Newsweek Article: The Value of Music

[dpasdernick]

Sat at the dentist yesterday reading an article in Newsweek on the vaule of music. Apparently the band Radiohead put their latest album out on their website with the caveat of "pay us if you want to". Apparently, quite a few people paid. THe average was around 5 bucks if I remember correctly. Still quite a few took it for free.

The article went on to say that a lot of people do not feel they should pay for music and that, as we have experienced, the record industry is not the same as it once was. When Itunes started, Jobs insisted that songs be sold for under 1 dollar. One of the competitors, (Rhapsody I think), who also sold songs for a buck, had a 50% sale one month and their volume increased 6 fold. The writer of the article said that this proved that 1 dollar a song is still perceived as too high for the majority if people. Especially if you can find it for free two mouse clicks away.

Kid Rock was having issues with the recording industry at one time and threatened to give away his album for free on the internet. This is an easy threat from a rich man who has "made it". I wonder if he'd be so quick to give his stuff away if he was a poor struggling musican trying to get a break.

Years ago bands like Led Zepplin lost money touring but made up for it on record sales. This seems to be reversing now and I wonder if the days of royalties are slowly coming to an end? If people don't want to pay for music then is it valued as worthless?

Any thoughts?

Darren

[spectrum]

Music is only truly valueable when it is a ringtone.

And that is the state we are in today. ;-)

[Serge]

Net providers, iPod and others hardware business people make a ton of money on the back of the creators. And still, stupid musicians and software makers should carry on their shoulders that huge economic activity without any protection.

Who need 5 disk drives, ADSL connection, a 80 Gigs iPod, a Quad Core computer if not to play with the latest software game or stack thousands of songs ?

People think music must be free because they already paid a lot for devices and services. On the other side the dealers are not responsible for the use of their devices.

and the hack is right there. On both sides they can enjoy for free the sweatshop goodies.

SergeD

[JT3_Jon]

IMO it simply comes down to understanding. Kids today (which is the entertainment industries primary market) do not understand the value of intellectual property, as they have grown up getting it for free; radio, TV, internet, etc. We need to educate them about the process of creating intellectual property, the costs involved, and the simple fact that without getting paid for their creations, people are not be able to create professionally.

[Jaibulu]

Music has very little value today because there is too much access to supply and very little demand to pay. With one click, people can download thousands of songs. They are overdosed with music.

The kids do not have to understand the value of intellectual property. People of all ages are downloading illegally. It is in our nature to take what we can. Only with strict laws (to create fear) and new technologies can we lower the illegal supply to increase the value. Trying to convince people that it is wrong to download music is a waste of time.

[composernyc]

Net providers, iPod and others hardware business people make a ton of money on the back of the creators. And still, stupid musicians and software makers should carry on their shoulders that huge economic activity without any protection.


I'm going to disagree with you on part of that. One of the other trends that's happened in the music industry is that outlets like iTunes have allowed independent artists to flourish and actually make a living by selling music downloads. So, rather than get the $.09 per download (mechanical to be divvied up among all writers on a single song) that their label would hand out to them, if they own the rights to their music, they can walk away with as much as $.70 per .99 download, or $7.70 per 9.99 album download. I think that's pretty amazing! And the independent artist trend has also bled over into television and movies: because publishers and labels have charged near-extortion-like master and sync fees for so long, broadcasters aren't going to the heavy-hitters as often as they used to. Instead, they're turning to independent artists -- composers, songwriters, bands -- who can turn around a quick "yes" and who will charge a reasonable fee. Places like iTunes allow the discovery of those independents by music supervisors, directors and producers, and that starts a whole chain reaction of licensing opportunities. Careers can be built on that.

So before you start to feel reaaaally bad for the record industry, ask yourself this question: how many times have you ever heard a major artist say, "I love my label. They do so much for me."

Thanks for introducing such a great topic -- I'm going to look for that Newsweek article!

Kerry

[Gesticulator01]

If people don't want to pay for music then is it valued as worthless?

Any thoughts?

Darren
If music is valued as worthless - then people dont want to pay for it.

The market speaketh.

To put it another way - there is a truth reflected in aggregate thought that you wont often discern in individual thought. A new generation of individuals may think that ringtone downloads are 'where its at' - but they're not passionate about it enough, at the market level, to bother handing over much cash for it.

[Schmandie]

As I am in the preparation phase of launching a website where I want to sell some (project-specific) songs as downloads - this discussion is highly interesting for me. Actually I have not found the ideal solution of marketing my music online yet. But I believe that the CD is about to die and and I also believe that you do not need a publisher and a record label to sell a lot of downloads... As it was said before - the margins are much higher if you sell downloads and care for everything by yourself.

I did not think about itunes as a channel to the customer before as I did not assume that they would list small independent acts (as I would call myself right now) but this is something I will consider now! - Does someone know what the prerequisites and important conditions are to get listed there?

And on top - Do you have some good information at hand that could help me prevent falling onto my nose?

[belbin]

Music is undervalued because it is immaterial now. When it could be attached to a tape, record, or CD, and before the days when consumers had access to devices that can easily copy these forms of media, the materialism of the masses is what sold the physical media, so the artists could thrive.

Now that the physical media is the chain of song->recording->digital data->web->computer->iPod->etc, the product itself is no longer considered a valuable commodity. The money is made on the media, and everyone thinks because the song is floating around the internet that they have the right to take it.

On a related note, this is true of live performace as well. Any gigging musician know that in most cases, they are expected to damn near give it away. Often refusal will prompt the hiring of another act that will become party to the perpetuation of this horrid condition. Worse still, the venue, client etc, simply decides on a pirated mp3 playlist in lieu of live entertainment.

What needs to happen is for music to completely disappear from the planet for just one day. If that could happen, people would learn it's value in just those 24 hours, I'm sure of it.

As for a realistic solution, I'm kinda stuck. At least for one that has any air of positivity...

Belbin

[Serge]

What needs to happen is for music to completely disappear from the planet for just one day. If that could happen, people would learn it's value in just those 24 hours, I'm sure of it.

Belbin

Stop music for one year and the social life will collapse.

Kerry,

I don't point out specifically iTunes. My next Cd and Mp3 music will be offered on CdBaby site and it's a wonderful aspect of technology for music makers like us.

And there is a part of solution somewhere. Mail has filters against spams. So why net providers could not have filters against warez sites activities?

SergeD

[dpasdernick]

And on top - Do you have some good information at hand that could help me prevent falling onto my nose?


Become a lawyer... ;)

[Yves]

Funny how things are changing..

water used to be free ..now we could pay up to $2 for a bootle..!

I think that payable downloads seems to work though..I think iTunes sold a lot of downloads .
I also think that the price should remain under the $1 mark..I would say it has to do with the "psychological barrier" of selling something that is in cents instead of dollars.

my 2 cents..! : )

Yves

[noldar12]

The following is intended to be tongue-in-cheek:

Which came first - the chicken or the egg?
Which came first - no one wanting to pay for most of what is being produced today or that perhaps much of what is being produced today might not be worth anything?

Jim

[Jaspo]

I am very reluctant to purchase any music that I have not heard in its entirety.

Before the 30 second fair use, record company ripped consumers off ... again and again and again. Personaly, I feel they have taken thousands of my dollars, while not providing me with a quality product. Displaying the "sure hits" and not giving the consumers an opportunity to hear more. Even with the 30 second snippet, its difficult to tell if I will enjoy it.

I purchased Radiohead - In Rainbows for $12 USD. They deserved it for the years of great music they provided me. I was happy to give them the money. On the other hand I feel completely let down by Matthew Good's - Hospital Music. Had I known how bad it is, I would never have imported it from Canada. I don't mind, when its my choice,like Hospital Music, but the current publishing business model preys on consumers.

This shouldn't be a game of roulette with the consumers money. It should be a gamble on the part of the publisher, who should be doing everything in their power to make sure the consumer has enough information to make the decision. Until that happens, I am on a self-imposed try-before-you-buy and I don't feel guilty in the least. Especially considering how much I spend on music a year. Don't even get me started on the Sony rootkit fiasco. Companies do business like that because they are allowed to in the name of free trade. When faced with piracy a company will do what they all do. In their infinite idiocy they penalize the people who buy. Something as silly as the pesky plastic tape on CD cases, to rootkits, Macrovision to dongles.

Of course its just me and there are a thousand scavengers for every person like me. Some might say I am justifying stealing, but they would be wrong. I am great consumer of all intellectual property DVD, CD, Books and software and purchase are well over a grand a year. I enjoy being legal, but I refuse to be taken advantage of. Those who have money will buy, why? because time is money and illegal downloading is an inconvenience. Itunes is quick easy and painless. That is why it is successful .... in spite of piracy.

Look at what myspace has done. Artists are putting up their complete albums for preview. People can't download it, but they can preview it in its entirety. I got The Shins - Wincing the Night Away, which I might add is a damn fine album.

The industry needs to change ... not the consumer. Invite us to purchase your products. The internet is the new public library. Better get used to it, because it isn't going to change anytime soon.

[Von Richter]

Meh, you won't find any good "pop" music from the mega corporations nowadays anyway. No point in paying for it, or listening to it.

The real songwriters are down in the gutter, 100% independent now. If you want pop music with actual melodies and so on, and actual singing rather than auto-tuned robot voices, that's the only place you're going to find it.

No use beating a dead horse. Music made by lawyers, robots and accountants doesn't deserve to make a profit.

[Steve_Karl]

Music is only truly valueable when it is a ringtone.

And that is the state we are in today. ;-)
LOL ....

Maybe I shouldn't have passed up that oppertunity to do ring tones from
recordings a friend made of ...... errr .... ehhh ... "human sounds." :wow:

On a more uplifting note .... ( and I've been "smelling" this coming for 10 yrs. ) we ~may~ be sitting on the edge of a new Renaissance.

Check out the reviews at the bottom of this book page at Amazon for a general idea:

http://www.amazon.com/Rengen-Cultural-Consumer-Means-Business/dp/1598691341/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/103-5227471-3307830?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193549413&sr=8-1

[Crystal]

Apparently the band Radiohead put their latest album out on their website with the caveat of "pay us if you want to". Apparently, quite a few people paid. THe average was around 5 bucks if I remember correctly. Still quite a few took it for free.

The Radiohead experience is just the biggest regression we can imagine in the art history : the charity model.

We go several centuries back...



I am very reluctant to purchase any music that I have not heard in its entirety.

It’s too easy...


Do you plane to do this at restaurants ?


As far as I know, there is no example in history of a business model that permits to get the entire product or service before paying it.

When you ask to hear every thing before buying it, you don’t ‘test’ it, you just enjoy it for free.


That’s what I call a charity business.



No one can accept that.

[mathis]

No one can accept that.

I agree...

[Steve_Karl]

Radiohead : It's not charity it's just smart marketing.
"Pay whatever you want or not ... your choice" was generally what they said.

Trusting their fans to support their work they still made a ton of money, much more money from this internet release than they ever could have imagind making if it was controlled by a major record company.

It's a land mark in the history of the industry and since they own the product, they can obviously give it away if they want.
I can't imagin why that would bother anyone. I think it's very refreshing to see a succesful band, totally thumb their noses at the established system and still come out way ahead of the game.

[Andrew Aversa]

Steve, there is one important thing to remember about Radiohead. It is ONLY thanks to major labels that they have an established fanbase to begin with. They can trumpet all they want how this is an independent release, but do you really think they would have even gotten a minor fraction of those sales if they hadn't previously been the recipients of millions of dollars in marketing, radio promotion, tour support, etc?

[Steve_Karl]

Steve, there is one important thing to remember about Radiohead. It is ONLY thanks to major labels that they have an established fanbase to begin with. They can trumpet all they want how this is an independent release, but do you really think they would have even gotten a minor fraction of those sales if they hadn't previously been the recipients of millions of dollars in marketing, radio promotion, tour support, etc?

Yes. That's understood and obvious.

[Crystal]

Radiohead : It's not charity it's just smart marketing.
"Pay whatever you want or not ... your choice" was generally what they said.

Trusting their fans to support their work they still made a ton of money, much more money from this internet release than they ever could have imagind making if it was controlled by a major record company.

It's a land mark in the history of the industry and since they own the product, they can obviously give it away if they want.
I can't imagin why that would bother anyone. I think it's very refreshing to see a succesful band, totally thumb their noses at the established system and still come out way ahead of the game.


I understand what you are saying but I have to clarify my concern :

I don’t really care about what Radiohead do. They can even do it totally for free, if they want...

The point is : about the ‘your choice’ model (if you don’t want to call it ‘charity’... which is a semantic nuance that doesn’t really convince me, to be honest...), a lot of people want now that model not to be a right, but to be a rule.

That is a problem.


Cause even if a beginner could use that model and make a good living with it, to force everyone to do the same is unacceptable.

[Steve_Karl]

a lot of people want now that model not to be a right, but to be a rule.

That is a problem.

Cause even if a beginner could use that model and make a good living with it, to force everyone to do the same is unacceptable.

If they want that then it's their "delusional" problem. It's obviously not going to happen.
No one forces anyone to do anything.

[PaulR]

When you ask to hear every thing before buying it, you don’t ‘test’ it, you just enjoy it for free.

When I was young we used to go to the record shop and stand in listening booths before we bought anything.

They sold a lot more records in those days than they do now. But that's because the popular music was 50 times better then it ever will be today and because music is very much part of it's own time and place. No one in those days gave a s h i t e about how a thing was recorded or even the sound quality of the record that much - just - is it any good?

You are dealing with people today that walk round with ~~~~ing mobile phones clamped to their heads - WTF do any of them understand about art or music? Technology has completely buggered the lot of them. They've got no chance.

[dpasdernick]

Steve, there is one important thing to remember about Radiohead. It is ONLY thanks to major labels that they have an established fanbase to begin with. They can trumpet all they want how this is an independent release, but do you really think they would have even gotten a minor fraction of those sales if they hadn't previously been the recipients of millions of dollars in marketing, radio promotion, tour support, etc?

This to me the an incredibly valid point. Any one of us could put out an albums worth of material on the internet and say "pay what you will" Most likely we'd starve to death. Without decent marketing and tour support you are just another "dude with a DAW". I don't think that bands like Radiohead would be putting their music out for "potentially" free if they weren't sitting pretty already. And I don't find any honor in this "charity" Giving away the farm when you own 6 or 7 is not a big deal. It certainly seems to devalue music and makes it harder for any of us to get paid for our music. If all songwriters and groups used this model writing music would eventually never pay. A generation of "hey man! it's free on the internet" would be born and you would never see a dime for your time, gear, or skills. In fact chances are you would only write music in your spare time because you need to work at Home Depot to pay the bills.

While I do agree the previous record company business model was flawed in many ways, I don't think giving away music for "free" is any better. In fact I think it is much worse.

2 cents,

Darren

[dpasdernick]

When I was young we used to go to the record shop and stand in listening booths before we bought anything.

They sold a lot more records in those days than they do now. But that's because the popular music was 50 times better then it ever will be today and because music is very much part of it's own time and place. No one in those days gave a s h i t e about how a thing was recorded or even the sound quality of the record that much - just - is it any good?

You are dealing with people today that walk round with ~~~~ing mobile phones clamped to their heads - WTF do any of them understand about art or music? Technology has completely buggered the lot of them. They've got no chance.


Paul,

With all due respect they sold more records back then because there was no internet to steal them from... It's like the porn industry... when you had to go in to a seedy hole in the wall to buy a mag it was taboo ( or so I am told ;)) Nowadays everyone is checking it out 'cause it's 1 click a way.

The internet has really changed the world, in good ways and in bad. It has made a lot of honest people theives because illegally downloading a song on the internet is a lot easier, both physically and pyschologically, than stealing a CD at Best Buy. I wonder where all of this will lead?

Darren

[dewdman42]

What Radiohead did was incredibly self-gratuitous and irresponsible. They have made their millions and can now do whatever they want without considering the consequences. Did they consider that their actions will negatively effect millions of musicans everywhere? No. They were trying to make a point and did not carefully consider the consequences. Most likely they are making a point against record companies, and I can understand that point. However, there are many negative consequences to giving music the value of water.

What has happened in the music industry does indeed suck in many ways, but consider there is a lot more to it than just Radiohead, who bless their hearts, probably think they are helping.

Record companies have been stealing most of the money made in that industry for decades, ripping off artists and fans both at the same time. The MP3 revolution was a bit of a revolt against that, both by fans tired of spending $15 for an album and by artists tired of receiving <$1 for that album, if they even got anything at all after paying off the record contract overhead(which usually takes a million sales to get to that point). Where did the other $14 go? To distributors, record stores, advertisers, record companies. A lot of people had their hands in the pocket.

One thing that is incredibly sad to me is that when Itunes came along and removed many of those middle men from the equation, they are still charging about the same when you add up 15 songs to make an album, but who is getting the money? The artist? No. IMHO, Fans and artists are even MORE ripped off now than ever! Yea $1 per song is too much and the artist should get more of it! There is no useful purpose for record companies anymore.

A couple things have happened in the past 10-12 years or so. For one thing, it became easy as pie to produce radio caliber music in your bedroom on inexpensive equipment, and now you can even do it for free if you aren't ashamed to use pirated software. This has led to a massive proliferation of produced music, I argue the vast majority of it mediocre at best. The other unfortunate thing is that people that matter have realized they can make just as much money riding the Itunes wave with piles of mediocre stuff than if they actively hunt out and develop truly talented, quality artists. There are a few independent small producers that still work with artists, but the payoff isn't there anymore generally, so I feel this is happening less and less. The burden is on the artists themselves to produce themselves, record themselves, package themselves, and now market themselves and find a way to distribute their material themselves.

Millions of musicians can now produce some pretty cool sounding tracks thanks to all the technology that has enabled us, but the value of that music has been lost because of the overabundance, and also the differentiating factors that would set truly quality music apart from the rest is buried underneath the glitter and gloss of solid production qualities that are easily producible these days on a second hand PC. The ability to produce great sounding stuff has become available to all of us, but that has only made it that much more difficult to truly stand out against the rest of the pack. And the pack is huge. And even if you do, how are you going to sell it? No record company is going to take you under their wing and turn you into a rock legend. You can take your chances on Itunes like everyone else and try to make some money on a tour.

I'm not happy about the current state either, but I think there is one thing we all need to get over. Musicians have historically never been rich to my knowledge. Possibly a few elite ones were and that continues to be the case today. But the simple fact is that there was never a lot of money available for average non-elite musicians. What happened in the last 50 years in fact, the over-abundance of money for musicians, was IMHO a fluke. Its over. Get over it. Get a real job and try to have some fun with all the technology you're toting around in your laptop bag.

[Serge]

What Radiohead did was incredibly self-gratuitous and irresponsible. They have made their millions and can now do whatever they want without considering the consequences. Did they consider that their actions will negatively effect millions of musicans everywhere? No. They were trying to make a point and did not carefully consider the consequences. Most likely they are making a point against record companies, and I can understand that point. However, there are many negative consequences to giving music the value of water.



+1

SergeD

[PaulR]

Paul,

With all due respect they sold more records back then because there was no internet to steal them from... It's like the porn industry... when you had to go in to a seedy hole in the wall to buy a mag it was taboo ( or so I am told ;)) Nowadays everyone is checking it out 'cause it's 1 click a way.

The internet has really changed the world, in good ways and in bad. It has made a lot of honest people theives because illegally downloading a song on the internet is a lot easier, both physically and pyschologically, than stealing a CD at Best Buy. I wonder where all of this will lead?

Darren

No no no!! Darren you just don't understand. All this interweb stuff is a smoke screen. It's got nothing to do with anything about music. It's not the fault of anyone who can't remember the 60's - after all this was the time of popular music in the first place.
As a sidebar and I don't mean you - I can't abide it with a vengeance when someone comes on the TV or the net and starts telling people like me about that time - when it turns out they were born in 1978 or something.

[Gesticulator01]

What Radiohead did was incredibly self-gratuitous and irresponsible. They have made their millions and can now do whatever they want without considering the consequences. Did they consider that their actions will negatively effect millions of musicans everywhere? No. They were trying to make a point and did not carefully consider the consequences. Most likely they are making a point against record companies, and I can understand that point. However, there are many negative consequences to giving music the value of water.


To date, my understanding is that their album is being valued considerably more than the price of water!

G.

[Von Richter]

The Radiohead thing is an interesting experiment.

It shows that a strong percentage of humans are willing to pay for services, even when there is no risk of getting caught and sued if they do not pay.

Perhaps it can be looked at in a positive light just as easily as a negative light?

Just another way of looking at it.

[Crystal]

If they want that then it's their "delusional" problem. It's obviously not going to happen.
No one forces anyone to do anything.


Alas, I should say that they don’t need to force anyone, in fact. They don’t wait any permission for this.

How many people justify piracy with the ability to ‘possibly’ buy albums if they like them, showing proudly their CD line to the camera ?


‘Possibly'...


That’s the point.




When I was young we used to go to the record shop and stand in listening booths before we bought anything.


Radios and TVs do the same since decades. But we rarely access to the whole album with pop music and the entire piece with classical or other styles. Plus, rights are paid.

And I agree that actual technologies devaluate music...

For example MP3 is a regression for audiophiles.



I just want to add two other points :

1) About Radiohead :

What Radiohead does is not an innovation. Internet has nothing to do with this. That kind of model is possible since money has been invented (around... 2500 years ?...).


2 ) About big companies :

I don’t understand. Prices are free, no ? Of course it needs concurrency to be really free. But there’s no monopoly, as far as I know, in that industry. However, we can figure that there will never be enough concurrency, I agree.

As pirates use to say, ‘Internet is the best weapon to favor concurrency, let’s give them a spank !’.

What do we see since ?

More and more concentration...

Everyone became fragile, big companies can eat little ones easier, and big companies can eat themselves easier.


Well done, guys !


Hilarious...


I’m maybe a dinosaur, but I always thought that if we don’t like a price cause we consider that there is a monopoly in a sector, the democratic way to break it is law.

Not stealing.

[DannyDep]

Paul,
……………………………………..
The internet has really changed the world, in good ways and in bad. It has made a lot of honest people theives because illegally downloading a song on the internet is a lot easier, both physically and pyschologically, than stealing a CD at Best Buy. I wonder where all of this will lead?
Darren
This is a very interesting and obviously a concern to those who want to earn a living in “the new world” of music.

Not to get off point but the sense of this topic seems to relate to another magazine article I was just reading today.

For any of you IT or x-IT folks, have you read the article, “The Real Ethics Guru” Don Tennant’s Editor’s Note, in the October 22, 2007 issue?
What struck me in the article were Frank Abagnale’s (x-con, gone straight) comments when asked
“…what we can do to make illicit computer-related activity a less attractive pursuit for young people.”
And Mr. Abagnale’s response, “There are about four reasons why we have crime to begin with.
One of them is, of course, that we live in an extremely unethical society.
We live in a society that doesn’t teach ethics at home, a society that doesn’t teach ethics in school because the teacher would be accused of teaching morality.
We live in a society where you can’t find a four-year college course on ethics…
So today you have a lot of young people who have no character, no ethics, and they find no problem in defrauding somebody or stealing from somebody or cheating somebody.
Until we change that, crime is just going to get easier, faster more global, harder to detect….
I really think the more technology there is in the world, the more you have to instill character and ethics.
You can build all the security systems in the world; you can build the most sophisticated technology,
and all it takes is one weak link – someone who operates that technology –
to bring it all down.
People don’t like to talk about that issue because they think it’s oversimplified….”

I hate complex problems. They’re so difficult to solve.
Maybe, just maybe the value of music can be appreciated again by all of whom take part in "the new music world" if we all try and act a bit more ethically.
I know, another oversimplification.

[dpasdernick]

The thing that gets me with the Radiohead thing is the precedent it establishes. If one group says "here's a world class album full of songs, pay only if you want to" people will expect every one to do the same thing.

It's easy to be set for life finacially and say "all the rest of my music is now free"

Darren

[Steve_Karl]

It would be just as logical, in my opinion, to expect the Bill Gates foundation to fund the build of my next patio upgrade because they give money away.

We'll ... I bet you could actually find a few people that believe that. )(~

[Gesticulator01]

The thing that gets me with the Radiohead thing is the precedent it establishes. If one group says "here's a world class album full of songs, pay only if you want to" people will expect every one to do the same thing.

It's easy to be set for life finacially and say "all the rest of my music is now free"

Darren
Radiohead are not saying "pay only if you want to".

They are saying "pay us what you think its worth". This is not just nit-picking - they are not fundamentally just giving it away for free (although you can choose not to pay) - and that's borne out by their average sales figures on the album.

[PaulR]

It would be just as logical, in my opinion, to expect the Bill Gates foundation to fund the build of my next patio upgrade because they give money away.

We'll ... I bet you could actually find a few people that believe that. )

That you have a patio?

[dpasdernick]

Radiohead are not saying "pay only if you want to".

They are saying "pay us what you think its worth". This is not just nit-picking - they are not fundamentally just giving it away for free (although you can choose not to pay) - and that's borne out by their average sales figures on the album.

But do you honestly think that if all artists used this model people would still pay? If a sample developer like Gary Garritan said "Here's GPO, pay me what you think it's worth" would you fork over the $200 bucks or would you take it for free and spend the $200 on something else you're salivating over? (and legally and morally have both)

Should I take the music for free scenario

I honestly believe that eventually Radiohead will screw themselves, and others, if they continue this route. It may take a long time but when people know that they can legally get it for free they will take it. Morals? Ethics? What's immoral about taking the music and saying... "Man they made it available! I am not breaking the law here. In fact, Radiohead are already rich enough and Starbuck's is coming up on the left and I could use the cash for a latte, or to feed my kids or to pay my mortgage. They said pay what you can afford! I can't afford it 'cause I just spent my cash on the new Eagles album that they are not giving away for free! I'll pay them later when I can"...

Think about it... This is not some new paradigm business model. This is only going to hurt guys like us who hope one day to make a living writing music.

2 more cents,

Darren

[Von Richter]

Guys, it's just a publicity stunt. Don't lose too much sleep over it.;)

[Steve_Karl]

Yes. That also. )(~

[Gesticulator01]

Yeah- it does set a new precedent for media exposure from a publicity stunt.
So what are the odds the next album will be sold the same way?

[alanb]

So what are the odds the next album will be sold the same way?If they make at least as much money on this release as they would have made under a more "traditional" distribution model, I don't see why they wouldn't sell the next album the same way...

.

[Jaspo]

Keep in mind the downloads are 160kbs and Radiohead chose not to disclose it upfront. This created significant backlash among the fans and speculation that a standard CD will follow in 2008. Which promoted further speculation that the lower quality was done deliberately to entice fans to double dip.

Radiohead was not upfront with the details, there site was very unprofessional. I personally think the experiment was just shy of a debacle.

There will be an $80 collectors set w/vinyl available this month.

In the end, I am happy with my purchase, but I feel bad for the fans and Radiohead. This could have been handled much better.

[dpasdernick]

Keep in mind the downloads are 160kbs and Radiohead chose not to disclose it upfront. This created significant backlash among the fans and speculation that a standard CD will follow in 2008. Which promoted further speculation that the lower quality was done deliberately to entice fans to double dip.

Radiohead was not upfront with the details, there site was very unprofessional. I personally think the experiment was just shy of a debacle.

There will be an $80 collectors set w/vinyl available this month.

In the end, I am happy with my purchase, but I feel bad for the fans and Radiohead. This could have been handled much better.

Wow! This is sounding worse than what the record companies were doing. I'd hate to have bought the downloaded version only to have to ante up for the CD to get the better quality. Double dipping indeed...

Remeber the days of the audio file? The dude that would splurge on the best speakers and the best stereo so that he could hear the subtle nuances of a piece of music? Now kids are listening to mpeg compression through one ear with those wacky headsets.

Will we get to a day when people do not remember quality, just some skimpy dressed bimbo's latest crotch shot on the internet ;) (I think we may be there)

Darren

[Peter Williams]

For most people, audiophile quality was never much of an issue, and a luxury at best. People have always heard their pop pap on 3 inch radio and television sweakers and on car radios. Then they paid steep prices to hear live music over distorted sound systems, often in cavernous basketball arenas. It's more about star presence, sexuality and the sociology of large gatherings of young people. A tune is a tune, and a lyric is a lyric. The sound delivery system is of secondary importance in the pop business.

[Journeyman]

IMHO, the current state of music downloads and diminished value exists simply for one reason; "Because They Can". If people think that they can get somthing for free when they think that no one is looking, they'll grab it every time. It's that simple. And before you blame, "today's younger generation", it's the fault of the parents. They perpetuate the whole "anything to get ahead--legal or otherwise" mentality (as long as you don't get caught), and pass it on to their kids.

[Jaspo]

Another reason for diminished value of music is accessibility, which WAS determined by publishing, distribution and shelf-space.

The flood of artists, all on equal footing creates a diminished value for each individual performers work. The availability of individual songs diminishes the value of the work as a whole.

Previous to online distribution. Publishers would determine who was worthy of investment, distributors would determine who was worthy of warehouse space and retailers would determine who was worth of the ALL-MIGHTY shelf space.

There is reduced costs of creating music downloads versus the cost of publishing (packaging, distribution and promotion) has also diminished the value of music.

The increased competition from open distribution (including piracy), reduced costs of production, and per song distribution have all lead the music industry to its current situation. What I find rather humorous is that the Publishing companies are crying louder than the artists, because they now see themselves as expendable in the music industry. Itunes proves that value-added-publishing is no longer needed, at least in the traditional sense.

[Journeyman]

Then there's the whole discussion of monetary value vs. personal value. While it's clear that music's monetary value has diminished, has it's personal value?

[Jaspo]

I believe that the personal value of music as part of peoples lives has increased mostly do to accessibility. But the monetary value has decreased for the reasons I described above.

The more music becomes integrated into your life the more important it becomes in your day to day life and it's personal value increases. The portable Mp3 player has truly revolutionized music and increased it personal value. You are not limited to what you can carry in a CD case. When you go to a friend's house, work, workout, or class you can bring 10,000 songs with you.

You can choose to listen to individual songs with ease and build playlists. This diminishes the work as a whole, but increases the personal value of individual songs. Being able to purchase them and transfer them to portable devices also increases the monetary value of an individual song.

I do not defend piracy, except to say it does increase the "buzz" about music and does serve integrate music deeper into people lives. I should also add that many people my age, that grew up in the 70's, stopped buying music when they left college. Their "record" collection stopped growing. Now, many of those friends (approaching 50 years old) are listening to music again and most are paying for it.

[XanaX]

www.lefsetz.com (http://www.lefsetz.com)

This guy is a music industry insider, and one of his basic premises is that
nobody's going to spend $10,000 to fill their iPod legally, so (what's left of) the record industry better figure out how to monetize the download situation...and a buck a song isn't it...

Interesting stuff, even if you don't agree with him...

[NineVOltAudio]

Regarding the Radiohead album:

Have they released sales figures? Are they making the numbers public?

I can't seem to find any sales figures, other than statements made early last month - which really don't tell you too much... might help make more sense of the arguements in this thread.

On another note, a Trent Reznor (Nine Inch Nails) produced artist released an album via the web on Nov 1... they had a slight twist on the Radiohead payment system:

When you go to the purchase page there are two "purchase" buttons:
the first one allows you to purchase for $5.00 and states "I want to directly support the artists involved in the creation of this music"

The other states: "$0.00: I'm not concerned about that. I just want the music."

[Von Richter]

Let's not confuse music with music.

Most music in the popular consumer drone world has nothing to do with music. Less now than ever before. It's not neccesary to even have a memorable tune rhythm, arrangement, lyric, or anything with distinguishable topographical features at all. What matters are boobies.

That anything of artistic merit ever slipped into the mainstream industry was merely a fluke, a growing pain symptom. That's no longer a problem. Music is no longer needed in the music industry.

It's best to stop trying to make the "music product" machine into some kind of haven for the creation of art.

That's pure wishful thinking.

[dpasdernick]

Let's not confuse music with music.

Most music in the popular consumer drone world has nothing to do with music. Less now than ever before. It's not neccesary to even have a memorable tune rhythm, arrangement, lyric, or anything with distinguishable topographical features at all. What matters are boobies.

That anything of artistic merit ever slipped into the mainstream industry was merely a fluke, a growing pain symptom. That's no longer a problem. Music is no longer needed in the music industry.

It's best to stop trying to make the "music product" machine into some kind of haven for the creation of art.

That's pure wishful thinking.


Well spoken! Most dudes get into music for potentail boobies anyway. ;) Nobody wanted to play in a metal hair band because of the artistic integrity...


Darren

Darren

[Ricky B]

I've shpped here for new music sometimes - http://www.itsaboutmusic.com

Artists that you won't see in one place AND 2 minute samples of every tune on a cd.

Apologies, if I'm promoting and that's a no-no. I do NOT have an affiliation there.

Ricky B

[NineVOltAudio]

And the numbers are in...

Funny thing: statistics show that UK downloaders were more willing to pay than US downloaders! :wow: HOWEVER: US downloaders were willing to pay a bit more on average than UK downloaders :wow: :confused: ~|

Average price "given" for the album from people who chose to pay (worldwide): around $6.00

Worldwide: 38% of downloaders chose to pay something; 62% downloaded for free

http://www.comscore.com/press/release.asp?press=1890

[Gesticulator01]

If the average price is only worked out from those who paid - then the average price per download comes down to around $2.30 - though I wonder how many downloads worldwide so far.

[Crystal]

The next time, they should ask to be paid in euros !

Ha !