Radiohead has debuted in Apple’s iTunes Store.
The group’s latest album, “In Rainbows,” a self-release, which was the subject of an experiment earlier this year in which fans could set their own prices (or no price at all) for downloading from Radiohead’s site, is now available for US$9.99 as an iTunes Plus (DRM-free, 256kbps AAC) download. That experiment ended in early December when Radiohead entered into negotiations with Apple’s iTunes Store. “In Rainbows” is currently the only Radiohead album available via iTunes Store.
Although Radiohead has long resisted “breaking up their album” into songs that can be sold separately, iTunes Plus songs from “In Rainbows” are indeed now available individually for 99-cents each via iTunes Store.
MacDailyNews Take: Steve Jobs usually gets his way eventually and, in this case as with many others, Apple’s customers benefit.
Direct link to Radiohead’s “In Rainbows” via Apple’s U.S. iTunes Store where customers have the choice to download either the album or individual songs here.
[Thanks to MacDailyNews Reader “Gavin” for the heads up.]
MacDailyNews Take: Yet another nail in the artificial construct’s coffin.
MacDailyNews Take: Yet another nail in the artificial construct‘s coffin.
Yawn yawnity yawn yawn yawn.
Yawn.
@i am kida, there’s actually eight songs that are included on the box set version of In Rainbows that aren’t part of the iTunes download… I guess that means SJ and MDN actually LOST.
So when are the artists going to realize that they can do it on there own and they do not need the record labors?
Or are they all to fat and lazy to care
@The Luke: Oh, and MDN, you can can it with the “artificial construct” business already. Show me one thing that ISN’T an artificial construct these days.
True, but the overlords at MDN will never get that. As far as MDN is concerned, the only time the “artificial construct” is justified is if it’s an album THEY like; otherwise, it’s just “filler.” You do understand that MDN’s taste is what important here, don’t you? It’s the only taste that matters.
MDN says “earlier this year”
Well with a dateline of Jan 2 that would mean yesterday?
Jeremy
“As an artist myself”, I will say that just because you’re an ass, it doesn’t necessarily mean you’re an artist. (But it helps)
If you want to force the consumer to buy all the crap you’ve bundled with a few good songs, then you can choose not to sell on Apple’s iTunes Music Store. “It’s not like anyone is forcing YOU to ‘sell’ the thing” … on iTunes.
When someone takes possession of a drawing or painting or print I created, I don’t tell them they cannot remove/change the mat, change/remove the frame, or even draw a moustache on it. When I distribute dance compilations, I don’t tell the consumer they have to buy the whole thing instead of whatever track(s) they want because it’s “art”. Hmmm, maybe I SHOULD practise being a pompous arsehole so that I can cheat people out of money in the name of “creativity”. Yeah!!!
I appreciate the Radiohead experiment and just bought a couple singles as a show of support. My biggest hot bottons have been DRM and low bitrate, so these downloads are fine for me. Thanks, Sky
no change comes without conflict
@ DJ Jac:
Oops, your argument don’t work!
“When someone takes possession of a drawing or painting or print I created, I don’t tell them they cannot…”
is not analogous to
“When I distribute dance compilations, I don’t tell the consumer they have to buy the whole thing instead of whatever track(s) they want…”
See the problem? Scenario A’s proprietor has already sold his or her work. The reason you can’t tell the consumer what they can or can’t do (and, btw, you can) is because it’s no longer in your hands. In Scenario B, the proprietor has elected to allow the consumer to consume its work piecemeal – much in the same way Jeremy can elect to require the consumer to consumer it whole – because in that scenario, the work is still in the hands of the proprietor. Better luck next time!
@The Luke:
You are partially right about Pet Sounds, but not entirely. Sloop John B was slipped into the album, and was not part of Brian Wilson’s original vision for Pet Sounds. I also think Pet Sounds is a compilation of songs more-so than an than an album with an encompassing theme, such as Pink Floyd’s “The Wall” or “Dark Side of the Moon”, or The Beatles’ “Magical Mystery Tour” and “Sgt. Peppers”, or the Who’s “Tommy” or “Quadrophenia”.
All in all, it is the listener who loses when they choose to listen to one of these albums in piecemeal fashion, although there is joy to be derived from that. Let’s face it, few have the time to spend an hour or more listening through an entire album, even if they like it all.
General: There are many albums on iTunes with ‘album only’ cuts. That leaves a decision for the buyer, and I like that. What I don’t like is when incomplete albums are sold; especially without any indication of what is missing.
MDN:”Steve Jobs gets his way: Radiohead makes Apple iTunes Store debut via ‘In Rainbows’ DRM-free singles”
WRONG. This is the *second* phase in Radiohead’s experiment. Depending on how things turn out, they may go with an altogether different model next time around (the experiment isn’t over yet). They did very well releasing it on their own. Again, this is an experiment on Radiohead’s part. Steve Jobs “getting his way” has absolutely nothing to do with it. I suggest you follow the story a little closer and get your info correct. You again make a statement that has no source or facts to back it up. Your take is pure speculation. In fact, it’s just plain wrong.
>>”Everybody totally missed the boat on this one. For one, Radiohead stated even before the experiment started that they would one day release it on traditional lines.”
Exactly, a fact MDN either fails to realize or knowingly ignores!
An album is not an artificial construct. Frickin’ Apple – all I want is Pages and I have to buy Keynote, and Numbers along with it! Until they break up all that filler I’m not buying, same goes for iLife ’08 and Leopard for that matter.
@skeeter – Agreed!
>>”The reason you can’t tell the consumer what they can or can’t do (and, btw, you can)…”
That’s right, you *can* tell the consumer what they can and cannot do – Apple does this all the time and MDN seems to have no problem with it.
@ Jeremy,
Think of it this way, if customers want some apples, do you HAVE to buy them only in pounds?
No, of course not. What you’re suggesting would be the same as if the supermarket picked out a pound of apples and you had to buy them by the pound and without picking and choosing which ones you want. No options.
That’s the way I see it. Maybe I’m wrong. But nonetheless, I would love to see the record companies fail big time.
@ MacVenom,
Nope! Your scenario equates to Apple and the iTunes Store making the decision to only sell whole albums instead of single tracks. They don’t make that decision. The rights holder (e.g., the artist) does.
If you create a thing, don’t you reserve the right to sell it however you want?
BTW: This album sells for $2.00 less at Amazon
In Rainbows $7.99
As stated, MDN is just plain wrong. Had Radiohead chosen to do so, they’d have put In Rainbows on iTunes as a single album download. But they didn’t. (Which is quite logical anyhow because they sold In Rainbows as individual tracks themselves, too.)
t’s up to the artists to decide whether they’d like to sell their stuff as whole albums or individual tracks. When an album is sold as a single $9.99 unit on iTunes, the tracks are labeled “album only” and cannot be downloaded individually. There are a few examples. Nothing to do with Steve. Stupid MDN.
Also, this whole “artificial construct” debate has many sides to it. Some albums are thematically and musically unified, which justifies the claim that they actually are single works of art (compare them to a symphony or something). And on the other hand, some albums are nothing more than a bunch of songs thrown together for no good reason (think of your average corporate-produced bubblegum pop album).
And, it’s really up to the artists themselves to decide how they want to sell their stuff. You can whine and rant all you want, but if an artist says that their album is a single piece of art and decides to sell it as such, then it is, and there is and should be no way you can chop it up before you’ve purchased it.
Well,Amazon mp3 store is working only in the U.S.A so here in Greece my only option is iTunes.
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”wink” style=”border:0;” />
If I buy a painting, can I cut it up into pieces and put them into several different frames for dramatic effect? Could I put them in different rooms, even? Could I xerox them and put copies on my office wall?
If I could buy the Mona Lisa (go AAPL!!), should I be allowed to cut out her smile and paste it on my bust of Beethoven? (he’s so stern-looking).
Not sure what my point is.
In other news: Radiohead is still experimenting. If iTunes revenues on this one album can’t match the money they could make in independent (payment-by-choice) downloads, then that represents a failure of the iTunes-only distribution model for that music, for that band, at that time.
Adding to the discussion about album only, the art in it and such.
Most of classical music on iTunes can only be purchased by either whole album, or whole work (hardly anyone would be buying only the second movement from, say, Tchaikovsky’s fourth simphony, as lovely as it is). It is clear that there are many works out there that are built from pieces that could presumably stand alone on their own, but are still an integral part of a work.
Then, there is popular music. Overwhelming majority of today’s music is built in the format of individual, well, for the lack of better word, songs. These last (again, for the overwhelming percentage of works) 3 to 5 minutes. They stand on their own without question; I had never had a problem listening to “When I’m sixty-four”, even though it is supposedly an integral part of an album (Sgt. Peppers LHCB). I never cared much for some other songs from that album because, frankly, I considered them somewhat inferior to some others.
In today’s popular music, as much as artists (including myself) wish to call album a work or art, consumers don’t think of it that way. We as artists could spend the next two generations trying to re-educate our consumers into looking at our albums much as consumers of the 19th century looked at symphonies, orchestral suites and other multi-movement works. Unfortunately, today, the cat’s out of the bag. Ever since the short form of a song was introduced and made wildly popular (arguably, by Franz Schubert in early 19th century), consumers have been accustomed to consuming music in 3-4 minute pieces.
What we all (popular music artists) are producing today are individual songs, artifically bundled together to appear like an album. It would be very difficult to argue that these albums are anything artistically more than arbitrary collections of songs (obviously, albums such as “Wish You Were Here” by Pink Floyd and similar being rare exceptions to this rule).
Artists stubborn enough to force purchasing of albums onto their consumers simply aren’t smart businessmen. If they let radio stations play individual songs from their albums, they have no moral, legal, artistic or any other argument here.
This was not the work of a contractual agreement with a Label. Every song was created as a part of the whole album. Artist spend a lot of time agonizing over their work to get it just right. It
s a creation. Out of respect for the artist I usually try to hear the whole album twice before selecting my favorites. Especially if it’s an Indie. Wouldn’t you like a chance to have something you created seen completely before it was dismantled and sold as parts? Art is created to express the soul of the person who created it. It’s not an assembly line of robots.
Now I’d like to see the back catalog of work on iTunes
“What we all (popular music artists) are producing today are individual songs, artifically bundled together to appear like an album. It would be very difficult to argue that these albums are anything artistically more than arbitrary collections of songs (obviously, albums such as “Wish You Were Here” by Pink Floyd and similar being rare exceptions to this rule).
Artists stubborn enough to force purchasing of albums onto their consumers simply aren’t smart businessmen. If they let radio stations play individual songs from their albums, they have no moral, legal, artistic or any other argument here.
Wrong. Radio has always been about generating publicity for an album. They give you a little glimpse into what the album holds, and the artists and record labels carefully choose which song goes out as the first radio “single” (read promotion). It follows from there.
It is not for the public to tell an artist whether or not they can sell their album as a whole or as individual tracks. IT IS UP TO THE CREATOR OF THE MUSIC TO DECIDE. If you feel this is poor business, you have every right to that opinion. You cannot, however, dictate control of an artists music for selfish reasons. LET EACH INDIVIDUAL ARTIST DECIDE THAT FOR HIS/HER SELF. You didn’t create it, therefore the public should have absolutely no say in how it should be handled and sold. If they decide to break it up, fine. If they want it to be sold “album only”, fine.