Radiohead - laughing all the way to the bank

Long Johns

My apologies if there’s a thread about this elsewhere but there doesn’t seem to be – there’s a big one about the musical merits of In Rainbows specifically but none about the about specific way that Radiohead went about this whole thing.

Am I the only one getting increasingly p*ssed off at the gushing that has been going on about Radiohead and their supposed ‘two-fingered salute’ to the recording industry by releasing In Rainbows the way they did? I’m gonna get sick if I hear another person go on about how this is ‘musical revolution’ and an act of bravery and kindness and so on and so on. Absolute tripe.

To minimise my getting completely savaged I must say firstly that I am a Radiohead fan and they are a marvellous band for the past 10 years and more. I’ve seen them live and they’re brilliant live too. As a musician they have been an inspiration. Say no more about that.

First of all Radiohead are one of very few bands in the privileged position to do this. They are rolling in dosh and the reason for this is they have benefited from the promotion, marketing, cd pressing, distribution, tour planning, art-direction, light-shows, transport, fruit platters (you could go on) that being involved with ‘evil’ major record labels has bestowed upon them. I find their moaning about the industry and the way it works insufferable and hypocritical. They would be NOWHERE without it. Just because people make good music does not mean they know how to make a business out of it and my guess is they would have been as clueless as most bands starting out. If anything the success of In Rainbows is complimentary to the merits of being involved with a big label and surviving and being good enough to come out of a contract with the profile Radiohead do.

Their method of release, their profile and the mystery they engineered surrounding it meant it promoted itself and they didnt need to spend millions in promotion (ching ching).

Its well known that bands make feck all from album sales so its not like they actually ‘lost’ huge money even if every person paid a big fat zero for the album – in fact the truth is thanks to the amount of people who for some reason felt obliged to pay a reasonable amount for what you could have got for free (I ask you!) ensures that, when averaged out, they have reportedly made considerably more money per unit than if affiliated to a record company. Fair play to them, I don’t have a problem with it but a lot of people are being taken for a wee ride here. (ching ching)

The fact that while people were paying reasonable amounts of money for something that was free (well free for download up until lately when it was taken down I think? I may be wrong) with full knowledge that Radiohead were releasing a not-inexpensive boxset which Radiohead well knew dedicated fans would buy in droves is beyond me. (ching ching) That tied to the fact that ticket prices for their shows (guaranteed to sell out) are up and merchandise sells in massive quantities etc, I mean they are quite literally laughing all the way the bank thanks to all our help and because many happily ‘donated’ money for In Rainbows. They’re probably at the stage where they’re saying “Well I’m set for life…but what about my kids…and Christ…what about their kids!!” I haven’t bought it myself but must check it out – I heard a track on the radio and didn’t know it was them until I recognised Thom and it was incredibly disappointing. But I’ve no doubt it’ll be good.

I hope you realise I’ve nothing against anyone making money as long as their morals are in the right place but its important to call a spade a spade and I’m surprised they’re hasn’t been more discussion on this. Now if they told me tomorrow they were donating 20% to charity or something then I’d be very impressed, otherwise they’re no better than Allied Irish Bank. Although AIB’s last album wasn’t great to be honest.

Personally I think Radiohead should now set up an online facility where the biggest fans can log on and reclaim amounts from the Radiohead bank account of up to €10 depending on their financial situation and their dedication rating which can be achieved by ticking boxes with amounts relating to:

Albums owned
Concerts attended
DVDs owned
Vinyls owned
Posters owned
Tonnes of household waste recycled in 2007
Overseas holidays sacrificed in favour of camping in the West in 2007
Public transport stubs colleced

And so on…expecting lively response…

Closing Doors

Long Johns wrote: »

a lot of people are being taken for a wee ride here. (ching ching)

No they're not. Fair play to the band.

And as far as I know ticket prices are higher due to the manner in which they're going to tour (http://radiohead.com/deadairspace/).

Dennis the Stone

Long Johns wrote: »

Am I the only one getting increasingly p*ssed off at the gushing that has been going on about Radiohead and their supposed ‘two-fingered salute’ to the recording industry by releasing In Rainbows the way they did? I’m gonna get sick if I hear another person go on about how this is ‘musical revolution’ and an act of bravery and kindness and so on and so on. Absolute tripe.


I don’t have a problem with it but a lot of people are being taken for a wee ride here. (ching ching)

First of all, this "Musical Revolution" nonsense is the spin the media have put on it. Nothing to do with them.

Secondly, I don't understand how anyone is being taken for a ride. I mean, a lot of people saved money. The people who forked out for the cd boxset were happy to do so and in my opinion received a great package.

Ruskie4Rent

Long Johns wrote: »

Am I the only one getting increasingly p*ssed off at the gushing that has been going on about Radiohead and their supposed ‘two-fingered salute’ to the recording industry by releasing In Rainbows the way they did? I’m gonna get sick if I hear another person go on about how this is ‘musical revolution’ and an act of bravery and kindness and so on and so on. Absolute tripe.

Well I'm not sure if it was meant to perceived 'two fingered salute' to the recording industry.
Correct me if i'm wrong(I might be), i thought they broke with EMI, because it was badly run, and that they just got fed up with sitting on the album so they released it as soon as they could....hence releasing it online without a record company.

Bren_M.Records

Kemos wrote: »

First of all, this "Musical Revolution" nonsense is the spin the media have put on it. Nothing to do with them.

Dont mean to sound like a smart arse here but are you serious?
Have you any idea how much "media spin" on that scale costs, me neither as my tiny little brain couldnt even come to terms with the type of figures bands like Radiohead spend on PR.

Bren_M.Records

Ruskie4Rent wrote: »

Well I'm not sure if it was meant to perceived 'two fingered salute' to the recording industry.
Correct me if i'm wrong(I might be), i thought they broke with EMI, because it was badly run, and that they just got fed up with sitting on the album so they released it as soon as they could....hence releasing it online without a record company.

From what Iv read the bigger bands often take eternities to write and record albums then when they do finally arrive in the office with the master they expect it to be sitting on the shelves two weeks later.
Dont get me wrong, I know someone on a "major" and from what Iv been told by this person they can be hell to deal with.
Im just saying situations like this are never black and white.
I mean cmon, do you honestly think Radiohead and the people surrounding them would be a walk in the park to deal with?

aidan24326

Long Johns wrote: »

My apologies if there’s a thread about this elsewhere but there doesn’t seem to be – there’s a big one about the musical merits of In Rainbows specifically but none about the about specific way that Radiohead went about this whole thing.

Am I the only one getting increasingly p*ssed off at the gushing that has been going on about Radiohead and their supposed ‘two-fingered salute’ to the recording industry by releasing In Rainbows the way they did? I’m gonna get sick if I hear another person go on about how this is ‘musical revolution’ and an act of bravery and kindness and so on and so on. Absolute tripe.

To minimise my getting completely savaged I must say firstly that I am a Radiohead fan and they are a marvellous band for the past 10 years and more. I’ve seen them live and they’re brilliant live too. As a musician they have been an inspiration. Say no more about that.

First of all Radiohead are one of very few bands in the privileged position to do this. They are rolling in dosh and the reason for this is they have benefited from the promotion, marketing, cd pressing, distribution, tour planning, art-direction, light-shows, transport, fruit platters (you could go on) that being involved with ‘evil’ major record labels has bestowed upon them. I find their moaning about the industry and the way it works insufferable and hypocritical. They would be NOWHERE without it. Just because people make good music does not mean they know how to make a business out of it and my guess is they would have been as clueless as most bands starting out. If anything the success of In Rainbows is complimentary to the merits of being involved with a big label and surviving and being good enough to come out of a contract with the profile Radiohead do.

Their method of release, their profile and the mystery they engineered surrounding it meant it promoted itself and they didnt need to spend millions in promotion (ching ching).

Its well known that bands make feck all from album sales so its not like they actually ‘lost’ huge money even if every person paid a big fat zero for the album – in fact the truth is thanks to the amount of people who for some reason felt obliged to pay a reasonable amount for what you could have got for free (I ask you!) ensures that, when averaged out, they have reportedly made considerably more money per unit than if affiliated to a record company. Fair play to them, I don’t have a problem with it but a lot of people are being taken for a wee ride here. (ching ching)

The fact that while people were paying reasonable amounts of money for something that was free (well free for download up until lately when it was taken down I think? I may be wrong) with full knowledge that Radiohead were releasing a not-inexpensive boxset which Radiohead well knew dedicated fans would buy in droves is beyond me. (ching ching) That tied to the fact that ticket prices for their shows (guaranteed to sell out) are up and merchandise sells in massive quantities etc, I mean they are quite literally laughing all the way the bank thanks to all our help and because many happily ‘donated’ money for In Rainbows. They’re probably at the stage where they’re saying “Well I’m set for life…but what about my kids…and Christ…what about their kids!!” I haven’t bought it myself but must check it out – I heard a track on the radio and didn’t know it was them until I recognised Thom and it was incredibly disappointing. But I’ve no doubt it’ll be good.

I hope you realise I’ve nothing against anyone making money as long as their morals are in the right place but its important to call a spade a spade and I’m surprised they’re hasn’t been more discussion on this. Now if they told me tomorrow they were donating 20% to charity or something then I’d be very impressed, otherwise they’re no better than Allied Irish Bank. Although AIB’s last album wasn’t great to be honest.

Personally I think Radiohead should now set up an online facility where the biggest fans can log on and reclaim amounts from the Radiohead bank account of up to €10 depending on their financial situation and their dedication rating which can be achieved by ticking boxes with amounts relating to:

Albums owned
Concerts attended
DVDs owned
Vinyls owned
Posters owned
Tonnes of household waste recycled in 2007
Overseas holidays sacrificed in favour of camping in the West in 2007
Public transport stubs colleced

And so on…expecting lively response…

So if the bands don't make much money off album sales how exactly do they make it?

They don't always make alot of money from touring either, due to the high costs involved and the fact that venues and promoters are taking a nice cut. (U2 reckoned a couple of their big-production tours in the 90's made them very little money due to the massive costs of keeping a show like that on the road, admittedly not all bands would have such an elaborate setup)

If we're to assume that Radiohead aren't short of a few bob, what is their main source of earnings? (or indeed for any major band we'd assume to be rolling in cash, REM, Coldplay etc.)

nlgbbbblth

Kemos wrote: »

The people who forked out for the cd boxset were happy to do so and in my opinion received a great package.

...except that it hasn't arrived yet.

See other thread.

Hypnotoad

Radiohead have said themselves that they would be no where without the help of their label.

Neo#

I dont think Radiohead released this album with only financial reasons in mind. They arent trying to create a musical revolution. They are just doing what makes sense for them. They were sick of the hassle of working with a major label and wanted things kept simple. They were free after the last contract to do what they wanted. Put it this way, how much money would they have made if they put a fixed price on the download?, say 10 euros? A lot more. I know I would have paid it.

lordgoat

I hope they make loads of money from it. I have no problem with that whatsoever. At the end of the day it's their job. I have no problem with their ticket price either as the link above is supporting something they (and in this case i believe in).

Yes they are in a position to do this, so are many other artists and bands and they don't.

Viva le musical revolution! (irony at work)

Zapp Brannigan

Careful now. The Radiohead gig in Ireland is an unmentionable one. Anybody references it and this thread is going bye-bye.

Denalihighway

yeah i pretty much agree with the OP. there doesnt seem to be many people disagreeing with the general ethos so far.

i think in fairness Long Johns didnt try to make the point that Radiohead themselves were creating this pro-artist /anti-label view - as Kemos said its the media that have created it and fooled a lot of fans along the way when in reality its just commerce at work.

i dont know what 'media spin' costs meself but in this case word of mouth and the internet costed a helluva lot less than posters and radio ads of which there were NONE. So PR costs are minimal

also I think Radiohead have been non too complimentary about the major-label experience which does give merit to the hypocrisy issue.

and finally - good see a inflammatory post go up - the forum has been a bit dead last couple o days!

Dennis the Stone

Bren_M.Records wrote: »

Dont mean to sound like a smart arse here but are you serious?
Have you any idea how much "media spin" on that scale costs, me neither as my tiny little brain couldnt even come to terms with the type of figures bands like Radiohead spend on PR.

Well sir, to be quite honest, I don't have a clue about the nitty gritty of PR and spin machines, but from my assessment of Radiohead, I doubt that they instigated the whole "musical revolution" guff, I thought they were totally against that kind of stuff...

I see many people have not received their boxsets... I hope they arrive before Christmas but I wonder if An Post are any way responsible I bet that once you get them you'll be pleased.. it sounds great

Denalihighway

Bren_M.Records wrote: »

From what Iv read the bigger bands often take eternities to write and record albums then when they do finally arrive in the office with the master they expect it to be sitting on the shelves two weeks later.
Dont get me wrong, I know someone on a "major" and from what Iv been told by this person they can be hell to deal with.
Im just saying situations like this are never black and white.
I mean cmon, do you honestly think Radiohead and the people surrounding them would be a walk in the park to deal with?

i doubt they're easy to deal with but once you've released a couple of LPs off the same dudes its likely to be more straightforward. And if you don't make an effort to know the procedures and red-tape involved after 5 or 6 or 10 years so you can build a picture about how to do it yourself as good, or better, then forget about it...Radiohead are clever guys they know exactly whats goin on

Helix

i paid for it because i think its a great idea to see the artists getting all the profit of sales

same reason i paid for saul williams new album, which i listened to once and deleted

fair play to radiohead, theyve seen they dont need a label to f*ck them round any more and theyve done something about it

Kold

Am I the only one getting increasingly p*ssed off at the amount of people desperate to knock Radiohead down a peg?

The record industry is a corrupt money making machine that ruins music for all. This was true before Radiohead were ever formed. Radiohead have taken a positive stance against it. They're not doing it to be praised. They should be praised for it.

I paid nothing for the download, I paid for the discbox. I did it because 1. I'm a huge fan of Radiohead's music 2. I'm a huge fan of Stanley Donwood's art.

Seriously. I can't understand your gripe.

Denalihighway

Helix wrote: »

i paid for it because i think its a great idea to see the artists getting all the profit of sales

same reason i paid for saul williams new album, which i listened to once and deleted

fair play to radiohead, theyve seen they dont need a label to f*ck them round any more and theyve done something about it

they would have very little profit of anything were it not for having the backing of a record label for last 10 years, i think that;s the point here

Denalihighway

Kold wrote: »

Am I the only one getting increasingly p*ssed off at the amount of people desperate to knock Radiohead down a peg?

The record industry is a corrupt money making machine that ruins music for all. This was true before Radiohead were ever formed. Radiohead have taken a positive stance against it. They're not doing it to be praised. They should be praised for it.

I paid nothing for the download, I paid for the discbox. I did it because 1. I'm a huge fan of Radiohead's music 2. I'm a huge fan of Stanley Donwood's art.

Seriously. I can't understand your gripe.

i look at the record industry like a woman - get in bed and marry the wrong one and you get f*cked - you find out she's a idiot and only wanted you for your money - more fool you for not seeing it.

same thing with labels - band's responsibility to get good advice and a good deal and look after their affairs so they don't have to moan about everything. C'est la vie...

i actually sound like i'm defending labels here...not really...i've no allegiances either way really...just enjoying the debate

aurel

Stop saying feckin' "ching ching" *shudder*

It's quite simple. Radiohead offered their product for sale with a new business model. Choice is not the end of the world. You seem very concerned with the bands motives which I believe none of can speak to conclusively. If pushed I'd say it's a bit of both(financial and artistic) considerations that shaped the decision and I have absolutely no problem with it. In fact I applaud it.

Long Johns

You may have misunderstood me, or maybe I wasnt clear but I'm not actually concerned with their motives - I say fair play to them. I'm just sick of people forgetting the crux of the issue which is that without their 'evil' record company they never would have had a chance to do it, thats all. So you can call it a 'business model' but in reality its not a model unless you're in Radiohead's position - I mean a new band with great music but no fanbase or profile can hardly use this model? Some aspects of the business have changed immeasurably but some haven't.

Ruskie4Rent

Long Johns wrote: »

You may have misunderstood me, or maybe I wasnt clear but I'm not actually concerned with their motives - I say fair play to them. I'm just sick of people forgetting the crux of the issue which is that without their 'evil' record company they never would have had a chance to do it, thats all. So you can call it a 'business model' but in reality its not a model unless you're in Radiohead's position - I mean a new band with great music but no fanbase or profile can hardly use this model? Some aspects of the business have changed immeasurably but some haven't.

Yes but in Radiohead's case, they were just fed up with thir particular company's bad management(think its EMI), and have said themselves that they wouldn't have got to where they are now without it, but had to leave. They then got to a point where they had an album but no record deal.

Denalihighway

Ruskie4Rent wrote: »

Yes but in Radiohead's case, they were just fed up with thir particular company's bad management(think its EMI), and have said themselves that they wouldn't have got to where they are now without it, but had to leave. They then got to a point where they had an album but no record deal.

yeah I agree with that, but still, whether the band spun it or not, the media coverage has been mainly anti-label cr*p surrounding the release from what I've seen and cuz of this a lot of readers / fans are ignoring or ignorant of the fact that the band do admit the benefits etc...I think anyway. What a position to be in though..christ they deserve it anyways

Closing Doors

Long Johns wrote: »

I mean a new band with great music but no fanbase or profile can hardly use this model?

And...? So what if it doesn't work for other bands?

iFight

Closing Doors wrote: »

And...? So what if it doesn't work for other bands?

I think he means that because this route can not be followed by new bands with no fanbase and that means that it cannot be a start of a 'musical revolution' (as it has been deemed by the media) and is being totally over done in the media. Most bands aren't in the position to neglect their record label and Radiohead only can because of their huge fortune, so it shouldn't be publicized in a way that promotes this 'ditch your label' revolution, not everyone is in the same situation as Radiohead.

It merely how the band chose to release their album, I don't think we should really be listening to what the media have to say about. They can be known to over-hype occasionally?

Great album by the way, still haven't heard that second disk

Bubs101

For me, any effect of them doing the free album thing has been demolished by their ticket prices

iFight

Bubs101 wrote: »

For me, any effect of them doing the free album thing has been demolished by their ticket prices

Aren't ticket prices controlled by the promoter though?

Kold

iFight wrote: »

Aren't ticket prices controlled by the promoter though?

Yup.

Bubs101

I'm sure Radiohead have no idea how much they are. After all, it's not as if the gigs are advertised on their website and if they could take on record companies they could easily take on a promoter

Kold

You think they research every gig promoter in every country to find out if they're a pack of exploitative c*nts?

Bubs101

I think it's an amazing assumption to think that bands don't know how much their concert costs

Attractive Nun

Who said they didn't know how much they were? I'm sure they probably do. Whether they can do anything to control the prices is another question. I'd imagine it would be very difficult.

Bubs101

Plenty of bands have tried to control prices. Sending out and pricing CD's is n o different to sending out tickets. Obviously the donation system would be impossible but they could charge what they felt necessary

Denalihighway

As above in a couple of posts, I would be amazed if a band like Radiohead didn't have an element of control in their ticket prices. But aren't they justifying it because of their uncoventional touring method to reduce carbon footprint etc...christ we could set up a thread on that crap alone but best not to get off the point...its admirable and all that but personally I'd rather pay less than 75 squids to go

Zapp Brannigan

Right someone mentioned the unmentionable.

thread closed.