Free Radiohead Album (merged)

rabid

TonyIce wrote: »

The story continues....

http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/article/news/46028-radiohead-album-coming-out-as-regular-cd-too

That's been talked about for a little while.

It seems they need to sign to a label to do so, and will be deciding in the very near future.

http://www.ateaseweb.com/

TonyIce

rabid wrote: »

That's been talked about for a little while.

It seems they need to sign to a label to do so, and will be deciding in the very near future.

http://www.ateaseweb.com/

Ahh, was the first I'd heard. What a position to be in - choosing who to sign to.

merquin

Dread wrote: »

Rabid,

evidently i am a tabloid reader; taking quotes and citing them out of context is typical of me, The Daily Mirror, Razzle etc. and demonstrates a typically lazy and ineffective predisposition to distorting what has actually been said rather than composing a lucid argument. Interestingly my dismal efforts at building a case for whatever you’re attempting to say are destroyed by the quotes i include.

The fact I can download music without paying for it not only makes it alright, it makes me hard and smug all at the same time. I have a friend who worked with EMI. so there.

Don’t even piously pretend you have never indulged in copyright theft, cos i do all the time, and me makes me hard. and smug.and patronising.

As for the personal reward, see the second paragraph and figure out what the personal reward is; pennies on a CD costing several pounds with the remainder going to fat cat talentless managers? right on.

Either I didn’t spell out my first post in simple enough, Janet and John language for you as i am not very bright, so here goes another attempt.

Here comes the most patronising drivel i, with all the power my tiny, tiny brain can muster....: Radiohead really, really want you to download their album free so they can be in the vanguard (vanguard means be at the front, take the lead…..it’s a military term for heading up the advance) of free music downloading. They do this, along with Prince, because they are attempting to establish the best way to market music in the future. In the meantime they are deriving financial gain from their other marketing efforts, viral marketing, back catalogue promotion, car boot sales, merchandising, prostitution, dealing, concerts, and experimental taxidermy……all delivered via the internet………..Doh!.....get it now? THEY WANT YOU TO DOWNLOAD THIS FREE, the pennies they make from this marketing drive pales into insignificance beside what vast amount of money they will make from other means.

As for your final sentence responding to my peurile statement that Radiohead want you to download their album freely, which is as follows

“Surely if they didn't they would have just made it a free download! I like to think that they have some faith in the general public to play fair, which according to this thread seems woefully unjustified.”

And here comes some more absolute cack: A fundamental marketing principle is that if a product or service is free it’s valueless and will be viewed as such by the consumer. How many McDonalds toys do you my kids have and play with? LOADS OF THEM! If, however, you create the illusion of value by apportioning a value to a product you begin to play on emotions “I feel guilty because I didn’t pay anything for it” as i obviously attach the same value to a piece of art as i do to say, a Pepperami. If you enhance those emotional responses by filtering product promotion by guerrilla marketing and distributing it via a “free” medium (the internet) you get something far more valuable than cash, it’s called loyalty blahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahBLAH!.

If I haven’t made myself clear, then it is because i am profoundly stupid. please ask for a contact address and I’ll continue this debate offline, or via the Daily Mail letters page but kindly do not quote me out of context, you merely confuse the issue and demonstrate my ignorance.

enjoy the album folks!

Abida_2

direwolf wrote: »

Well, you can.

Get the download for £0 if you wish, listen to it, then download it again and pay what you feel is a fair price.

I believe it's one download per email address but getting another web based one isn't difficult.

moocher! read this...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7034320.stm

FiatDino

Um ... so how do you explain someone like Lily Allen's success? No wonderfully generous record label with countless millions to promote that artist in her early days, and yet she seems to have fared ok.

I simply don't buy into this notion of sympathy for the labels. What we have lived through is a very brief isolated period in time when it was possible to bottle something that was previously 'uncontainable' and sell it. Indeed they even managed to think of different containers for the same product, and we dutifully went out and bought the same thing two or three times over in all its different guises.

But that time is over ... the genie is out .... and it's not going back. Long live live music !

pinkkaz wrote: »

What people don't seem to think about though, is that Radiohead are as popular as they are because of years and years of music industry investment which they are now capitalising on. When a first record from a group like Radiohead goes out, the label will spend a huge huge huge amount of money on advertising. In fact, practically every new release is a huge risk and many lose money and are projected to lose money in the hope that they will recoup the money when the group becomes popular.

Edna_Bucket_2

FiatDino wrote: »

Um ... so how do you explain someone like Lily Allen's success? No wonderfully generous record label with countless millions to promote that artist in her early days, and yet she seems to have fared ok...

Is the answer because no-one, not even a record company mogul, would want to risk an argument with her Dad?

He is the Sheriff of Nottingham after all!!!

pinkkaz

Actually Lily Allen was already signed when she became successful. And luckily she's mouthy enough for the marketing plan to work.

rabid

Dread wrote: »

The fact I can download music without paying for it not only makes it alright, it makes it necessary for everyone in order to change the industry. I have a friend who worked with EMI for years and fractions of the money we pay for a CD goes to the artist, that’s a fact.

Could it not be said that, by paying nothing, and therefore not supporting this (vanguard) initiative directly, you are merely perpetuating the currently unfair situation? If the download was a financial success it would make a statement; however if it is proved that consumers will not support art in this way, and only appear to want their music for free, then no change will ever come.

It seems to me that it would make more of a statement to support this action, as well as the band themselves, by showing our intent through the only means possible: a return for their initiative.

Ferris

email from inrainbows at 9.15pm yesterday:


THANK YOU FOR ORDERING IN RAINBOWS. THIS IS AN UPDATE.

YOUR UNIQUE ACTIVATION CODE(S) WILL BE SENT OUT TOMORROW MORNING (UK TIME). THIS WILL TAKE YOU STRAIGHT TO THE DOWNLOAD AREA.

HERE IS SOME INFORMATION ABOUT THE DOWNLOAD:

THE ALBUM WILL COME AS A 48.4MB ZIP FILE CONTAINING 10 X 160KBPS DRM FREE MP3s.

MOST COMPUTERS NOW HAVE ZIP SOFTWARE AS PART OF THE OPERATING SYSTEM; IF YOUR COMPUTER DOES NOT, YOU NEED TO GET WINZIP OR ZIPIT INSTALLED PRIOR.

oh, the tension :P

i think that 160kbps is ok quality? i'm a bit of a mug when it comes to that sort of thing.

Adzha

This was on the news last night, and they said it was a good marketing technique and they get every penny.