Slashdot Mirror
Radiohead Changes Tack, Joins iTunes
Joe Jay Bee writes "The British rock band Radiohead, who previously stated that they wouldn't want to have their music on Apple's iTunes Music Store (and, indeed, were unhappy when their Kid A album was released via the store) have performed something of an about-face; virtually their entire catalog, including singles and their B-Sides, has appeared on the store. The band previously said they only wanted their work sold as complete albums, which Apple refused to go along with; however their tack has apparently changed, and all their songs are available to mix and match, including their most recent work, In Rainbows. The albums are all available in DRM-free AAC format."
Maybe the fact their songs are available DRM-free has something to do with their changing of mind...
Dawkins Revisited: A person is shit's way of making more shit -- Steve Barnett, anthropologist.
And Apple said "How much?" And I said "That's a very large check, sir!"
Probably due to the fact most radiohead albums only have 1 good song on.
I think this has more to do with the break from EMI than them warming up to iTunes or the DRM issues.
If this makes them more money in the end, I don't see a problem with it. But still, who buys files!? Get the physical thing, man, otherwise it's not worth it IMO.
I guess they finally realized that consumers can and will "pick and choose" regardless, so they might as make some money in the process. It doesn't exactly take a genius to figure that one out.
Better known as 318230.
Radiohead finished their term with EMI Parlophone who originally signed them. In the usual way, their ex-record label are now pushing out as much as they can to cash in - 'Best of Radiohead' just having been released for instance. I suspect this is the cause. Mind you after the crap rip-quality of the In Rainbows interweb release and the volte face of the cd release following, I have less sympathy than I once would have done despite the quality of the work.
Instead of sticking its head in sand like Metallica did, Radiohead is showing surprising maturity and acute understanding of what a customer wants: Go to the Customer, instead of sitting on your arse and expecting them to come to you.
Perception is all-important in Marketing and Radiohead is taking Apple lessons.
By direct-download of their albums (free and paid) they proved DownloadMusic!=crime.
Second once they realized people mix and match their music (just like i mod my computer table and computer), they allowed it instead of sending RIAA goons after them. After all, Alienware does not raid my home, if i chose to decorate my PC with Yuletide spirit. Apple does not care if i laser-engrave my iPod. So should music be: If i mix-and-match their tunes with mine, i should be free.
RIAA believes otherwise. Paying customers think otherwise.
Who pays for Radiohead's food? Customers and not RIAA. So Radiohead did the sensible thing and listened to customers.
By releasing their tunes DRM-Free in iTunes they hit the likeness factor a lot: iPod users now have direct-download to iPod; which is 90% market share of MP3 players (Zune; you Turd, you really have no chance). The DRM-free enables users to mix and match.
Its a pity that Radiohead's music is not country/hip-hop
"Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
Well, well. Slashdot Poster Boys go for the $. I'm shocked.
This was a decision made by EMI, as they still own the rights to the Radiohead Catalogue. In the same vein, they're attempting to make even more money off of the success of Radiohead by selling "The Best of Radiohead," which, as far as I know, is not approved by the band themselves.
Please do not take this as Radiohead's decision, when it's clearly that of their (former) label.
When I first saw the announcement they had finally joined the ITMS, I was hoping for a full discography deal like U2 did a while back. Unfortunately this is not the case -- each album has to be purchased individually, and there are absolutely no extras.
I don't see the added value in this. For almost the same cost I can just buy whatever albums I do not already have on CD (thanks to the ridiculously cheap dollar), and rip in a far higher quality than ITMS offers.
Itunes is only worth it when there are extras, like bonus songs or interviews. Or at least a discount!
I'm curious as to how much money they generated from the sales they made of the Nude Remix contest via iTunes and Garageband. This may have been the band and/or the label testing the waters.
Well, what with the price of oil these days, even rockstars are feeling the pinch.
Do you have any idea how much it costs to fill up the tank on a Ferrari?
Classical Liberalism: All your base are belong to you.
Itunes is only worth it when there are extras, like bonus songs or interviews. Or at least a discount!
Not everyone is a completist. If I find a song I like, I'll buy it on iTunes. If I like an artist enough after a while to go ahead and buy an album, I'll buy it on CD. Sometimes I'll buy an album on iTunes if there's enough tracks that the $10 album price makes sense, but usually I just buy a couple of songs.
Providing individual tracks from a CD is just one way to present a musical work. Music in itself is sound, not tracks. There is music recorded today that doesn't conform to the idea that each song is a single musical entity, and splitting these works does more good than bad from an artistical point of view, or at least some artists'.
Anyhow, for the same reasons that providing music in these smaller parts is a good thing (which I believe it is), one could easily argue that even smaller parts of the music should be available for buying. What if I'm only interested in measures two to four of the second bridge? It might sound crazy, but as a musician I sometimes meet this exact problem when transcribing songs from memory. Why should I have to buy the whole song when I just want four seconds of it?
I'm sure that when apple drove a dump truck full of money up to radiohead-quarters, all of a sudden selling a few albums here and there at indy record stores started to look kinda dumb.
stuff |
(apart from they'll make money on some of songs) It includes their latest album In Rainbows which was physically distributed on XL Recordings. Perhaps EMI have maintained the digital distribution rights to the latest album, since Radiohead are freelance and all but it's clearly the decision of the artist not the label.
There is one for "Music and Lyrics" and one for "Performance". 99 times out of 100, the music label negotiates for ownership of the latter.
Britney may own the song "Oops I did it again", but her label owns the "master tape".
Why buy more physical junk that you're going to rip and then toss into a storage room? I don't know about you but I'd prefer to have my files stored in large quantities on DVDs or hard drives (on a server) in a nice handy format (MP3/OGG for music, DivX for video) that I can move around, back up and share quickly and easily across multiple devices.
Buying files saves me the trouble of ripping...my only complaint is that sometimes you can't get the quality rip you want.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
A couple of weeks ago they released their 'Best Of' album for free on imeem, well technically it's ad supported, so they get some cash from this page. But essentially you can listen to the whole album online at their page on imeem, you can't actually download it, it streams via the flash player and every downloader I've tried doesn't work (even though they frequently say that they do.....)
Any you kiddies know what a 'B-side' is?
Since I already own all of Radiohead's CDs (I'm a huge fan) and have them ripped to iTunes, I'm happy that iTunes should now retrieve all their album artwork. I never even knew that Radiohead wasn't available in the iTunes store until recently when I noticed all of their songs on my iPod were missing the album artwork.
I just bought "Optimistic" from Amazon, DRM free.
Apparently the album only policy has also fallen at Amazon, not just ITS.
-Jay
Wouldn't that have made for a more comical and term related joke? Radiohead Changes Tune... Or am I alone?
Um. Set your preferences to hide anything with a score of -1 and you're all set. It's like MAGIC!
Unless, you know, you like to read about well-lubed ass sex. Then, by all means, go for it.
Okay, maybe it's the "whole catalog" thing that makes this news - but I bought "In Rainbows", in DRM-free AAC format, from the iTunes Music Store several months ago. So it's not like Radiohead wasn't on iTunes, then *POOF* now it is.
On a side-note: I think Apple's DRM terms are more or less reasonable, at least compared to most others; but ever sense "iTunes Plus" became available I've stopped buying DRM'ed music from the store. I know the labels are watching iTunes and Amazon, so I figure any little bit I can do to demonstrate my preference for DRM-free music is a good thing.
#DeleteChrome
http://music.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,,2210259,00.html
Read about the ongoing feud between Radiohead and their former big label here.
I'd bet that the summary article is incorrect and the band itself did not directly approve of the iTunes move.
I may make you feel, but I can't make you think.
As time passes since the innovative release of their album on the net, Radiohead has again and again proven that they are not really thinking outside the box. We musicians no longer need record companies or corporations such as Apple. I just recently released an album Politics Apocalypse available free to download at our website. It is licensed with the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Licence, which even lets you use it freely for commercial projects (so long as you give credit). We are also doing a name your own price CD (starting at cost price). Access to a membersâ(TM) area with new music rewards donations, orders and creative feedback. Check it out and spread the word. We donâ(TM)t need iTunes. All download and donation statistics at the website http://www.politicsapocalypse.com/
I hate that word. What idiot tagged them sellouts? I don't even like Radiohead, but come on-- if you're a professional musician, you sell your music by definition. Labeling someone a 'sellout' for doing precisely that is to completely miss the point of being a musician. You may love someone's music, and you may feel some sense of ownership over it, but get real: it's their music. Maybe they're sick of bumming around in a van in order to add a little quality to your life.
"In Rainbows" and perhaps other Radiohead albums have been (and continue to be) available from emusic.com, for up to 50% less than the iTunes price, DRM-free, lifetime-replaceable. so basically, like, meh.
I'd like to half-correct myself now that I see that the "In Rainbows" album, which is not part of the EMI-owned back catalogue, is also available for unbundled digital download. Without being able to do more research (lacking iTunes for one thing), it seems that what's happened is that EMI's now doing the same for all of their older albums. Sort of in the same vein as the greatest hits compilation and the $160 flash drive 'deal'.
http://www.tuaw.com/2008/01/03/radiohead-on-itunes-yup/ --- This happened for In Rainbows back in January
http://www.ateaseweb.com/2008/06/03/full-radiohead-catalogue-available-on-itunes/ --- for the rest of the albums this June, with accompanying EMI representative commentary
I may make you feel, but I can't make you think.
along with this, their entire catalog (except "in rainbows") has been released on the free music service Ruckus for college students. Ruckus has een advertising the availability.
perhaps they are making a push to make their music more available through more than one service.
btw, ruckus is full of DRM, have to use their own player and licenses must renew every 30 days.
i thought the next big business model for musicians was to put the works out for free and hope that people put enough quarters in your overturned cap while on tour to make the production costs back and still have food, rent and gas money?
what happened? is this a sign that even with a big name, a fairly large fanbase and tons of free media that it's not working?
so much for all the slashdotters who thumbed their noses at big business and donated dollars even if they weren't radiohead fans. so much for trying to push a model into prosperity to make some half-assed political statement. so much for all those music thieves who claim that touring alone can keep an artist afloat.
you fail it.
If Radiohead wants to only sell their music only in an album format, why not sell the whole album as a single mp3/aac? Oh, that's right, because it'd still only cost 99 cents. Money talks...
As a big fan of b-sides and alternate tracks, I have not personally come across any major band that is as ridiculously frustrating when it comes to singles as Radiohead. Radiohead typically releases three or four CD singles for the same album song (US/UK/AUS), and those CD singles generally have different additional tracks. To get all the miscellaneous tracks, you would have to buy as many as three or four CD singles for each song released as a "single" off the album. This has prevented me from obtaining many b-side songs that I'd honestly love to hear.
Here's an example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_and_Dry
So based on that one fact alone, the move to iTunes will be much better for serious fans and collectors because now they can simply buy the extra missing tracks ala cart.