Radiohead's new album costs... whatever you want to pay (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Geof
- Start date
This is a good move, marketing wise, but also it's a good move for the consumer fans. It's good to see some of the bigger stars in the music industry are doing something about the high price of CD's, Trent Reznor from Nine Inch Nails has urged his fans to download his new album freely via p2p because he feels the prices for new CDs are ridiculous. And they are too high.
Fu*k RIAA!
Fu*k RIAA!
Yeah well you get something for your money. 2 albums, on CD and on Vinyl, booklets, artwork, pictures, all in a hardback book and slipcase.
I don't plan to buy that, but it makes sense. Huge fans are happy to pay 40£ for it, and others can just pay what they want for just the songs.
Now, two remarks:
1- This system is very nice, but can only work for very known bands like them. How is a beginning band supposed to even bear their costs like that?
2- It's a good commercial for on-line buying of music. I never bought music online, it will probably be the first time I'll do it.
3- It's a nice blow for all the music majors. If other known bands follow this example, we might see things moving at last!!
I don't plan to buy that, but it makes sense. Huge fans are happy to pay 40£ for it, and others can just pay what they want for just the songs.
Now, two remarks:
1- This system is very nice, but can only work for very known bands like them. How is a beginning band supposed to even bear their costs like that?
2- It's a good commercial for on-line buying of music. I never bought music online, it will probably be the first time I'll do it.
3- It's a nice blow for all the music majors. If other known bands follow this example, we might see things moving at last!!
Just on that first point, bands make very little money off of album sales. Small bands in particular are lucky to make printing costs back. Sites like myspace, which let bans like that grow a fanbase without incurring distribution costs make for a business model which is at least the equal of the conventional system.
Early money comes from playing live, the audience for which is fed by internet-based marketing. Currently, bands which start out like this tend to be looking for a record deal, but the day may come when that's not the case.
Early money comes from playing live, the audience for which is fed by internet-based marketing. Currently, bands which start out like this tend to be looking for a record deal, but the day may come when that's not the case.
Not yet - MySpace is currently a much better alternative to the situation in the past when an unsigned band would have no exposure other than word of mouth from whatever small gigs they could scrounge. The big question is whether you can go from there to a situation when the record deal doesn't really look attractive - there's enough exposure online that radio stations will play your music, iTunes will stock it... that would kill record companies, so they're not eager to let it happen - hence the best bands on MySpace are getting signed fast.
Some Radiohead fans complain about bit rate for digital album
10 hours ago
TORONTO - Hailed as revolutionaries for their digital prowess last month, Radiohead's innovative download offer is now being derided by some fans.
Message boards dedicated to the Brit band are alight with complaints over the bit rate for the new album, "In Rainbows," available digitally on Wednesday.
Bit rate determines the audio quality and how much space an MP3 file takes up on a computer or MP3 player.
An e-mail sent to fans who registered to buy the album says "In Rainbows" will be encoded at 160 kbps - higher than the default iTunes rate of 128 kbps but not high enough for some fans.
Music files can be found on the Net at bit rates as high as 320 kbps or as "lossless" files, which is the highest, uncompressed digital format.
Some messages on websites www.Radiohead.com and www.ateaseweb.com complained that Radiohead should have indicated the audio quality on the order page, which encouraged fans to set whatever price they liked for the album.
"I just wish they'd given all the details when the order page went up, so people could adjust their prices accordingly," wunderhorn1 says at the Radiohead message board www.ateaseweb.com.
"They should have a Lossless download option. Very true, 160k is not worth paying for," says Link23.
Over at Radiohead.com, a fan identified as "Dug" begs to differ: "You can't hear the difference between a good MP3 and a CD - 160 kbps should be just fine."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't know about you but I'd feel like a big dumbass had I payed a full CD price for a 160kb MP3. By today's standards that bitrate is really unnaceptable and the least they could have done was mention it, before you go pay for it.
10 hours ago
TORONTO - Hailed as revolutionaries for their digital prowess last month, Radiohead's innovative download offer is now being derided by some fans.
Message boards dedicated to the Brit band are alight with complaints over the bit rate for the new album, "In Rainbows," available digitally on Wednesday.
Bit rate determines the audio quality and how much space an MP3 file takes up on a computer or MP3 player.
An e-mail sent to fans who registered to buy the album says "In Rainbows" will be encoded at 160 kbps - higher than the default iTunes rate of 128 kbps but not high enough for some fans.
Music files can be found on the Net at bit rates as high as 320 kbps or as "lossless" files, which is the highest, uncompressed digital format.
Some messages on websites www.Radiohead.com and www.ateaseweb.com complained that Radiohead should have indicated the audio quality on the order page, which encouraged fans to set whatever price they liked for the album.
"I just wish they'd given all the details when the order page went up, so people could adjust their prices accordingly," wunderhorn1 says at the Radiohead message board www.ateaseweb.com.
"They should have a Lossless download option. Very true, 160k is not worth paying for," says Link23.
Over at Radiohead.com, a fan identified as "Dug" begs to differ: "You can't hear the difference between a good MP3 and a CD - 160 kbps should be just fine."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't know about you but I'd feel like a big dumbass had I payed a full CD price for a 160kb MP3. By today's standards that bitrate is really unnaceptable and the least they could have done was mention it, before you go pay for it.