thanks for dying, enjoy your AIDS.
    • arjie, on 05/01/2008, -3/+7I don't believe this, dude. Yes, it is generous. Sure it wasn't perfect (which would be them holding a private concert for you for free), but it definitely was generous of them to offer their music up for you to pay just what you want. And they did allow you to buy a CD if you wanted great quality. Entitlement issues, dude. Seriously.
      • InspectorGadget, on 05/01/2008, -2/+3No entitlement issues here. I think Radiohead sucks and wouldn't take their full uncompressed CD catalog if it were free. I pay for the music I do listen to. I'm just sick of the pathetic grandstanding of a major-label act trying to cash in on the goodwill towards other artists who have been giving away full and free copies of their music for years upon years. It was an obvious commercial ploy and it doesn't pass the smell test.
        • chonuts, on 05/02/2008, -0/+1"I pay for the music I do listen to."

          So... What if it was a major label band that you really enjoyed instead of Radiohead? I bet you'd buy the full uncompresed version they offered and be happy with it. You're only pissy because you don't like Radiohead or anything they do. I'm ok with that, just stop trying to be so self-righteous.
  • reynolds3g, on 05/01/2008, -6/+81In other words, "we didn't make as much money as we hoped with all the publicity surrounding the giveaway".
  • theberlindoctor, on 05/01/2008, -6/+63 = we didnt get enough money.
  • kds405, on 05/01/2008, -3/+26They are gonna change everything.....for a moment.
  • davidkeithjones, on 05/01/2008, -4/+24Yup, they didn't make enough money. So much for the OMG REVOLUTION!!!
  • dudefather, on 05/01/2008, -9/+3where are all the '***** DA ARREYEDOUBLEAY'
    • outsid3rNo17, on 05/01/2008, -0/+1Dugg down for making me waste 6 seconds understanding what you had written and 25 seconds for writing this comment.
  • hambro, on 05/01/2008, -14/+1This is a good thing.
    For everybody.
  • mparker7410, on 05/01/2008, -20/+8Trent Reznor. Trent Reznor. Trent Reznor. Trent Reznor. Trent Reznor.
  • Nero9171, on 05/01/2008, -11/+20Trent Reznor wouldn't do that...
    • paulmer2003, on 05/01/2008, -13/+7Too bad Trent doesn't have nearly as much talent as an artist as York (and the rest of Radiohead) ;)
      • BabyWookie, on 05/01/2008, -0/+2If by "talent", you mean "fagginess", then I agree.
    • thailand1972, on 05/01/2008, -8/+1Enough about this guy. He's already made his money. It's just simply that he's less greedy than Radiohead. That doesn't make him a saint. He gets a ton of fan worship from his latest so-called "altruistic" moves - the guy is getting his ego-stroked while he made his money 10 times over with a label over a 15 year period. Talk about misplaced reverence.
      • hexydes, on 05/01/2008, -1/+3Reznor actually knows and understands both technology and the music industry. Radiohead was just screwing around with something they clearly didn't understand, or even have any intention of committing to (unless it was WILDLY successful, commercially-speaking).
        • thailand1972, on 05/01/2008, -1/+2Musicians have been giving away their music for years for free online. It's nothing new. You choose to attribute those plaudits to Reznor. Perhaps you just like his music?
          • Nero9171, on 05/01/2008, -0/+2I like his music, but that is not why I chose to single him out. He has the whole digital download process right.

            He releases Ghosts I-IV
            Gives 9 songs out for free
            I download those 9 songs
            The songs are all to my liking, so I purchase the full album for $10
            I get to download immediately in a large array of high quality music formats
            A few weeks later, I get a physical copy delivered to me in the mail


            Name me another musician that puts his art out like that.
    • krisscofield, on 05/01/2008, -1/+4If you read the bio's or the countless articles about Trent and his turbulent history with Interscope and the likes, you will understand how his actions regarding the RIAA and his giving away music was much more significant than Radiohead's publicity stunt. Radiohead lost money = not doing it again. It wasn't sincere on their part, and wasn't for purely for the fans.
  • PFinn, on 05/01/2008, -9/+30I love radiohead and all, but it seems that they were just after the gimmick rather than doing it for the fans.

    NIN ftw in this case.... Reznor even told his fans in AU to steal his music since the labels were charging an outrageous amount of money for cds. Radiohead wont even release the numbers on its actual album, meanwhile Trent has said that he has pulled in over $1.6 mil with an instrumental in Ghosts, imagine what a normal cd release will do (in this pay-what-you-want format).
    • tschau, on 05/01/2008, -6/+1So because they gave one album for free, but not all subsequent albums, it wasn't for the fans? You're awfully demanding.
      • PFinn, on 05/02/2008, -0/+1I wasnt asking them to do it for free, and i actually paid money for it...im just saying that their business model for that release was awesome if they were doing it to help save fans the extra added costs of purchasing from a major label, but in reality it seems it was just a public stunt
  • sgglynn, on 05/01/2008, -3/+71Basically they are admitting it was a publicity stunt, not an attempt to change the industry.
    • tschau, on 05/01/2008, -3/+9I've read some interviews with Thom Yorke, and it really sounds like neither. They did it because they didn't have good options for distribution at the time and it seemed like the best option.
  • edwartica, on 05/01/2008, -13/+6They can't even give there music away!!!!
  • mparker7410, on 05/01/2008, -4/+12Honestly neither Radiohead or Reznor should be receiving credit for any revolutionizing of anything... Prince and David Bowie were pushing this kind of stuff back in the late 90's, the only problem was the downloading of music had yet to become what it is today. The idea though, of distributing music without major labels solely through the internet, was the prime objective of both artists.
    • mlrigsby, on 05/01/2008, -2/+7Also, the Smashing Pumpkins released their final album for free online in 2000.
    • thailand1972, on 05/01/2008, -3/+4Yeah, but this is Digg. You need to be "cool" to be noticed, yet Diggers always moan about others who judge people by their "coolness". There was an article on Digg about Dolly Parton producing her own album without a label - but it didn't hit Digg's radar. Same old same old.
    • Agenda, on 05/01/2008, -4/+4Thats why Prince sued some fan site for using his image?
      • mparker7410, on 05/01/2008, -1/+1That has nothing to do with pioneering acts in the music industry.
  • djphatjive, on 05/01/2008, -11/+6probably because no one even wanted there free version.
  • Rapter09, on 05/01/2008, -5/+10So much for that musical revolution they've been trying to pioneer. Proves it was a gimmick, rather than something they felt honestly needed to be changed about the fundamentals about the music industry. Not saying every band should give all their music away for free; i'm just saying that if they were really that concered about change, and pushing paradigms, they'd of had more of a plan rather than just a one off give-an-album-away-for-free-that'll-make-us-popular PR stint.
    • tschau, on 05/01/2008, -2/+5I read some interviews with Thom Yorke about this, and he really didn't make it sound like it was an attempt to change the industry. They didn't have a major label and there were distribution problems, so they went with the optional payment thing.
    • postalblowfish7, on 05/01/2008, -1/+1the MP3s they gave away were ***** sounding anyway. any true radiohead fan bought the disc version - nigel godrich deserves uncompressed audio.
  • postalblowfish7, on 05/01/2008, -4/+10how about they ***** release the in rainbows b-sides to people who couldn't afford the outrageous (and ironically) only-affordable-by-yuppies disc box.
    • mavranos, on 05/01/2008, -8/+2Pffft- It was something like $80. Get a real job.
  • RobotLeAwesome, on 05/01/2008, -4/+4fools.
  • LilJimmyNordin, on 05/01/2008, -7/+14I don't remember ever hearing Radiohead claim to be revolutionizing anything by giving away In Rainbows. From what I recall, it was a lot of media hype about "changing the paradigm" blah blah blah that's somehow been projected onto the band. I'm sure someone will come up with some kind of evidence to contradict what I said, though, this being Digg and all...

    Anyway, bottom line: They created the music, they gave it away, they didn't have to, good on them. All this cynicism is pointless.
    • tschau, on 05/01/2008, -3/+4Word.

      all of this "revolutionizing" mantra came from the media. That was cool that they did it, I see nothing to be pissed about now.
    • thailand1972, on 05/01/2008, -2/+4Their "InRainbows" website they developed gave the impression they'd invented a whole new way to listen and buy music.
    • replikhant, on 05/01/2008, -1/+3So somebody had to try it, an Radiohead were bold enough to take the risk, Obviously the experiment did not bring back enough rewards, so they are free to go back to the old methods of distribution. The point is clear: the artists are no fools, they are not willing to give their music and talent away for nothing. Somedody will develop a system where all parties will be happy, meanwhile the trial and error stage must continue. Let´s hope Trent´s experiment shows better results.
      • heartless_, on 05/01/2008, -0/+2Wrong, they are the first major band to do it. Music has been given away for free since bands started tossing out CDs at concerts. Radiohead had the big-market presence to do something, acted like they were doing something, and in the end it wasn't profitable enough, so they will move on without it.

        It's just depressing to see these bands with enough exposure to really change something fumble with the technology. Torrents are so economical for distribution that I was absolutely shocked when these websites launched it was a straight download. It just keeps on showing that music is way too far behind technology these days to catch up.
  • Chahrlie5, on 05/01/2008, -4/+9Translation: "We didn't make as much money as we wanted"
    • replikhant, on 05/01/2008, -2/+3If I was Radiohead I would do the same thing. The music I produce is product of my talent and dedication. There will come a point where it would be better to hang the gloves and become the owner of a restaurant than make music, since the music will not pay. Believe me, strings are being pulled everywhere to find a solution to the dilemma of paid music vs free music. It is not about greed, it is about rewarding a job well done.
  • kineticworm, on 05/01/2008, -2/+2that's so disappointing, "let down and hanging around"
  • raublekick, on 05/01/2008, -4/+6There are a lot of assumptions being made in these comments...
    Just sayin'
  • jmbrysk, on 05/01/2008, -2/+5There was an article I read a while ago talking about how much money In Rainbows made. While the amount wasn't huge, it was still a lot more than what the band would have made going through a record label. Anything they do to distribute their music now is going to be a step in the wrong direction, for both themselves and the music industry as a whole.
    • replikhant, on 05/01/2008, -0/+3I have been surfing the net for months to find some solid evidence to support that fact and have not found it. It would be beautiful if it did work out, but obviously it didn´t. If you could be as kind as to show us a link, then our perspective would change. If not it will remain just an illusion of what we wanted the result to be and not the actual result.
    • fatdog789, on 05/01/2008, -0/+2Your referenced article shows they actually lost money compared to their normal method. Yet, they made more in royalties, but they lost out on the advances. You can earn interest on your advances; while the money for the advance comes out of royalties, the deduction doesn't include interest. (IOW, you come out ahead by at least the amount of interest on the advance).
  • RicardoWilliams, on 05/01/2008, -2/+1Translation: "We love change..."
  • wafflesomd, on 05/01/2008, -13/+8That's ok. Radiohead is terrible.
    • krisscofield, on 05/01/2008, -6/+2How dare you introduce your relevant, personal opinion here on Digg!
  • radiopayola, on 05/01/2008, -8/+3Radiohead got burned on this deal because they burned their customers with a shoddy offering... I've always considered Radiohead offerings as worth-buying...not so much with In Rainbows...
    • getbusyliving, on 05/01/2008, -0/+1I personally thought In Rainbows was excellent... ?
      • radiopayola, on 05/05/2008, -0/+1I thought it was an excellent album, but the mp3 offering was a scam.
  • dafragsta, on 05/01/2008, -4/+22Radiohead is a band of amazing artists who are equally pretentious and self-involved. I've said it before and I'll say it again. While channeling John Lennon isn't a bad thing it also comes with a certain smug self satisfaction that is untouchable because of a rabid fanbase who'll chew your head off if you call them out on it.

    I like their music. I hate their self righteousness and smugness. The secret of their success is that they never acknowledge that they are ultimately masters of riding the buzz wave. Being a Radiohead fan is akin to being an Apple fan. It's an incestual circle jerk of admiring each other's quirkiness.
    • radiopayola, on 05/01/2008, -1/+4I think I agree for the most part. ...but don't you think it's possible to be a Radiohead fan while being aware of and not taking part in the 'incestual circle jerk of quirk-admiration"? Based on your 'band of amazing artists' assessment, it sounds to me like you may be just that kind of fan...

      The same could be said of a few other rabid fan-bases... Tool... NIN to a certain extent... I count myself as a fan of all these acts, but I can definitely see what you're talking about and don't appreciate having to be associated with it...as a "fan."
      • dafragsta, on 05/01/2008, -0/+1I totally agree. Tool and NIN are two of my favorite all time bands and they have a very similar fanbase to Radiohead. They just tend to have a little more pent-up energy.
    • Stephiems, on 05/02/2008, -2/+2I disagree, they aren't amazing artists, they are horrible musicians. They can't play their instruments, they have horrible sound, and they are horrible live. If you are horrible live, then you aren't a good band because it means you use studio tricks to make your music sound good. There are exceptions to this, but Radiohead aren't one of them. Why is it considered artistic and great today for you to have a whiny horrible sound and an inability to sing?

      What I do agree on is them being pretentious and self-involved, and their fans being rabid. Like Bono, oh man, won't he just go away. I just can't take his 'good will' seriously because he is so pretentious. There are plenty of artists and other famous people out there that help charities, etc, but they don't require the world to know. U2 isn't even that good. They have some good songs, but they are horrible musicians, it just seems to not affect the style of music they play too much. The Edge can't play a solo, Bono is not a great singer, he just fits what they are doing, and the drummer has even admitted he can't even play simple drum rudiments and that he doesn't care to ever be able to play them since he is already rich. There is nothing worse then an artist who doesn't want to keep improving and opening his/her options.
      • Witchdoktor, on 05/02/2008, -0/+1Art and Talent are NOT the same.
  • LogicBomB, on 05/01/2008, -3/+13I love all these comments "It was free so I paid but now that I have to pay I want it free, probably so I can pay again!"

    Just goes to show the internet is NEVER happy.
  • Stevo23, on 05/01/2008, -1/+12Well, we've successfully put pressure on our record company to give us a juicier contract next time. Mission accomplished. Thanks for the help, internet.
    • ElSnuggles, on 05/01/2008, -1/+3This is probably the most accurate translation on the page.
      • bilbohicks, on 05/01/2008, -0/+3Except it's not because they didn't have a label at the time.
        • Stevo23, on 05/01/2008, -0/+1That's because their old contract had just expired. Hence, "juicier contract ***next*** time".
  • cadmiumpaint, on 05/01/2008, -4/+2It was a fun experiment. Too bad it doesn't really work so well.
  • MoistVonLipwig, on 05/01/2008, -4/+7Don't worry, we'll get the next one for free anyway
  • joshmaker, on 05/01/2008, -9/+4To everyone who's complaining that Radiohead should give away free music: How many of you do your day job for free?

    To Radiohead: Maybe you would have made more money if your website was more user friendly. I'm pretty web savvy and I gave up in frustration before I could give you any money. I can only imagine how many others must have turned away.
    • cliffski, on 05/01/2008, -3/+3the average freetard digger has the mental age of 6. they cant understand what you are typing unfortunately
  • BradGroux, on 05/01/2008, -1/+9Trent is the man... check nin.com on May 5th!
  • ap0c, on 05/01/2008, -3/+3Hopefully they also won't repeat releasing trash like that ever again. Is it just me who thinks that album sucked?
    • replikhant, on 05/01/2008, -0/+2The Radiohead album is quite good to my liking.
      I like the new NIN song "Discipline" a lot, but fthe jury is still out for "Ghosts"
  • doomcomplex, on 05/01/2008, -3/+4Maybe if the album was any good, I would have paid for it...
  • theNazz, on 05/01/2008, -0/+3Radiohead can leave the industry pioneering to Trent Reznor and NIN. Trent is paving the way for the future of the music industry and gaining respect while doing so. I'd love to see more artists offer up multi-track versions of their songs for free with free hosting for the remixes. He even offers the tracks in multiple audio formats... what more could the guy do to keep his fan base happy?
    Trent Reznor IS the man if you like his music or not.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 67 of 67 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.