The Best Album Not on iTunes or Amazon
12:27 am, October 10th, 2007, Pete Mortensen
Radiohead’s “In Rainbows,” released early this morning over the Internet just nine days after the band announced its completion, is out and completely brilliant. It’s also not for sale through any existing music distribution channel. It’s DRM-free, you can name your own price (no, really), and not one penny goes to the record companies. My thoughts on what that means are over here at my other blog.
What bothers me is that this is exactly the sort of consumer-friendly, content-creator friendly business Apple should be encouraging. Instead, they’re acting in the best interest of record companies, movie studios and TV networks. Kind of disappointing. Either way, the songs still play on my iPod, so away I go!
Posted by Pete Mortensen in iTunes | Comment on this article
If you enjoyed this article:
Subscribe via RSS or email, or follow us on Facebook and Twitter
Very cool for a “major†band to do this. Very realistic too. However it’s nothing new. In the electronica scene this is common practise. for example Jochem Paap (a.k.a. Speedy J) distributes an entire DVD in surround sound this way. It’s available here
Otto, on October 10th, 2007 at 5:28 am
It is indeed very positive for bands to do this for themselves … it will work for both well known groups and upstarts … it seems to me that iTunes could have a whole new section devoted to ’self produced’ indie groups … and perhaps they will … They should be there to help both the labels and the artists … I don’t think that Apple has acted against the interests of artists, (in fact they have put many tools in their hands that give them greater control/power/avenues to distribution, etc.), and they certainly have succeeded in pissing off the lables/networks, which isn’t usually a sign that they are beholden to them.
I don’t get the attitude that Apple owes everybody everything, but it is becoming prevalent on a lot of blogs these days … reaction to their growth and increasing influence, I guess.
wasabi doggy, on October 10th, 2007 at 9:19 am
It is a brilliant album and the distribution and creation of the album is completely innovative. Its a shame its not on itune, becuase I believe that people would be looking for it there of all places.
P
Paul J, on October 10th, 2007 at 10:29 am
I read somewhere that Radiohead avoided iTunes because of its focus on singles rather than albums, which I tend to agree with.
I think Radiohead’s method of distributing music is a stroke of genius (and so is In Rainbows). By asking the fans to pay any price they like proves to the fans that the guys aren’t just in the business to make loads of money, they’re in it for the same reason you buy their albums, the love of music.
And because I’m a fan I elected to pay the same price as an album on iTunes and I don’t regret a cent of it; it’s another brilliant Radiohead album.
Steve
Steve, on October 10th, 2007 at 3:25 pm
I still think the “Pay only what you want” deal will backfire on them. Sure, some people will pay a reasonable amount, but the majority of people are probably going to pay nothing….
Cameron Talley, on October 11th, 2007 at 9:35 am
Led Zeppelin’s Housees of the Holy and The Beatles’ White Album and Abbey Road are also not available on iTunes or Amazon. I kinda doubt this is better than those.
iburl, on October 11th, 2007 at 11:41 am
By asking people to pay what they like, I think people will think more about where the money are going. First of all, we know it’s going straight to the artist, second we know that radiohead has loads of fans. They are bound to make shitloads on this! I paid 2 pounds, it’s not a lot, but then again, Im a por student, so I think it’s fair…
Andreas, on October 11th, 2007 at 3:06 pm
i would have appreciated some album art on the mp3s, but not bad for 0.50£.
Nick, on October 13th, 2007 at 2:05 pm
long discussion about this album’s release at http://www.ricottapark.com. interesting thread about music as information rather than commodity.
nicky longlunch, on October 13th, 2007 at 3:53 pm