Slashdot Mirror
Radiohead Open Sources Music Video
ruphus13 writes "Following up their 'pay what you like' music album, Radiohead is once again pushing forward with trying to innovate in an industry that has typically innovated with lawsuits alone. Radiohead has now decided to open source a music video. According to the article, 'Its new single "House of Cards" has a video that was created using advanced visualization techniques and various computer-rendered models. The band has teamed up with Google to release the data for the promo as open source using a Creative Commons license.'" The article links a making-of video on YouTube. The music of "House of Cards" was not open sourced, just the visual data. according to a story in the UK Guardian, people are beginning to play around with the data.
JUST IMAGINE WHAT THIS MEANS!
Not country and western enough... fork!
Copyright issues on logos... fork!
Can't resize video screen... FORK!
Though I think in the music business they call them re-mixes / mashups.
3 Radiohead, they're like the anti-Metallica :)
Radiohead is making some fantastic steps for the open source community, now if they only go back 10 years and start putting out good music again....
Considering they've already issued a press release that they won't be doing the pay your own thing again, (it was just a publicity stunt), I'm thinking this is exactly the same. Just a way for a bunch of old rockers to get some notice. I'll ignore it - if their efforts were genuine support for open source, that'd be one thing. But they're not.
http://www.somethingawful.com/d/your-band-sucks/radiohead-sucks.php I always enjoy it when other people wittily smash other people! Thats entertainment.
"It's ok, I'm completely secure as long as my iron is off"
Exactly. I can't stand country music, but for whatever reason some people continue to listen to it. I don't understand why they don't consult with me first so I can tell them what music is good and what's bad.
Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
If it is not BY (think BSD) or BY-SA (think GPL) then the analogy is wrong...
BY-ND? No derivatives?
BY-NC, BY-NC-SA, BY-NC-ND? Cant use for commercial purposes... not close to what Free Software or Open Source Software is all about. I looked for an indication of the license but could not find one.
Odd that. I will look some more. Has anyone found what I have not?
all the best,
drew
FreeMusicPush If you want to see more Free Music made, listen to Free
They're just jealous because their videos aren't as good as those done by amateurs.
Exactly. I can't stand country music, but for whatever reason some people continue to listen to it. I don't understand why they don't consult with me first so I can tell them what music is good and what's bad.
Well that's a little extreme. I would prefer it if the bands just came to me and I'd give them a few pointers.
Sure, it's a publicity stunt, but I think it's pretty cool. Fits their electronic theme well, and just looks neat.
Nothing wrong with trying something new. Have you seen most of the other videos out there?
Constructive criticism FTW.
True right! It was only their first album that was any good. That one with Wonderwall on it!
http://code.google.com/creative/radiohead/
The video + making of + data explorer. Note, it can take a while for the data explorer to finish loading the video, but it's pretty fun to play with.
In Rainbows is a great album.
...between now and ten years ago.
Check out:
Kid A
Amnesiac
Hail to the Thief
In Rainbows
they're all excellent.
I suppose the double capitalisation in the first sentence balances the lack of initial caps in the second.
I rather like In Rainbows, it's quite a lot more accessible than Kid A / Amnesiac / Hail to the Thief. (The songs from the first two make more sense on the live mini-album "I Could Be Wrong". They'll never make another OK Computer, though, just as the Manics will never make another Holy Bible.
I have one more pointer to add - MORE COWBELL!!
too bad their music sucks now, so no one cares.
It's not like they have some purely altruistic, over-arching mission statement that forbids them to have any kind of publicity, do they? First and foremost, they want to make and sell music. Unlike many other artists, they also happen to express strong views on politics and economics, but those expressions wouldn't matter much without any amount of publicity. The way they distributed and marketed "In Rainbows" was INTENDED as a strong statement (a publicity stunt, if you will) on the business model of the big labels, a proof that success in this business is possible without them. Even if they don't repeat this exact method of distribution with their next album(s), I'd be truly shocked to learn that they want to rebuild the bridge they have nuked in word and deed.
The grass is always greener on the other side of the light cone.
I was 15. And back then they called it the Spice Channel...
Really. Did I miss something? Other than the actual methods of gathering the data, which we don't get, they're just animating and plotting 3D points like the old java examples that plot an arbitrary data file of 3D points.
Check out http://cashmusic.org/ It was founded by Kristin Hersh from the Throwing Muses. It's a pretty good concept for a site where artists can share their work in an open source way.
I rather like In Rainbows, it's quite a lot more accessible than Kid A / Amnesiac / Hail to the Thief.
Too bad their audience hates accessible music.
I think this may refer to Radiohead's extreme aversion to doing anything that could be considered remotely "popular."
For some reason, they were upset by the success of OK Computer, and dove off the edge, into stranger, more experimental territory, where the music has to be more "appreciated" than "enjoyed."
This is a shame, because they're amazing in their moments of brilliance, and incredibly talented musicians. However, their latest stuff just seems a bit too pretentious to be palatable.
-- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
Didn't the Counting Crows already do this with their new cd? You can download raw footage from their studio sessions and use it to make a video for their single.
by typing <
Wow!!
And how did you manage to type that?
When I type the same, it keeps showing as < . You seem to be always a step ahead. You are something, man.
Radiohead is the most important rock band in the last 10 years, and not because of their pay-what-you-want and open-source-music-video ideas, but because of their great music.
They will be in the music history books 100 years from now.
Their music is not easily accessible, it takes 10-20 listenings before you get it, but after that it just keeps growing on you. And it never gets old, like so much music does. Truly the mark of a classic.
Try starting with bluegrass. Any real music lover can appreciate the virtuosity and songcraft of Bill Monroe. Then broaden your horizons a bit, try some Jimmie Rodgers or Doc Watson. There's definitely good country, they just don't play it on the radio.
I think Waylon Jennings said "Garth Brooks did for country music what panty hose did for finger fucking."
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Really? I think In Rainbows is Radiohead's most accessible album (besides The Bends) to date. I wouldn't be afraid of playing "15 Step" or "Jigsaw Falling Into Place" to my parents, whose musical tastes aren't exactly broad.
Couldn't stand Kid A though... I mean I guess there was something there to be appreciated, but like you said, I really didn't enjoy it. I don't get why there's all this need for "experimental" albums... why do people think they have to create the weirdest possible stuff to be given good album reviews??
Unlike the Radiohead music our music is released via creative commons. Free even for commercial uses. http://www.politicsapocalypse.com/ I agree this is a cool thing to do but Radiohead charge people to download the sources to remix their album, they have said that the preferred way of listening is to buy the CD - not the mp3s, etc etc... Check out bands such as Nine Inch Nails to see a way of making $ while being nice to the fans.
They are using LIDAR to gather the field data, which while it may not seem visually impressive, it is a technology used in GIS but usually from airplanes. Then data returns on those lasers supply very useful (and huge data sizes) data that can be used for a wide variety of scientific purposes. Google it, it's cool stuff. You'll be hearing a lot more about realtime LIDAR in the future (think Big Brother and drones).
Agreed, I love all thier albums, including In Rainbows.
I saw them live just a month or so ago, and they were great, the light show was pretty new and really awsome.
It's a clear case of using open source as a buzz word to get publicity, and /. has fallen nicely for it.
MP3 Search Engine
OK, maybe I didn't make myself clear. The gathering of the data is cool. But nothing they've released is going to help you use LIDAR technology. They released a set of data files of 3D points and some routines to display it and animate it, right?
Look at the stage 2 submissions as well - there are some cool videos that didn't make it to the finals.
In what possible way could they have given away this data that would make you think it was not solely a publicity stunt?
What is wrong with them wanting attention or wanting to sell music anyway? Radiohead and Nine Inch Nails are actually *doing* something, in different capacities to change the music industry.
Would you have a problem if Lame Garage Band from down the street did this for attention, or does the fact that Radiohead is famous affect your decision?
Also, making some data file CC has almost nothing to do with open source.
So let me get this straight: Radiohead sells 1 million albums and each member gets what? 200k? (How many members are there again?) 200k for a platinum-selling album? And assuming people were only paying $16 a CD the label grosses $15 million from that same album? Great Jebus that is lopsided. And here I thought indentured servitude had gone out of style.
Scratch that last sentence, I didn't notice you agreed with me there.
Have you got sheet music for this stuff?
No mod points, no meta-moderating/Firehose/all the other free work Slashdot wants me to do.
Maybe they're not trying to get good album reviews, just make an album they like. There's more to music than the 4 minute pop radio format. Kid A is perfect atmospheric mood music. If you're giving it your full attention, you're doing it wrong.
It's not even correct to call Kid A "experimental", they knew exactly what they were doing, and succeeded.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
One of the most impressive implementations I've seen using Javascript and Canvas: http://www.nihilogic.dk/labs/radiohead-meets-javascript/
If you're finished spamming Slashdot about your garage band now, can you go make its website NOT look like a 12-year old's MySpace page? Thanks!
It's not as though this would have been possible without the recording industry propelling them to stardom. Nobody would even know who Radiohead is, much less care about their dot matrix music video (which they probably couldn't have afforded.)
It's easy for them to go against the music industry now that they got what they needed out of it: brand recognition.
Move all sig!
It would appear that Radiohead is attempting to co-opt 'open source' for their own commercial gain, not unlike the RIAA co-opting 'art' for their own commercial gain. All capitalism is about conflating feelings/values/experiences with a consumable good, though, so it can't really be held against either of them.
It's a clear case of using open source as a buzz word to get publicity, and /. has fallen nicely for it.
well, they're encouraging the download of the open source "Processing" development environment, under the GPL, in order for others to play with Radiohead's free data. Sounds pretty open source to me.
oO0Oo
Ozzy Osbourne did something like this last year. The video for Never Going To Stop was shot on green screen and the data was uploaded for the fans for play with. Than there was a contest to see who could make the best video, and that became the official video.
Radiohead is not distributing a single byte of code, open source or otherwise. They are giving out a dataset that you can use to play with using other software, which in fact is open source.
In other words, the summary title 'radiohead open sources music video' is absolutely misleading, there is no such thing as an 'open source music video', and radiohead didn't make one.
They made a music video using some artsy 3d scanner and then converted that to a format that allows you to view it in some open source viewer / analyzer.
It's a promotional gimmick, nothing else. It could have been pink elephants and it would have been just as relevant (not at all) to open source.
The better title would have read 'radiohead releases data you can play with using open source software', that at least would have been correct.
MP3 Search Engine
Whether it's a ploy to suck in ./-ers or not, I think the video simply looks fucking awesome. I suppose that's not surprising, though, seeing as I'm a longtime Radiohead fan. I'm quite impressed in any case.
I see your point. But upon further inspection, it would appear that Radiohead are not touting this project as open source. The Ostatic article that the OP linked to IS. At least I don't see any mention of open source on their Google code page. Maybe they're publicizing it as such somewhere else?
oO0Oo
it's pretty much all over the web:
http://www.techradar.com/news/internet/radiohead-embrace-open-source-426545
They're all quoting some radiohead press release that I've yet to find, until then apologies are in order.
So, sorry for jumping the gun and not checking the press release first, but I just can't find the thing. I expect when - if - I do find it that we'll find that all those news articles that are out there will quote the press release word for word.
MP3 Search Engine
Kid A and Amnesiac may well be slightly "pretentious", but they're good experimental music albums. If you're willing to listen to what's basically Miles Davis' Bitches Brew, David Bowie's Low and Aphex Twin mashed up together, then they're a rewarding listen.
In Rainbows and Hail To The Thief however could hardly be considered pretentious, though. Hail To The Thief is, for the most part, straightforward alt rock (even if with some eclectic electronica in places) and In Rainbows is, as a sibling comment said, extremely accessible. The damn album has love songs on it, for christ's sake, and the last time they did one of those so straightforwardly was on Pablo Honey back in 1993.
I write bullshit
I played around with the data and came up with a couple of visualizations:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKlIZiy80K0&fmt=18
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZ0CAW53hqA
Pink Floyd wanted to innovate with their music. Radiohead wants to do the same thing, but they have the technology age to innovate an entire industry beyond the music. I just started listening to them, and they are great! As a Pink Floyd fan, it is easy to see the appeal. All of Radioheads albums are VERY different, but they share that common sound...Just like Pink Floyd. Put The Wall against Dark Side of the Moon, Wish you were here, Animals, Final Cut...etc. Each album was very different and innovative.
I disagree. Radiohead has never done anything that would prevent them from selling an outlandish number of records. First it would be completely futile to try and follow up OK Computer, and second having released an album often reviewed as "the album of the decade" gives tons of creative freedom in the studio. But, if you know Radiohead you know they test market their albums by playing the unfinished songs live before committing them to tape. When they start releasing albums with 25 minute improvisational jams, EPs of sound experiments, or something that has no pop/rock songs on it you can say they are feigning popularity. Has Radiohead ever released the ballet soundtrack they did?
New! Device Legs: These legs will help your poor OEM installed product escape any hamfistedness it may encounter. Ava
The way they distributed and marketed "In Rainbows" was INTENDED as a strong statement (a publicity stunt, if you will) on the business model of the big labels, a proof that success in this business is possible without them.
Well, I took it as a strong statement on the Radiohead's willingness to bait and switch their paying fans with lame 160 kbps files to pocket some extra cash and promote a traditional CD release.
Radiohead took my money and implied I'd get something at least CD quality. 160 kpbs was a cop out and a really dick move to their fans. At the very least they should be ashamed.
Radiohead is once again pushing forward
Even as a devout fan of Radiohead's music, I'm sick of the press pushing this line. Radiohead let people download their album for free. Could someone point out where the innovation is? Thousands of bands did this before them.
What's more, people like me quite happily paid for the album because they thought this business model deserved to be supported. If the band can take all of my £10 instead of it going into the pockets of record execs, that's fine by me.
So I ended up with a crappy (128Kbit, badly encoded) version of the album, with no artwork or liner notes, which I'd paid full price for. Thom Yorke said afterwards that anyone who wanted the album would go out and buy the CD. I have no use for a piece of shiny plastic taking up space in my home, thanks all the same Thom.
When they then proceeded to charge people not once, but five times over, for the multitrack of their song and the privilege of doing them a remix, I pretty much lost faith.
I still love their music, they're one of my favourite bands of all time, but all their posturing about new business models sounds like empty rhetoric to me now.
Optional Payment is not free at all. It means that the music fan has been released from the typical pressured retail transaction that favors the seller. When people had a chance to listen to the CD a few times, settle into deciding they liked it, they then could pay out of respect, which they did.
It's a tricky model to run, but interesting.
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
Yeah, In Rainbows is extremely accessible. So was the album before that, Hail to the Thief. It seems the OP hasn't come out from their rock since Kid A/Amnesiac were released almost a decade ago.
And regarding Kid A/Amnesiac, they are certainly less accessible, but still quite enjoyable if you give them a chance. Kid A in particular took a few spins for me to get into. I don't think Radiohead were ever trying to be weird to impress the critics. In fact if you listen to any electronic music I don't think you'd even find it all that weird, it's just a long way from the grunge rock of Pablo Honey.
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
Yeah, there's some real good bluegrass. Also don't forget the outlaw country guys. Johnny Cash, Willie Nelson, Merle Haggard, Waylon Jennings.
Sadly Nashville and Pop country sucks so much it deters people from finding the real country.
BTW, I'd never heard that Jennings quote before. Fuckin' awesome.
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
I'm seeing them in August for the first time. Can't wait!
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
I don't get Radiohead. His voice grates the mind. When he gets high pitched, it ruins the song for me. I prefer Death Cab For Cutie, Lemon Demon or Kristin Hersh.
Anyone know where I might find some instrumental Radiohead songs? I've instrumentals of MUSE for the same reason.
Slashdot needs Geekcode | Can anyone recommend any good SCIFI? My tastes: Foundation, Startide Rising, CITY, Ringworld,