Page 1 of 2
#1
Okay, I didn't want to put this right into the Radiohead thread because I think it speaks to the larger idea behind their new release, and especially it's effects on other smaller bands. anyway, read this news article from NME: http://www.nme.com/news/lily-allen/32533

Lily Allen is trying to make a point that Radiohead is arrogant in their decision to release their new album for free because. One reason is she states that they devalue their music and can do well enough by touring alone, etc. Anyway, the argument seemed a bit weird to me because A.) I love Radiohead and B.) I saw their decision to release the album as kind of a noble experiment in how people value their music.

Anyway, what do you guys think? Do you think some smaller indie/alt bands will be effected by Radiohead's experiment, as Lily Allen states?
Current Rig:
Fender CS Eric Clapton Strat
Fender '65 Twin Reverb Reissue
Digitech Crossroads Pedal

In the stereo: The Rolling Stones - Let It Bleed
#2
when lilly allen gains sense i shall count her oppinion
Quote by Atomic48
Nothing's impossible if you have the proper artillery.


Quote by Prole
In-depth common sense, at your service.


I Witnessed The Glory Of GORHL!

"It all shall fall, by the grace of the people." - ZDLR in Producer.
#3
i think she's right

although bands should be allowed to do whatever the hell they want
#4
they are both poor bands/singers radiohead cant even sell their music let alone give it away

#5
Quote by beeboshain
they are both poor bands/singers radiohead cant even sell their music let alone give it away



what?

radiohead?


Poor?

one of the biggest selling british acts of all time.
#6
Quote by beeboshain
they are both poor bands/singers radiohead cant even sell their music let alone give it away




Pablo Honey: Platinum
The Bends: Platinum
OK Computer: Triple Platinum
Kid A: Platinum on first week of sale.
Amnesiac: Platinum, as far as I know
Hail To The Thief: Platinum AFAIK.
In Rainbows: Total sales/units shifted unknown.

Edit:

Lilly Allen: "You don't choose to pay for eggs, why should it be that way for music?"

Most farmers get paid what they charge for their goddamn eggs, you dumb slag. Most musicians get probably less than ten percent (usually less) of what they charge for their albums.

Besides, it isn't devaluing music. They're not forcing her to release her albums for free... though in my opinion, she ought to be paying us to take them.
And yet, to me, what is this quintessence of dust? Man delights not me: no, nor woman neither... nor women neither.
Last edited by Caustic at Nov 15, 2007,
#7
It was reported the week after In Rainbows was released that there were 1.2 million downloads of it, not counting the number of boxsets bought.


I like Lily Allen, she can be pretty.
Friends, applaud the comedy is over.


I'd dance with you but...


#8
Who does that poppy chav skank think she is? I'd like to see her write an album. I'm not the biggest Radiohead fan, but I feel kind of violated as a musician.
Quote by lizarday
oh yeah? well larry king the slayer guitarist owns bc rich guitars. (i think)
#9
I really don't think its that big of a deal. Its their music they have the right to do whatever the want with it. They're not the first band to just give away their music for free. It shouldn't be a big deal just because they're more famous. so 'wah'.
#13
Woot woot, I thought it would have been sooner before I started to get bashed for making this topic!

Listen folks, this isn't a fan letter or me saying NO ONE **** WITH RADIOHEAD! This is merely opening a discussion about another musician's interpretation of RH's delivery of the new album. Allen's comments went against a lot of what I had heard/read about bands agreeing with RH and shooting to do a similar release. However, since a lot of discussion comes up on here about smaller bands, indie labels, etc, I wanted to see if anyone took Allen's comments as being applicable.

So please, let's keep it real, let's keep it funky, and let's keep it focused. Remember, this is a DISCUSSION, and last time I checked, that was still okay?

But I digress for more pertinent issues... Honestly, I saw Radiohead's release as an efficient way to distribute the album without "leaked copies" and all that bs. We'll be waiting a bit longer before true numbers come out, so can't really make a call about it's financial success. I just don't see how it effects smaller bands though, in fact I would think it could help smaller bands by setting an example for more releases online and cutting out the middleman record label, which a lot of local bands are doing already.
Current Rig:
Fender CS Eric Clapton Strat
Fender '65 Twin Reverb Reissue
Digitech Crossroads Pedal

In the stereo: The Rolling Stones - Let It Bleed
Last edited by hippyskier at Nov 15, 2007,
#14
to be honest, her argument does not make sense.

she says radiohead are 'arrogant' to not charge fans for the new album (although okay yes you can pay for it, but y'know that's not the point)... WTF. i fail to see how this makes radiohead 'arrogant'.

sure, i suppose it could be taken in the "we're so rich we don't need money from another album!!!" way, but that could only be accepted as a valid argument if radiohead thus said "yo we don't need more money so we're retiring from musik, laters!" they're still out there making the music. they don't need the money for the album sales, they could probably make do without profits from tours as well. but that's another story.

i'm not a greaaattt radiohead fan, but i think it's amazing what they've done. how is it arrogant to give something back to fans?

Quote by NME
She reportedly said she thinks it was unfair for the millionaires to devaluate recorded music

it's their music, they can do what they like with it, IMO.

ps. lily allen is a skank.
Quote by Kensai
Maybe you've heard what the ladies say: "Once you go 77mm you don't go back"
Last edited by jallas at Nov 15, 2007,
#16
What the **** has Lily Allen done for music anyway?

I'm no Radiohead fan, but I respect them a lot more than Lily Allen. They keep moving in new directions and constantly try exciting and challenging things, both musicially and (obviously) practically. All Lily Allen does is making ridiculous statements like this one.
#18
poor little rich girl, her false morals from slumming it are angry!
#19
I stopped reading when you mentioned NME, because it really is just a tabloid for crappy bands (see this thread).

But allllll this aside, when it comes down to it, the music from the new album is just awesome. I think that is the main thing in all of this.

Lily Allen gets no respect from me anyways, regardless of what rubbish she spews in the NME.
there is no fear in this heart.



Quote by ETHANEVIL
How am I being or trying to be fabulous/glamorous?



#20
Quote by hippyskier
This is merely opening a discussion about another musician's interpretation of RH's delivery of the new album.


then do so in the radiohead thread, that's what it's there for.

Quote by the_astronaut
I stopped reading when you mentioned NME, because it really is just a tabloid for crappy bands (see this thread).


hear hear
#21
Quote by Child In Time
I would have sex with Lily Allen.


dude thats disgusting! you'd be safer having sex with a walrus
#22
I like how Radiohead released In Rainbows. Sure there are drawbacks, but a few of the higher record industry execs will have **** their pants at what they saw.

It was a bold move, Radiohead could have gone and got another deal, put out their album in the usual way, but decided to do something different. So, not for the first time, I disagree with something Lily Allen has said.
Last edited by Abe at Nov 15, 2007,
#23
Quote by starsnostars
then do so in the radiohead thread, that's what it's there for.


lol, no no. I don't think you understand the point of this post. This is to discuss the idea of releasing an album for name-your-price download on the web and its effect on other bands/the industry/small labels/etc. Thus, for me to post it in the Radiohead thread would isolate it to people that look in there that (most likely) listen to Radiohead. I made the post on here because the idea behind Allen's comment is beyond Radiohead... It is a criticism on the way the album was released, which could be the way other bands start doing things. Therefore, if you don't like Radiohead, just ignore the comments regarding RH and discuss the main idea thats being discussed here.

Okay, hopefully I explained myself fully. Abe, good point.. I was thinking the same thing regarding music execs seeing such a popular band release independently and make such a splash.
Current Rig:
Fender CS Eric Clapton Strat
Fender '65 Twin Reverb Reissue
Digitech Crossroads Pedal

In the stereo: The Rolling Stones - Let It Bleed
#24
Quote by hippyskier
lol, no no. I don't think you understand the point of this post. This is to discuss the idea of releasing an album for name-your-price download on the web and its effect on other bands/the industry/small labels/etc. Thus, for me to post it in the Radiohead thread would isolate it to people that look in there that (most likely) listen to Radiohead.


lol. then you could have come up with a better title then:

Lily Allen Bashes Radiohead!?

since that seems to isolate your readers right there.

and they didn't release the album like that to make a bold statement, they did it because it was the fastest way to get it to the fans. read up kids.
Last edited by starsnostars at Nov 15, 2007,
#25
Quote by Heat-13
although bands should be allowed to do whatever the hell they want


Then they shouldn't sign to a record label where they know how they'll get treated...

Quote by Caustic
Lilly Allen: "You don't choose to pay for eggs, why should it be that way for music?"

Most farmers get paid what they charge for their goddamn eggs, you dumb slag. Most musicians get probably less than ten percent (usually less) of what they charge for their albums.


Most farmers get told how much they can have for their eggs by supermarkets, so you've picked the wrong thing to argue with there. Farmers struggle as much as musicians on the amount they get for meat let alone eggs and milk.

Quote by Child In Time
It was reported the week after In Rainbows was released that there were 1.2 million downloads of it, not counting the number of boxsets bought.


http://uk.news.launch.yahoo.com/dyna/article.html?a=/07112007/364/60-cent-radiohead-fans-paid-nothing-rainbows.html&e=l_news_dm

Not really a ton of use when so few buy it, but still an effective way of dragging in the cash for a big band.

The problem is Radiohead have used this as a gimmick. It's not the first time a band has gone out and sold an album solely on the internet or the first time people have had some choice in the price. Radiohead just picked the right moment and were fortunately (at least fortunately for them) were big enough to generate enough money back from it.
There's no doubt in my mind that they're going to be raking it in what with getting cash from what effectively is the 'leaked album' (as the internet community has come to know it) ontop of actual sales later this year and early next year.
Maybe the industry has yet to realise it, but with big bands you're going to be able to sell multiple copies of an album even if that first copy is digital, so even if they get 50p for the digital a month before the release, that's 50p and possibly the £9 album sale (so probably £5 instead of £4.50).

You can't knock Radiohead for doing it, but if you're a struggling artist or struggling label you can't thank them either. Lily Allen is just out-spoken and everyone knows that, she'll soon be gone anyway, so what's it really matter?
Quote by Mia (Pulp Fiction)
Why do we feel it's necessary to yak about bullsh*t in order to be comfortable?

That's when you know you found somebody special. When you can just shut the f*ck up for a minute, and comfortably share silence.

RateYourMusic
#26
Quote by Andrewbiles

The problem is Radiohead have used this as a gimmick.


how so?

this is from jonny the day the album came out:


What’s motivating the band to distribute the album this way?

Just getting it out quickly. It was kind of an experiment as well; we were just doing it for ourselves and that was all. People are making a big thing about it being against the industry or trying to change things for people but it’s really not what motivated us to do it. It’s more about feeling like it was right for us and feeling bored of what we were doing before.
#27
Thats exactly the argument I'm making... Theres no way to conclude the success of it financially, but it HAS been extremely successful at spreading the album around to a huge variety of listeners that may otherwise NOT buy an album of theres. I can't see how this is detrimental to the biz since distribution is king.
Current Rig:
Fender CS Eric Clapton Strat
Fender '65 Twin Reverb Reissue
Digitech Crossroads Pedal

In the stereo: The Rolling Stones - Let It Bleed
#28
Quote by budgie182

dude thats disgusting! you'd be safer having sex with a walrus
Walrus sex is the best

She hasn't helped music the way Radiohead has, so I don't respect her opinion. I've heard Jesse Lacey of Brand New fame say that bands make most of thier money from touring, and little from album sales. So another one of her arguements is proven false
*-)
Quote by Bob_Sacamano
i kinda wish we all had a penis and vagina instead of buttholes

i mean no offense to buttholes and poop or anything

Rest in Peace, Troy Davis and Trayvon Martin and Jordan Davis and Eric Garner and Mike Brown
Last edited by element4433 at Nov 15, 2007,
#29
How so? How not should be the question.
The album is average at best, so by doing what they did and telling people they can have it in a few days for whatever price they want, people hadn't been able to snatch it first like they usually would. But obviously they thought that some people would feel guilty taking the album directly from the band for free, so there was always going to be a selection of people paying for it. With a fanbase like theirs you're guaranteed some kind of return from doing that.
However, if every band now went out and did this and it became the norm, people would soon get bored of paying and everyone would be taking it for free.
So in my eyes it's quite a gimmick and something that's not going to last for too long unless big record companies once again catch onto the idea of giving away music but gaining profit from advertising. Can't remember which company it was that had a go at doing that but didn't ever hear much about it.

Did you not see the amount of attention doing this got them and the album?
It was everywhere you looked. Heck, every British newspaper had a page dedicated to it let alone every blog and every internet news service.
Quote by Mia (Pulp Fiction)
Why do we feel it's necessary to yak about bullsh*t in order to be comfortable?

That's when you know you found somebody special. When you can just shut the f*ck up for a minute, and comfortably share silence.

RateYourMusic
#30
Quote by Andrewbiles
How so? How not should be the question.
The album is average at best


so says you, but the majority disagree.

http://www.metacritic.com/music/artists/radiohead/inrainbows?q=in%20rainbows


Quote by Andrewbiles

Did you not see the amount of attention doing this got them and the album?
It was everywhere you looked. Heck, every British newspaper had a page dedicated to it let alone every blog and every internet news service.


radiohead get attention for what ever they do. kid a was the same, as was hail to the thief. hell, i remember U2's last album getting this much press, and no one in their right mind could say that was an amazing record.

radiohead are one of the biggest bands around with a very large fan base, they are going to get press for releasing an album no matter how they do it.
#31
Quote by Andrewbiles
Most farmers get told how much they can have for their eggs by supermarkets, so you've picked the wrong thing to argue with there. Farmers struggle as much as musicians on the amount they get for meat let alone eggs and milk.

I'm pretty sure every farmer has the right to choose how much they get paid, whether they actually get it or not, that's a different issue. If a farmer decided to let costumers pick how much they wanted to pay for his eggs, nobody would have a problem with it. Her argument doesn't make much sense to me, Lily Allen seems pretty stupid, because according to her logic, the humble thing would've been to charge everyone through their noses for the album.

Quote by Andrewbiles
The problem is Radiohead have used this as a gimmick. It's not the first time a band has gone out and sold an album solely on the internet or the first time people have had some choice in the price. Radiohead just picked the right moment and were fortunately (at least fortunately for them) were big enough to generate enough money back from it.
There's no doubt in my mind that they're going to be raking it in what with getting cash from what effectively is the 'leaked album' (as the internet community has come to know it) ontop of actual sales later this year and early next year.

It is a really clever way to do things, and since distributing music isn't and shouldn't be art, I applaud Radiohead for using their heads (Unlike Lily Allen)...


Quote by Andrewbiles
You can't knock Radiohead for doing it, but if you're a struggling artist or struggling label you can't thank them either.

How so? A lot of people probably spent less money than they had previously allocated to purchase In Rainbows. The remaining money can be used to buy other things, among which are other artist's albums...
#34
Quote by starsnostars
so says you, but the majority disagree.

http://www.metacritic.com/music/artists/radiohead/inrainbows?q=in%20rainbows

radiohead get attention for what ever they do. kid a was the same, as was hail to the thief. hell, i remember U2's last album getting this much press, and no one in their right mind could say that was an amazing record.

radiohead are one of the biggest bands around with a very large fan base, they are going to get press for releasing an album no matter how they do it.


At the end of the day it's all opinion, but then saying user base rating systems are accurate based on 830 votes is mad. As for the journalists thing, I saw at 4/5 rating for a bagpipe record in last Sunday's paper, so generally I take them with a pinch of salt (especially when I see places rating something higher than Pitchfork).
In the summer of this year, if you've ever visited imdb.com you would have seen 'The Simpsons Movie' rated at a 9.7 or something insane with thousands of votes yet does anyone know anyone that liked it that much?! That film was a 7/10 at best.
Granted user based ratings are usually more accurate than journalists, but for this I really feel that people have rushed in rather hastily and you have yet to hear the full story.

"[In Rainbows] is still one of the most compelling recent releases, and should be considered for 2007's Album of the Year" - If that's how they want to base their 91/100 rating then fair enough, but then what has actually been good this year? Seriously. This year has lacked a load of stand-out records like the past few years have provided.

As for the attention it received, I personally have never seen an album gain a full page of a broadsheet paper before. And yes, of course they're going to get attention everytime they release something, but not like this. They gained the attention by breaking the mould not by just releasing an album.

Quote by julio1987
I'm pretty sure every farmer has the right to choose how much they get paid, whether they actually get it or not, that's a different issue. If a farmer decided to let costumers pick how much they wanted to pay for his eggs, nobody would have a problem with it. Her argument doesn't make much sense to me, Lily Allen seems pretty stupid, because according to her logic, the humble thing would've been to charge everyone through their noses for the album.

It is a really clever way to do things, and since distributing music isn't and shouldn't be art, I applaud Radiohead for using their heads (Unlike Lily Allen)...

How so? A lot of people probably spent less money than they had previously allocated to purchase In Rainbows. The remaining money can be used to buy other things, among which are other artist's albums...


Of course a farmer has the right to choose what they get paid, but if you're a clever farmer and actually want money you're going to get what you can rather than live in hope that someone is going to somehow find you and want to pay 50p for an egg.
If depends on whether you want to survive or be bankrupt.

Bands use record labels to promote and distribute their music, Radiohead have done this for years and it's what has helped gain them their popularity. Had they not have done this chances are they would have been just one of the millions that want to stick to their morals and give up after a few years.
Despite Radiohead wanting to break from major record labels, they owe a hell of a lot to them and will probably end up working with one next year to distribute their CD.

Do you really think that the majority of the people who paid nothing for 'In rainbows' are really going to be the ones going out and buying music? Do you not think that they are the ones that would have downloaded it for free anyway?
Yeah, of course some will buy it, but a vast number won't.
You're thinking of an ideal world in terms of money not the real world.
Quote by Mia (Pulp Fiction)
Why do we feel it's necessary to yak about bullsh*t in order to be comfortable?

That's when you know you found somebody special. When you can just shut the f*ck up for a minute, and comfortably share silence.

RateYourMusic
#35
I downloaded In Rainbows for free because I would rather pay out my hard earned money for a physical copy rather than mid-range audio quality and not even any cover art

So yes, I would be one of those ones who didn't know what to expect, paid nothing, was very pleased, and is now planning to give the band their fair share when it is released.
Current Rig:
Fender CS Eric Clapton Strat
Fender '65 Twin Reverb Reissue
Digitech Crossroads Pedal

In the stereo: The Rolling Stones - Let It Bleed
#37
Quote by Andrewbiles
At the end of the day it's all opinion, but then saying user base rating systems are accurate based on 830 votes is mad. As for the journalists thing, I saw at 4/5 rating for a bagpipe record in last Sunday's paper, so generally I take them with a pinch of salt (especially when I see places rating something higher than Pitchfork).
In the summer of this year, if you've ever visited imdb.com you would have seen 'The Simpsons Movie' rated at a 9.7 or something insane with thousands of votes yet does anyone know anyone that liked it that much?! That film was a 7/10 at best.
Granted user based ratings are usually more accurate than journalists, but for this I really feel that people have rushed in rather hastily and you have yet to hear the full story.

"[In Rainbows] is still one of the most compelling recent releases, and should be considered for 2007's Album of the Year" - If that's how they want to base their 91/100 rating then fair enough, but then what has actually been good this year? Seriously. This year has lacked a load of stand-out records like the past few years have provided.


my point was that there was no validity in the argument that your own personal opinion should dictate how others feel and react. i couldn't care less about user base rating systems, but the fact that it scores almost a 9 with professional critics shows that the majority of people do find it to be an amazing record.

as for this year lacking stand out albums, there is no way you can take an objective stance on that, it's all a matter of opinion. i remember someone the other day on this very forum saying they couldn't keep up with all the good albums that have come out this year.

Quote by Andrewbiles
As for the attention it received, I personally have never seen an album gain a full page of a broadsheet paper before.


i think that says more about the paper you're reading then it does radiohead.
#38
Stars, I just realized something... I've seen you around Last.FM before! haha I remember your avatar!

Anyway, continue...
Current Rig:
Fender CS Eric Clapton Strat
Fender '65 Twin Reverb Reissue
Digitech Crossroads Pedal

In the stereo: The Rolling Stones - Let It Bleed
#40
farmers? supply and demand! there's so much supply that farmers get paid very little and end up getting subsidized by the gov't.
/spam
Page 1 of 2