In Rainbows

danmacman

I'm interested in how many AIers actually paid for Radiohead's new In Rainbows release. Since I have never really listened to any of their work, I chose the free route.



I'd also be interested in other's thoughts on this approach to releasing music, i.e. sans label and leaving the price up to customers.

cake

$20.

New Radiohead music is well worth it.



IMO, simply because you aren't a Radiohead fan, I don't think that entitles you to free music.

I'm a recording engineer and I've experienced many times how much effort and time it takes to get a project completed.



Don't get me wrong, Radiohead will make lots of money by selling (or giving) their music directly to the consumer, but at least throw a couple of bucks their way.



And go to your favorite record store and get OK Computer right now!. It's a Radiohead masterpiece (although I also love Hail To the Thief and Amnesiac).

aslan^

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cake


IMO, simply because you aren't a Radiohead fan, I don't think that entitles you to free music.

So what's the deal with radio then?

splinemodel

I think it's only something like $1.50 required for them to make what they would from a single, traditional album sale. I have to hear it first. In my opinion, Radiohead ran out of steam somewhere in the middle of making Kid A. Yeah, they are always trying new things, which is admirable, but at the end of the day it's not often that special.



If I hear it, and decide to buy, I have already determined that I will pay $5. This is somewhere near the average cost I pay for CDs, as I buy mine exclusively on eBay.

cake

Quote:

Originally Posted by AsLan^


So what's the deal with radio then?

Radio=Listening

Downloading=Owning.



If you want to own something, the creator of that something should be fairly compensated.

If fair to you is 0¢, then that's great and I have no problem with you feeling that way, but for me personally, free isn't fair in this case.

giant

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cake


...I don't think that entitles you to free music.

The fact that they are offered for free indeed entitles anyone to these files for that price. As for "free music" in general, that's a whole other discussion.

aslan^

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cake


Radio=Listening

Downloading=Owning.



If you want to own something, the creator of that something should be fairly compensated.

If fair to you is 0¢, then that's great and I have no problem with you feeling that way, but for me personally, free isn't fair in this case.

Well, you never actually own the music do you, generally you own a physical medium and some kind of license to continue listening to the music.



To me downloading it for free and then never listening to it again is pretty much the same as hearing it on the radio.



However, I do agree that if you enjoy the music and wish to continue doing so then the artist is entitled to some remuneration, and I'd rather compensate the artist directly.



For the record, I have not heard or downloaded the new Radiohead album.

groverat

$4.00, which is probably double what they would see off a traditional sale.

outsider

I know someone who paid $1 a track. I haven't downloaded it yet but will sometime this week. If I likes, I will kick over $5, which I think is fair.

dutch pear

I paid 5£ for it. Totally worth it! Great album that is really growing on me after the first few listenings. Back to old school OK computer style, less experimental and also a bit more laid back sounding. Me likes

groverat

Good stuff, definitely unlike Hail to the Thief experimental-rockin'. I wouldn't say it is like OK Computer; it sounds more like a collection of mellow Kid A B-sides.