Radiohead Say No More Music Freebies

It was a pivotal moment for the music industry which many thought sounded the death knell for recorded music sales, but Radiohead won't be repeating its initiative to let fans pay what they want for their downloads, The English rock band's frontman said Tuesday.

"I think it was a one-off response to a particular situation, " Thom Yorke said of the band's decision last October to let viewers pay what they wanted for digital downloads of the new album "In Rainbows."

"Yes. It was a one-off in terms of a story. It was one of those things where we were in the position of everyone asking us what we were going to do. I don't think it would have the same significance now anyway, if we chose to give something away again. It was a moment in time, " Yorke told the Hollywood Reporter.

Radiohead's decision to allow fans to pay into the online equivalent of an honesty box for the album came shortly after it walked away from troubled record label EMI, sparking acres of comment about the future direction of the music industry and the dwindling revenue pot from CD sales.

The band has remained quiet about whether the experiment was a success, with many fans thought to have downloaded the album without paying anything at all. "In Rainbows" was later released conventionally as a CD, and topped the U.S. and U.K. charts.

The groundbreaking move towards potentially free music has been adopted by a number of artists including Prince and Nine Inch Nails. Most recently fellow English rockers Coldplay said Monday that they would give away its new single "Violet Hill" free of charge, resulting in the group's Web site crashing the next day due to demand.

Thanks for the info to Yahoo! News.

Comments

[asterisk_corpse]

its ok. i never liked radiohead much anyhow

[stradivari310]

I think it was a great idea.. they're helping with a clever movement of free music. Yet another one of their brilliant ideas.

[AvengedThrice]

The whole free album experiment was just for publicity purposes anyway.

[ginjaninja]

hmmm....

who knows? by their next album, perhaps the cd will be dead?

well probably not that soon.

but it will die soon.

cassette replaced radio, cd replaced cassette, soon will be the time for mp3 to rise!


p.s. IMO radiohead kinda went bad after "the bends", great album that one.

[Kai07]

great I dea, really. But its good that they only did it once. It might become overused and stuff. :3 Cheers to them though

[Red33]

Wow, didn't make enough money?
Well at least they got attention...

[jshwak]

Coldplay said Monday that they would give away its new single "Violet Hill" free of charge, resulting in the group's Web site crashing the next day due to demand.

their website couldn't handle all 100 fans ?? :-D

[Grouch]

after the bends?! thats OK COMPUTER!! alright each to their own, i think they just get better and better but my favourites ok computer. and errr i didnt expect them to give any more stuff away really, it was a good idea at the time but they shouldnt overdo it.

[screwup30]

Red33 wrote:

Wow, didn't make enough money?

after the success of the bends and ok computer I doubt that Radiohead need or want any more money..

its always been about the music with them

[Grouch]

Red33 wrote:

Wow, didn't make enough money?
Well at least they got attention...

it made more money than any other of their albums, funnily enough

[Red33]

screwup30 wrote:

Red33 wrote:

Wow, didn't make enough money?


after the success of the bends and ok computer I doubt that Radiohead need or want any more money..

its always been about the music with them

Then why not continue to use the same system?

[ElThomas]

it was actually a great idea. but thom's rite. it wouldnt be the same if they ever did it again. anyway. radiohead freakin rocks. id pay 15 bucks for their next album

[AnimatedHand]

It was a great i dea, but i kinda knew that it wasnt gonna be repeated by them

[chowding]

i downloaded it without paying....and then bought the cd when it was released. i think it was a good idea, cos if people like it they'll generally pay anyway, as shown by the fact they topped the charts.

[Nerdo-sez-bo]

ginjaninja wrote:

hmmm....

who knows? by their next album, perhaps the cd will be dead?

well probably not that soon.

but it will die soon.

cassette replaced radio, cd replaced cassette, soon will be the time for mp3 to rise!


p.s. IMO radiohead kinda went bad after "the bends", great album that one.

what about vinyl? >_>

[HerrMagnum]

AvengedThrice wrote:

The whole free album experiment was just for publicity purposes anyway.

I agree, it seems like Radiohead just did it for publicity more than anything and to be credited as 'innovators'. And now that everyone calls selling/giving away music online without a record label "A Radiohead" everyone will attribute this time in music to Radiohead, which I frankly believe is a bunch of bull.

[smittyclk]

stradivari310 wrote:

I think it was a great idea.. they're helping with a clever movement of free music. Yet another one of their brilliant ideas.

People need to realize that not everything radiohead does is brilliant. there is a big difference between trying to move the industry in a new direction, and a new marketing gimmick. According to radiohead's manager: "If we didn't believe that when people hear the music they will want to buy the CD then we wouldn't do what we are doing."
http://www.demonbaby.com/blog/2007/10/when-pigs-fly-death- of-oink-birth-of.html

[delmarindy]

jshwak wrote:

Coldplay said Monday that they would give away its new single "Violet Hill" free of charge, resulting in the group's Web site crashing the next day due to demand. their website couldn't handle all 100 fans ?? :-D

Try millions of fans, jackass

[Harry Krishner]

No big deal really.

[Vermilion755]

Why pay? Bands should break away from their labels and put out their own albums and make money off of their shows.

[xXx Hobbes xXx]

Beatles of our generation. Listen to their transformation from album to album, truly amazing.

I'm a die-hard metal fan, but these guys are simply amazing, their production skills and three guitar attack make this my favorite group...even above Pantera!

[xXx Hobbes xXx]

We metal-heads are too cynical. Read these posts in this forum, how can people sit here and say they did this for a publicity stunt? Do you really think that they expected this concept to make such a huge impact?

Do you guys really think that they wanted to be referred to as "pulling a Radiohead"? No. Radiohead is just smarter than the average bear, give them credit people.

[Blades Rules!!!]

The only reason this experiment had even moderate success is because Radiohead has exactly the right kind of retarded fanbase. Their fans would blindly follow them no matter how much shittier their music gets...though it's been getting worse for a decade. The kids get their self-righteous satisfaction from offering up $ to the band they worship, and Radiohead gets to laugh about their ongoing social experiment (the one where they actively try to make the opposite of music, just to see if the lemmings out there will still buy it anyway and call it 'brilliant'...its like an Andy Kaufman joke, and it's on all of you).

[mulletman500]

Publicity much? The Crimea and were giving theirs away completely free ages before, and The Charlatans' latest album is also free.

[recliner33]

All the people who decided to pay zero dollars for the last album were probably going to download it illegally anyways, so it was a smart idea. And also, like what people were mentioning before, some downloaded it for free and liked it then went out and got the cd when it came out. It was a good idea, but it wouldn't have the same effect or impact if they did it for all their future albums. Sure you can say they did this just for publicity, but it also opened up new ideas for the music business. This was one of the most talked about things last year in music and more people had access to radioheads music, so it's a big win for them.

[Me2NiK]

I can't believe people haven't realised that Radiohead wasn't trying to innovate anything, they were merely doing it as a marketing gimmick. I don't hate Radiohead (I like a handful of their songs and I paid $6 for In Rainbows - $2 for every track on the album I liked), I just hate their damn fans.

[Nightwatchman10]

i thought it was a good idea, but its good decision for them to say theyre not doing it again

[scottss7]

yeah, little side note to radiohead fans - watch "down is the new up" from the b-sides of in rainbows. It wasn't available for free download but it's absolutely beautiful

[dieloony2]

I could have sworn it was reported how much they made, and that it was a fortune... same with nine inch nails

[blackflag49]

ZOMG, where'd the innovation go..

It was all a gimmick for them.

You want someone who actually MEANS what they say and do, when it comes to changing the music industry?

Trent Reznor.

[blackflag49]

And LOL @ their cop-out excuse.

"It was a moment in time."

[Surfer Rosa]

man I hate music fans

[Gouged]

Just wow.

Could you people just chill out?

Look, Radiohead did something new, and they benefited from it. If you've even glanced and bothered to remember what the last articles said, Radiohead made huge amounts of money off In Rainbows.

Why aren't they doing it again? I don't really know, and we don't really know. So stop shit talking on them just because you think they're jumping out now. On the day of release, In Rainbows sold 1.2 million copies online. Amazingly, on the CD's release, it sold (CD's and Box Sets) more than the online releases by far.

I don't care about opinions here, but if you're going to accuse any band of being fake, not believing in what they do, or trying to be "innovators" or make gimmicks, then that's messed.

[xXx Hobbes xXx]

wow, I almost miss the Green Day bashing. Now everyone's focused on one of my all-time favs. Bastards.

[Black Revolver]

i heard that over half of the downloaders for the album didnt pay anythin

[One Inch Man]

AvengedThrice wrote:

The whole free album experiment was just for publicity purposes anyway.

and they made it well! i didn't listen to radiohead much before. but then i got the record and now i love them and bought their other records

[sowhat360]

I'd say their first couple albums were good but lately I think they are WAY overrated. In Rainbows was pretty lackluster in my opinion. I don't really see the great musicianship in that album that I saw in their earlier work.

[Korzack]

Even if they did benefit a lot in terms of PR, they got substantially ripped-off by the hordes of folk who got it for free

[TexasFury]

you can't steal something given for free

[Hazen Zero]

I honestly don't care what Radiohead charges for their album. I'll still buy it. I think the pay-what-you-want idea was a great one, but they never said it would be regular for all their albums.

[alexanderjames7]

Surfer Rosa wrote:

man I hate music fans

well said. it's amazing that people can turn a generous act from a band around into a self-absorbed publicity stunt. why is there so much debate over this? that may not have been what you meant but whatever.

[cloudy_skies]

smittyclk wrote:
People need to realize that not everything radiohead does is brilliant. there is a big difference between trying to move the industry in a new direction, and a new marketing gimmick.

It was a brilliant marketing gimmick. Radiohead were out of the spotlight for some time, and the casual fans were looking for another album with the same success and impact of OK Computer. But the band's hardcore fanbase (which probably numbers in the millions) is loyal and borderline obsessed. What better way to become a household name again than to release an album the way they did? IMO, In Rainbows is an amazing album and I'm just glad that so many people got to listen to it.

[frottage]

i don't like them at all, so it doesn't matter to me.

[Seattle_sound35]

they probably just lost a lot of money...
but it was a good cd

[Dallinisrad]

well duh! whos the idiot who posted this as news? whos the idiot that thot they would do it on all their next albums?! they just did it because of their situation at the time. and actually seattle sound, they gots lots of money. some peoploe paid in small amounts or nothing, but there were crazy fans who paid hundreds of dollars for it. it actually made tons of money.

[paul_brownell]

never "got" radiohead, not deep enough to warrant how depressing it is

[pinkhaze29]

blackflag49 wrote:

And LOL @ their cop-out excuse.

"It was a moment in time."

...
Seriously...
*facepalm*

[Moozze]

I bought in rainbows on CD anyway...

[Zenith Lead]

this was a good publicity stunt. Anyone goes for free (kinda free) music. if they like the album/band then they'll want the next album. So radiohead puts a price on the next one and people who liked the free stuff will go for the priced one too.

[Red33]

blackflag49 wrote:

ZOMG, where'd the innovation go..

It was all a gimmick for them.

You want someone who actually MEANS what they say and do, when it comes to changing the music industry?

Trent Reznor.

EXACTLY

[Zenith Lead]

frottage wrote:

i don't like them at all, so it doesn't matter to me.

then why did you come to radiohead titled news?

[DarkHarmonix]

For anyone who thinks Radiohead was being innovative, you are fool. People have been distributing their music for free online way before them. They just picked a time in the midst of all the RIAA cases and the hot topic of P2P music sharing and decided to freely distribute their music online to gain buzz. He says "I don't think it would have the same significance now anyway, if we chose to give something away again. It was a moment in time" Which can be translated to say "It was a great marketing tool, but if we did it again it wouldn't be groundbreaking or buzzworthy. It wasn't about changing anything. It was about getting our name in the papers and on the streets for being edgy and new. It worked. Now we are done." In Rainbows is another example of an alblum that was strongly driven by something other than its content. The actual alblum isn't that great musically. A lot of people seem to love the idea of a free or pay what you want album more than recording itself. Radiohead does have some good stuff out there, but this isn't it.

[jahyarain]

xXx Hobbes xXx wrote:

wow, I almost miss the Green Day bashing. Now everyone's focused on one of my all-time favs. Bastards.

sorry, dude. you're just gonna have 2 come 2 terms with the fact that you're the only metalhead left on this planet that appreciates talent over distortion.

speaking of distortion, all u kiddies who keep on about marketing and money should have kept your cursor away from this link. these guys don't need (or want) more money. so, don't get any big ideas. they're not gonna happen...

[Oguchi Onyewu]

who cares radiohead is the best.

id give anything to have the musical talent of johnny greenwood. Probably one of the best musicians of our time

[shoopdawhoop]

screwup30 wrote:

Red33 wrote:

Wow, didn't make enough money?


after the success of the bends and ok computer I doubt that Radiohead need or want any more money..

its always been about the music with them

then how come i had to pay almost £50 for a ticket to see them?

[deknisely]

i think it was a pretty bad idea in the first place, profit wise. Otherwise, it was a great idea. Mp3 should definitely become the new standard for releasing albums. I can almost imagine buying these little things that look like flashdrives at the record store, that hold whole albums, and possibly pictures on them. They'd probably be pretty cheap too. And cheap is always good. =]

[deknisely]

oh, and by saying it was a bad idea, i meant that it was a bad idea to release them over just the internet. Although the internet is becoming more and more used, there are still alot of music lovers who don't use the internet, or aren't allowed to, or so on. They SHOULD make the mp3s available at music stores somehow.

[FleshCanoe]

"Thom Yorke said of the band's decision last October to let viewers pay what they wanted for digital downloads of the new album "In Rainbows.""

It's not TV guys. "listeners", would be the proper term.

[nordicskiah]

Nerdo-sez-bo wrote:

ginjaninja wrote:
cassette replaced radio, cd replaced cassette, soon will be the time for mp3 to rise!

RADIO WILL NEVER DIE BWAHAHAHA

[tbarrettl]

paul_brownell wrote:

never "got" radiohead, not deep enough to warrant how depressing it is

whatever you say, I think you may be describing Amnesiac though I would even consider that quite deep

[MTVget0FFtheAIR]

i'm too materialistic anyway. i like to have the case and booklet and all that good stuff. also, i very rarely spend money on the internet: no pay pal, no credit card.

[deknisely]

MTVgetOFFtheAIR I love your name. High five!

[Oguchi Onyewu]

shoopdawhoop wrote:

screwup30 wrote:

Red33 wrote:

Wow, didn't make enough money?


after the success of the bends and ok computer I doubt that Radiohead need or want any more money..

its always been about the music with them
then how come i had to pay almost £50 for a ticket to see them?

because people will pay anything too see them.

[ronsonol004]

mulletman500 wrote:

Publicity much? The Crimea and were giving theirs away completely free ages before, and The Charlatans' latest album is also free.

this was the first time a huge, mainstream band had tried to pull this off.
its a completely different situation.
and you didnt say that they let the fans pick the price. you said they released it free.
those are two completely different things.

checked.

Radiohead never said it was about changing things. They have even said that in interviews.

[GoWithTheFlow]

everything was less than ok after ok computers. until in rainbows its a great album.

[Cutlass_253]

deknisely wrote:

i think it was a pretty bad idea in the first place, profit wise. Otherwise, it was a great idea. Mp3 should definitely become the new standard for releasing albums. I can almost imagine buying these little things that look like flashdrives at the record store, that hold whole albums, and possibly pictures on them. They'd probably be pretty cheap too. And cheap is always good. =]

Actually...that sounds that a really kool idea. I'd never completely forsake some sort of physical copy of my music (I hate iTunes), but that would probably work really well. Except Mp3 shouldn't be the standard. Too inefficient size vs. quality wise.

[johnyfacemelter]

they could stop playing, that would be free....

[AceDauntless]

Anyone find it ironic that radiohead is stopping this as soon as Metallica might start doing it?

[theDOORS123]

i think they are absolutly amazing. a beautiful band.

[regrets&romance]

blackflag49 wrote:

ZOMG, where'd the innovation go..

It was all a gimmick for them.

You want someone who actually MEANS what they say and do, when it comes to changing the music industry?

Trent Reznor.

HA, trent reznor, compared to thom yorke.

[punkrocker10115]

Who cares the album sucked anyway.

It was all a scheme to make money in the first place.

[MmmCesium]

Radiohead may say no more free music, but BitTorrent disagrees.

[whitesummer527]

I hear ya man, i hear ya.

[Havenspear]

Why would the need to now, with a label again? It was a good idea, and I'm pretty sure it worked out financially. Let's just hope their next release doesn't take as long to come out.

[wildchild6660]

ginjaninja wrote:

hmmm....

who knows? by their next album, perhaps the cd will be dead?

well probably not that soon.

but it will die soon.

cassette replaced radio, cd replaced cassette, soon will be the time for mp3 to rise!


p.s. IMO radiohead kinda went bad after "the bends", great album that one.

No, I don't think so. There will always be some form os solid data storage.

Checked.

[nateman_30]

marijuana + radiohead = brilliant

[SL!!!]

ginjaninja wrote:

hmmm....

who knows? by their next album, perhaps the cd will be dead?

well probably not that soon.

but it will die soon.

cassette replaced radio, cd replaced cassette, soon will be the time for mp3 to rise!


p.s. IMO radiohead kinda went bad after "the bends", great album that one.

mp3s will never replace hard copies. People like the physical quality of owning a cd or record, and it is much easier to keep for a long amount of time without risking losing it; plus you get artwork etc. etc.

[Lauri]

nateman_30 wrote:

marijuana + radiohead = brilliant

Marijuana + anything = brilliant

[freedoms_stain]

I kind of hoped the "pay what you want" system would live on.

Not just because I'm cheap, but because it allows bands to actually make money off their own records instead of lining the pockets of business men who don't care about the art as long as it sells.

[face_haver]

Anyone saying they didn't make money knows nothing about record contracts. Most bands only make less than $1 royalty off of each $20-30 CD sold (australian), and that's after they pay back their record company for the recording (thousands of dollars) . They would have got most of the profits from their album, as they released it themselves.

[dann_blood]

I think that the idea was a good one for Radiohead, but it would be horrible for the music industry. It's great that all the massive bands are doing it, all the groups with huge fan bases, but how are up and coming bands going to fare?
People will just begin to expect to either get free music or pay what they want for it, if the record companies aren't making money, who's going to pay for the band's expenses?

[UNIe]

Hm. Maybe the record labels should reform to making only the booklets for bands' albums and selling them without any music (music could be sold or given away from band's site as mp3s). The prices of the booklets would be low, but maybe the industry would at least survive, because CDs will eventually be history, like cassettes and vinyls. And booklets are one the main things why people still buy albums. Just my two cents here...

[fitter.happier.]

thom yorke's little way of saying "we made a f***up"

[nanaya]

All these comments just proves you can't please everybody.

Man, I hate music fans.

[C-k-y]

I don't want to rain on some parade or anything... But doesn't everyone here realize they're arguing about... Someone else's actions...? I probably don't know what I'm talking about, but like Radiohead or not... Who cares? Arguing on this page isn't going to change what they did with their newest album... So I don't understand what the purpose of arguing here is... Just my opinion.

[C-k-y]

ps, I do really like Radiohead