“Radiohead’s camp is in talks with [Apple’s] iTunes Music Store for the release of ‘In Rainbows,'” Lars Brandle reports for Billboard.
Radiohead “remains a notable omission from the world’s leading download store because of the band’s assertion that its albums remain complete,” Brandle reports. “On the other hand, iTunes’ successful model allows customers to unbundle albums, or pick and chose individual tracks.”
“Talks are ongoing with iTunes,” Brandle reports. “A deal with Apple Computer’s download store would represent a massive breakthrough on a number of levels, and one which apparently would require a shift in position from one of the parties.”
“Radiohead became one of the music industry’s hottest topics this year when they recorded the [In Rainbows] album independently and issued it digitally through its official Web site from Oct. 10, allowing downloaders to name a price to own a virtual copy,” Brandle reports.
“That “honesty box’ experiment will come to an end on Monday, the band has announced, paving the way for the traditional release set-up of the album within the next few weeks,” Brandle reports. “‘The download area that is ‘In Rainbows’ will be shutting its doors on the 10th December 2007,’ reads a note posted Wednesday on the band’s official Web site.”
Full article here.
[Thanks to MacDailyNews Reader “Lurker_PC” for the heads up.]
Perhaps Radiohead realized that the album is an artificial construct designed by the music cartels to create bundles laced with filler for which they can overcharge fans? Or perhaps they decided that they just wanted to get paid? By the way, if the “album” is good enough and coherent enough — ironically, as are most of Radiohead’s — we’ll buy the album. What we are opposed to are those who would dictate that we buy the album. That time has long since passed. Consumers are in charge now, not the music cartels.
If an artist really intends for their work to be heard and purchased in full, then eliminate separate tracks. Just release a one long US$9.99 track (It’s been done already: Prince’s “Lovesexy” is 9 “songs” all in one 45:03 track for $9.99 via iTunes Store) and then sell, perform, and demand that radio play it that way. Otherwise, by allowing yourselves to chop up the oh-so-sacred album in concert, DJ’s to chop it up on radio, and the music video outlets to chop it up on air/online, we know you’re just not that serious about your concept of “album as art.” You really just want us to pay you more to get the bits we really want.
We really don’t see Apple bending to Radiohead’s demand that they sell only the complete album, since Apple’s iTunes Store has survived just fine without them for years now. That said, if the two parties do reach a deal, we may see the bad old “Album Only” rear its ugly head on certain Radiohead tracks within iTunes Store. It would be unfortunate, but not at all unexpected.
Yeah, heard this MDN rant before. I still like my album collection.
albumfan,
Having heard MDN explain this all before doesn’t make it any less true.
I faced with the choice of being a listener or a consumer, I’d take the former any day. This “artificial contruct” blather has gotten terribly stale. If you insist on considering music a commodity, fine, then vote with your change purse. Just don’t assume that everybody else has the same priorities.
“Perhaps Radiohead realized that the album is an artificial construct designed by the music cartels to create bundles laced with filler for which they can overcharge fans?”
Yawny yawn yawn. Same ol’ same ol’, MDN. And hey “Prince”, love your albums, particularly 1999.
The album is an “artificial construct.”
All you need to be able to do look back at history. Singles came first and the idea of the “album” bundle can later.
MDN is right.
Grigori,
Do you want MDN to change their beliefs on the subject just to keep you entertained?
I agree with MDN: I want choice and don’t want to be forced to buy full albums. I’ll buy good albums when I want, not when coked up music execs force me to only buy albums.
Thank you, Grigori.
MDN’s take is a bit off. I don’t mind Radiohead bundling, and the idea of them selling “singles” does sound cheap.
On the other hand, one-hit wonders ought to be refused to bundle their filler. Radiohead is not filler, however.
Who needs to listen to Radiohead, or a girl dressed like a guy (prince)..?? iTunes has ABBA nothing more is needed.
There are a handful of cases where a legitimate claim can be made that the album is a single piece of art. We all know those cases and you can count them on the fingers of two hands. However, even in the most persuasive case — “Tommy” by The Who — the band performs individual songs (saw them in concert just a few months ago) and, back when, the radio stations played individual songs. If it is ok to do that, then why is it a problem to sell the individual songs? I am backing Apple on this one — Radiohead needs to join the 21st century.
That said, the real breakthrough — one for which Apple might bend, is the negotiations directly with the artist. If Apple gets a deal directly with Radiohead, it could send a powerful message to the record labels — your days are numbered. As far as I am concerned, it can’t happen soon enough. It is hard to believe how out-of-touch Universal, Warner and the rest are.
The iTunes Store has had “only with album” tracks all the time – the negotiations will probably just be about which and how many of those…
This article captures the way that the internet (iTunes, new pipes, whatnot) is displacing old media (NBC, or Universal, or whatnot). It’s going to happen.
Consumers and artists get better deals. Media companies get bankrupted. Hold your hats.
I blogged this point on pwnership.com.
I’m not exactly sure how I feel about this subject. Since Radiohead is in charge of their own product not a “Music Cartel” it would stand to reason they should be able to sell their own product how they see fit. There is a different between “Band of the Day” and Radiohead in the respect that they are artists and consider themselves such. Most highly produced/marketed bands are required to “fill” the albums with whatever to sell the package and fulfill their contract. Radiohead believes they are producing and releasing an piece of art. So I fully understand their reasoning behind wanting to sell the album as a whole. I think the idea of what’s filler depends on 2 things. Intention of the producer to add poorly written and ill thought out content in order to boost the selling tracks of the album and the consumers opinion of said tracks. Simply stating that ALL albums contain one or 2 good songs and then the rest being filler is pretty ignorant. I’m not saying MDN has said exactly this, but it sure comes across that way. I doubt folks feel that way about Pet Sounds, American Idiot, Dark Side of the Moon to name a few. Fact is when I go to the store to get eggs. I don’t just pick one out of the carton. When I buy a chess set I don’t just buy the Queen and the Rooks. That said. I’m sure you will see an “album only” tag on quite a few songs if it’s added to iTunes. And I honestly wont complain. Just because a consumer demands something to be a certain way, doesn’t mean it should or will be.
MDN, You sound like a bunch of morons. The album is an “artificial construction” the same way anything else is that has been invented. Stop. There are plenty of artists who view albums as complete pieces of work, it doesn’t make them “fake” or music industry puppets, in fact it is bands who actually have integrity and take their music as “art” do this. I agree with most your takes, but with this you sound stupid.
I’m actually a bit sorry to see Radiohead’s attempt at self promotion/distribution has failed, as it had the potential to herald a new era that would cut out the labels/middlemen entirely. Unfortunately, so many musicians belabor under the delusion that all their songs are great, and therefore seek to bundle their music, while the consumer knows what they like and just wants to buy the best content. iTunes should give Radiohead the right to bundle their sales if they want. It won’t hurt iTunes, but instead will only hurt Radiohead’s music sales.
Jon: There are plenty of artists who view albums as complete pieces of work, it doesn’t make them “fake” or music industry puppets
No, but if only one or two tracks actually appeal to the customer, why force him to pay for the rest as well, even though he won’t ever listen to those?
Grigori is on the money. The album was actually a way to get recorde muysic into people’s homes when the grammophone was invented, not a record label construct. Record labels exploited the format, sure, but if all you are listening to is top 40 pap than you are missing the whole point. I’m sorry, but you guys are so wrong on this one, I don’t even know where to begin. You are obviously not die hard music lovers.
MDN, your “artificial construct designed by the music cartels to create bundles laced with filler for which they can overcharge fans” bit is not only, yup, stale and terribly misguided, but it’s also dangerous. I’d hate to see this narrow-minded, black-and-white, fallacious anti-album sentiment catch on. I mean, sheesh, I’m all for singles culture too, but why must that come at the expense and vilification of the album? Does it really have to be one or the other? Your appreciation and comprehension of music is poorly developed and, given the size of your soapbox, makes you ill-qualified to make such hefty pronouncements. You’re not entirely off-base, but your argument could be seriously tempered.
Yeah, in pop music, indeed, the single came before the album. But if you go back way further, composers have always composed complete works that consisted of smaller movements, and so on. Even the “song” in the classical “song cycle” is intended to be presented as part of a unified whole. Bottom line? The artist has every right to present its work however it sees fit. If that means selling you an entire album, fine. If it means selling you singles, great. And if you don’t agree to the artist’s terms, then you have every right to move on.
way at the bottom post . . . .
all this makes me think of is Green Day’s last album where there were only 9 tracks, but some are 8 and 9 minutes long and are clearly three songs all wrapped into one song.
All these ‘artists’ that say that their album is a single piece of work that needs to stay that way, until I see another White Album or The Wall, get over it.
@everyone – isn’t the point that the distance between artist and audience is shrinking, and that creates more flexibility even for an artist who wants to sell in bulk. This matter is settled the classic way – what sells best. For the artist to figure that out, he needs enough control to experiment.
@brau – it might be the opposite. Radiohead skimmed all the high-margin sales, and now Mr. Head will see what either iTunes or old media can do through their respective distribution channels.
“@brau – it might be the opposite. Radiohead skimmed all the high-margin sales, and now Mr. Head will see what either iTunes or old media can do through their respective distribution channels.”
Good point, but those who have polled the amounts paid have come to the (unfortunate) conclusion that Radiohead was likely to be making less than $6 USD per album sale. These numbers were based only on voluntary admissions but it seems greed was still paramount and many chose not to pay at all, based on the selfish premise that they could get it for free over P2P.
Skeeter and tom Reeves-exactly! You took the words right out of my mouth.
@james – you can have them back if you’d like.
I think Radiohead has a point. All their songs do sound alike, like one cohesive redundancy.
just because “singles came first, albums later” doesn’t mean that artists didn’t capitalize on the idea of a theme for an album. Just think back.. Bach et al wrote big pieces, meant to be performed from start to finish. Sure.. you may like one movement more than others.. and some movements you may not like at all, but that doesn’t mean it wasn’t written to be heard from beginning to end.
While I agree that a lot of albums are junk with tons of filler, I would disagree with the notion that they all are, or that artists aren’t capable of writing an album’s worth of really, really good stuff.
The White Album by The Beatles springs to mind.. hard to listen to just one track without the next one… or putting it in shuffle.
Same with Joe Jackson’s “Blaze of Glory”. Both were written from start to finish, and meant to be performed AND heard that way.
So, if Bach, and The Beatles can do it, why would MDN think Radiohead can’t?