What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
$52 and Up—Airlines Slash Fares On Peak Holiday Flights. view!
travelzoo.com - This year, waiting until the last minute is NOT the best strategy. See why.
213 Comments
- 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. - bananaspiders, on 05/01/2008, -14/+110it makes me regret paying for it...
- 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".
- sgglynn, on 05/01/2008, -3/+71Basically they are admitting it was a publicity stunt, not an attempt to change the industry.
- theberlindoctor, on 05/01/2008, -6/+63 = we didnt get enough money.
- jmkiii, on 05/01/2008, -9/+59I paid, and I would again. That's too bad.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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. - Hamsterpotpies, on 05/01/2008, -10/+41That sucks. The free version was the only reason I went out and got it.
- 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.
- fandyboy, on 05/01/2008, -5/+28Obviously not.
- kds405, on 05/01/2008, -3/+26They are gonna change everything.....for a moment.
- 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?
- nicholasdog, on 05/01/2008, -6/+28because there are not enough other places to get free music on the Internet
- 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). - inactive, on 05/01/2008, -4/+24Yup, they didn't make enough money. So much for the OMG REVOLUTION!!!
- 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.
- 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 *****.
- kazzyD, on 05/01/2008, -3/+21Here's another take:
http://www.techconsumer.com/2008/04/30/radiohead-g ... - 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. - 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?
- andrew606, on 05/01/2008, -5/+19no, 9 tracks out of 36 is 1/4. which is what he gave away.
- 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.
- 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
- 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 :(
- 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. - treed, on 05/01/2008, -1/+12But the whole thing was CC-licensed.
- 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.
- thailand1972, on 05/01/2008, -1/+12Nope. If they did, they'd repeat it.
- gr3yn3t, on 05/01/2008, -2/+13Radiohead made more on "in Rainbows" then their last 4 albums combined.
- michaelGregoire, on 05/01/2008, -0/+11It didn't work for THEM. Primarily because of the crappy 128kbs mp3 format.
- 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. - 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.
- fandyboy, on 05/01/2008, -10/+20d
i
c
k - loquedesea, on 05/01/2008, -8/+17get over yourself...
- 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 - RadiatedAnt, on 05/01/2008, -1/+10Even though they gave it away for free, statistics still showed it was ferverishly pirated on torrents.
- Nero9171, on 05/01/2008, -11/+20Trent Reznor wouldn't do that...
- 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.
- BradGroux, on 05/01/2008, -1/+9Trent is the man... check nin.com on May 5th!
- 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.
- 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.
- sarchosis, on 05/01/2008, -3/+10Because we need the artists to offer it for free to get it for free
- 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. - bdbr, on 05/01/2008, -0/+6So are people going to stop claiming that the "In Rainbows" model is the way of the future? That model only worked for a band that already became popular through the old business model, and apparently didn't even work very well there.
There are a lot of people who love music and are willing to pay to ensure that good bands keep making good music. The trick is coming up with a model that is fair and works for just about any band. - 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 216 discussions
Catch all of your favorite Digg shows in one place, including Digg Dialoggs, Diggnation, The Digg Reel and More!
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is