Making music in a world of freeloaders

[Mels_Smileys45]

Making music in a world of freeloaders


OK, so we're a nation of cheapskates after all. Tell me something I didn't know.

The latest album release from the band Radiohead tested whether the public would support a scout's honor arrangement. If enough people would pay to download the band's music, that might serve as the harbinger for a different sort of distribution and sales model.

Until now, consumers could do little but bitch about the rip-off prices they were charged for music. After years of grumbling about greedy retailers and corrupt music moguls, here, finally, was a golden opportunity to change the future. They just had to do the right thing.

Well, we can still dream. It turns out that freeloaders by a 62 to 38 percent margin outnumbered the fans willing to pay for the British band's new album, according to ComScore.



Can't say I'm really surprised. The pick-your-own price idea isn't novel. Software developers have offered so-called freeware applications for decades. The idea being that the free stuff would entice some people to upgrade to the more feature-rich versions which cost real money. Even though you'd be hard pressed to find many companies that struck it rich going that route, it was, at the very least, good publicity.

An established band like Radiohead, which has rich corporate backing, can afford to put out a loss leader. The guys jamming two houses down from me just starting out don't have the same cushion.

But I'd be careful about dismissing this as a pipe dream. Just as one data point hardly makes for a trend, there's nothing conclusive here--other than a depressing reaffirmation of human selfishness. Music attorney and industry exec Chris Castle made a telling point in a conversation with my colleague Greg Sandoval that the economic lifespan of a music album can extend as long as two years.

Besides, we're talking close to 40 percent of the test group pulling out their credit cards to pay something. Some of us may be insufferable tightwads but maybe we'll one day grow into mensches.


Source: http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-981...?tag=nefd.blgs

[HelenaP]

Mels, I must say that despite your avatar, there is hope for you yet.
Powerfully worded post.

[enter8]

Mels, I must say that despite your avatar, there is hope for you yet.
Powerfully worded post.

Yes, Charles Cooper, the author, is a talented writer. It's too bad he doesn't get out much, though. This exercise carries no weight whatsoever as a litmus test for artist-released material because the whole thing was one big sham. Radiohead's DLable album was just low bitrate garbage, with a high bitrate version coming out on... you guessed it... CD.

As far as I'm concerned, Radiohead hasn't made a good album since Okay Computer, so I was never going to buy any of their albums anyway. Hopefully, though, this underhandedness will cause at least a few of their fans to think twice about lending the band any future support, be it through either album sales or concert tickets.

These assholes give musicians a bad name.

[N Fiddledog]

It's making a pretty, broad general point from one specific example. One could also mention many of the countless examples of sharing leading to profit. OK Go's becoming a name band after sharing Here We Go Again on YouTube, or the emergence of "Indie" as a movement since filesharing began, or maybe even the example of the Zone Alarm firewall might be applicable.

Also it doesn't answer the main question. Did, or will Radiohead make money. Did they make more money for themselves than bands like TLC, and N Sync did by with dealing with record companies. As I understand it, they didn't make squat, so Radiohead didn't have to make much.

[HelenaP]

...At a performance in Australia last month, Reznor expressed frustration with the high prices that labels charge for CDs.

"Steal it," Reznor told the audience. "Steal away. Steal and steal, and steal some more and give it to all your friends."

I think it's great, whatever label an artist chooses to drop. :icon_salu

[w31n3r]

i may be wrong, but i think what mels is trying to say, is that all this goes to show what cheapskates we really are. all this time, the file sharing community says that we download as a form of protest against the big corporates who rip us off. but when push comes to shove, our true colors come out. if that is what mels is saying, i agree 100%. if not, it's my personal take on this then.

having said that, i agree with enter8 that this exercise doesn't carry any real weight. "in rainbow" IMHO sucks great donkey balls at any bitrate, and apparently i'm not alone with this opinion. i wouldn't pay for it and you won't find it on my hard disc. it'd be interesting to see how a really good album would fare in the same scenario, but the precedent looks ominous.

[EzzyElliott]

Middle-aged and conservative, I'm not a typical CD buyer, yet I have bought more in the last few years than some of the "youngsters" in my office.

Got into Radiohead after one of their albums was leaked on to P2P. It made me feel really bad that I had not heard of them before and had missed so much for so long, including a concert at my local park.

The debate about freeloading is flawed as listeners very rarely pay for what they listen to. Radio is free. I think this Radiohead online release was a way of promoting their album to grey people like me who don't have the time to discover new music.

I will buy the physical CD when it comes out, no-brainer as I like the download and want to keep it and no DRM CD is best way of doing this.

I will also continue to use p2p and social network sites like dargens to discover new music.

P2P does not stop anyone paying for music, it builds interest in music.