Radiohead - New Record via Download

[Steelhead]

The thing that really bothers me about this whole thing is, what format? If I'm going to pay money to download a recording, why don't they give technical details? I would want to know what the format is. Is it lossy? (mp3, AAC, WMA, OGG, etc.) Lossless? (APE, .FLAC, WAV, Apple Lossless)
Knowing that would make a big difference to me. In the past, as a consumer, you never had to think about such things. But today, I think it is a very important part of the equation that nobody, outside of audiophiles, seems to give a flying rat's ass about. Why in God's Green Earth would I pay money for anything less than CD quality?

[Dan Apodaca]

Why in God's Green Earth would I pay money for anything less than CD quality?

Because you can set the price?

[davechisholm]

because the music is good?

[king mob]

The thing that really bothers me about this whole thing is, what format? If I'm going to pay money to download a recording, why don't they give technical details? I would want to know what the format is. Is it lossy? (mp3, AAC, WMA, OGG, etc.) Lossless? (APE, .FLAC, WAV, Apple Lossless)
Knowing that would make a big difference to me. In the past, as a consumer, you never had to think about such things. But today, I think it is a very important part of the equation that nobody, outside of audiophiles, seems to give a flying rat's ass about. Why in God's Green Earth would I pay money for anything less than CD quality?

You can buy the CD you know, or you can download it for whatever you think it's worth.

[Jack Zodiac]

Or, you could always download the album for free, and if you think it was worth it, go back and pay ten bucks or whatever for it.

[the goddamn batman]

Buy the CD, it comes with a download code. That way, you get the record now, in whatever format it's in, and then in Dec. you get the physical record. That's what I'm going to do.

[meethraa]

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

I can live with that.

[the goddamn batman]

Wow... this is really fucking good!

I was a bit worried, but wow... Awesome. Easily better than the last two records.

[Jeff F]

Well, I just downloaded it.

Not being a Radiohead fan, I decided to pay free for it, but maybe we'll see how the album goes.

At least Radiohead got me that far, I'll listen to them.

[Steelhead]

160 kpbs? That's crap.

[king mob]

160 kpbs? That's crap.

Then spend 40 quid for the hard copy & download the music for nothing. It's your choice.


What I've heard so far isn't great but for 3 quid (the price I though reasonable) it's acceptable. It's a bit, well, tedious so far; this aside, the experiment is still to be applauded.

[Steven Grant]

I can understand your dislike of 160k mp3s, but the fact is that most 160k tracks sound perfectly fine on 95% of the available sound systems out there. It's about the level you'd get off the radio (fitting for Radiohead, I guess) and as good sound as most people take the time to perceive. At any rate, if you can pay a couple bucks for the tracks, consider them sampling to see if the "real" album is something you'd like to possess. If you like them at 160k mp3, odds are you'll like them in .flac...

I do agree that they should have files at several levels of sound quality available at staggered prices.

- Grant

[Paul McEnery]

I can understand your dislike of 160k mp3s, but the fact is that most 160k tracks sound perfectly fine on 95% of the available sound systems out there. It's about the level you'd get off the radio (fitting for Radiohead, I guess) and as good sound as most people take the time to perceive. At any rate, if you can pay a couple bucks for the tracks, consider them sampling to see if the "real" album is something you'd like to possess. If you like them at 160k mp3, odds are you'll like them in .flac...

I do agree that they should have files at several levels of sound quality available at staggered prices.

- Grant

I guess higher quality would cost more in bandwidth, just about, but the staggered prices thing would kind of defeat the point of the exercise, wouldn't it.

And 160 is what you'll get from most services -- maybe 190 and change -- and everyone seems pretty okay with that for the most part.

Still, if people want better, I'm sure they can buy Japanese virgin vinyl and a laser deck and set everything up in a concrete bunker that sleeps just the one person because that's all you'll ever need.

[Tadhg]

Then spend 40 quid for the hard copy & download the music for nothing. It's your choice.

There's another choice, It's been said it's going to be released as a plain-ol regular CD early next year, in case 40 is too much for you.

[the goddamn batman]

If you live in America, it's a bit much to pay for a record.

I've never paid close to $100 USD for a CD and I don't plan on starting now. Even though I want to.

That said, the quality is fine. It's not a CD. It's basically a promo or a self leaked record. What do you want? I mean, the bit rate was announced before the record was availabe, so you could adjust your price based on what you think that quality is worth.

[Adam C]

If you live in America, it's a bit much to pay for a record.

I've never paid close to $100 USD for a CD and I don't plan on starting now. Even though I want to.

Well calling it a "CD" is a bit inaccurate considering what you'd be getting is a boxed set with Vinyl, compact disc, and digital versions of the album along a booklet of lyrics and art, as well as an enhanced CD with 8 bonus tracks, photos, and artwork. And all this in a hardcover book slipcase.

(I think it would be neat to get too, but then I remind myself I'm probably better off shelling out the same amount for some of the Miles Davis boxed sets out there.)

[Paul McEnery]

Well calling it a "CD" is a bit inaccurate considering what you'd be getting is a boxed set with Vinyl, compact disc, and digital versions of the album along a booklet of lyrics and art, as well as an enhanced CD with 8 bonus tracks, photos, and artwork. And all this in a hardcover book slipcase.

(I think it would be neat to get too, but then I remind myself I'm probably better off shelling out the same amount for some of the Miles Davis boxed sets out there.)

You know, I got the Silent Way, Bitches Brew, Quintet, and Coltrane boxes.

And eventually, I've wound up writing playlists so I can hear them the way Miles did them in the first place.

Though you can at least try and see the On the Corner stuff at Rhapsody.

Oh. All the stuff. Absolutely all the stuff.

[the goddamn batman]

Well calling it a "CD" is a bit inaccurate considering what you'd be getting is a boxed set with Vinyl, compact disc, and digital versions of the album along a booklet of lyrics and art, as well as an enhanced CD with 8 bonus tracks, photos, and artwork. And all this in a hardcover book slipcase.

(I think it would be neat to get too, but then I remind myself I'm probably better off shelling out the same amount for some of the Miles Davis boxed sets out there.)

Well, I've alrady got the digital version, and no record player so... I'm pretty much getting a CD. I want it, but $80 is jsut too much at the moment.

[Steelhead]

Still, if people want better, I'm sure they can buy Japanese virgin vinyl and a laser deck and set everything up in a concrete bunker that sleeps just the one person because that's all you'll ever need.
Give me an effin' break. I'm just supposed to lie down, get in line with the rest of the sheep and like eMPty3 because "most" people are happy with it?
Sorry, I won't pay money for crap. Would you pay money for a movie you like on a VHS tape that was recorded from television? You would be happy with that? Knowing that DVD and HD DVD is out there, you'd think, hey, that looks great?
Storage schmorage, bandwidth schmandwidth, it just isn't an issue anymore.

I see I'm speaking Greek to everybody here so I'm done.

[Dennis]

some people said they made 10 million from this, so they did the right thing. nobody cares about sound quality. even if it was 128kbps, fans would be happy. most people really can't hear the difference. HD video won't take off for quite a while, because most people can't see the difference. most people have their hdtv improperly set up. i think they should have sold a 256kbps mp3 album for 5 dollars, i don't think anybody would complain about that. 5 bucks seems like the perfect price, the sweet spot. a dollar a song seems too much. comics should do something similar. if a non-drm digital comic costs 50 cents, i might start reading more. the comics industry would get back millions of readers.

[cfutino]

Give me an effin' break. I'm just supposed to lie down, get in line with the rest of the sheep and like eMPty3 because "most" people are happy with it?
Sorry, I won't pay money for crap. Would you pay money for a movie you like on a VHS tape that was recorded from television? You would be happy with that? Knowing that DVD and HD DVD is out there, you'd think, hey, that looks great?
Storage schmorage, bandwidth schmandwidth, it just isn't an issue anymore.

I see I'm speaking Greek to everybody here so I'm done.

No, you're not supposed to like anything because most people do. What you're supposed to do is accept that the product you want (CD quality music) is starting to become a "niche product" (I'm not sure this expression is used in english, means a product that is designed or still manufactured for a reduced set of consumers who have a specific set of demands). Thus, as usually happens with "niche products", it will be more expensive and harder to find then its "popular" alternatives.

[J Kleine]

I paid a few bucks now with plans of buying the CD when it's released in stores. A few bucks now to enjoy it for the next few months is well worth it. I'm hoping that the bonus tracks will be available sometime down the road apart from the boxset. I've got every Radiohead b-side and extra so far, I don't plan on stopping now.

[the goddamn batman]

I'm hoping that the bonus tracks will be available sometime down the road apart from the boxset. I've got every Radiohead b-side and extra so far, I don't plan on stopping now.

I'm sure via singles, or illegal downloading you'll be able to get them. I'm excited to ehar them. Radiohead have some pretty good b-sides.

[Brad Barton]

So what do you guys think, is the album worth Free?

Had I downloaded the new Linkin Park album for free, I'd still want my money back.

[Dennis]

So what do you guys think, is the album worth Free?

Had I downloaded the new Linkin Park album for free, I'd still want my money back.

I hated it. My tastes are low class and mainstream, so I think this kind of music is pointless. What I've Done by Linkin Park is pretty good.

[the goddamn batman]

I hated it. My tastes are low class and mainstream, so I think this kind of music is pointless. What I've Done by Linkin Park is pretty good.

Just out of curiosity, what's 'pointless' about it? What exactly does that mean and how is Linkin Park different?

I'll admit that I fucking despise Linkin Park, and think Radiohead are pretty good... but no offence intended here.

[the goddamn batman]

So what do you guys think, is the album worth Free?

Had I downloaded the new Linkin Park album for free, I'd still want my money back.

I like it a lot, it's totally worth free if you even kinda like Radiohead. It's worth maybe more if you really like Radiohead.

And I think it sounds fine, people should complain less about the encoding.

[BizarroBeachHead]

I hated it. My tastes are low class and mainstream, so I think this kind of music is pointless. What I've Done by Linkin Park is pretty good.

Wait....who said people could be proud of the fact that they have no standards...

[BizarroBeachHead]

I like it a lot, it's totally worth free if you even kinda like Radiohead. It's worth maybe more if you really like Radiohead.

The album is pretty chill, but still more accessible than Kid A or Amnesiac. If you liked Ok Computer or Hail to the Theif, then you should enjoy this.

[Dennis]

Just out of curiosity, what's 'pointless' about it? What exactly does that mean and how is Linkin Park different?

I'll admit that I fucking despise Linkin Park, and think Radiohead are pretty good... but no offence intended here.

i like music that's happy and fun. I think music is effective when it provokes some type of physical reaction - it makes us want to sing, dance, smile, have sex, beat someone up. it's all about feeelings. what do you want to feel, and why are those feelings good or valuable to you. i don't want to feel what thom yorke is feeling...it feels yucky. it seems like he's genuinely depressed. i think it's pointless to indulge in that type of feeling. unless, you're clear about what you're depressed about. if you clearly state what is depressing you, then that's good. nothing is more maddening than someone telling you he's depressed, but he can't explain why.

Linkin Park is happy music :)

[dancj]

Linkin Park is happy music :)
Unfortunately I think they're aiming for "angry music"

[cfutino]

Linkin Park is happy music :)

Don't get me wrong: I love LP and hate Radiohead. But LP is not "happy music" at all. They're lyrics are pure teenage angst. Some of their lyrics are even more depressing then anything Yorke'a ever written.

[Steven Grant]

If you begin psycho-depressed, Linkin Park sounds like happy music. The lyrics are usually downbeat but the music's energetic. I like how the latest album ripped off old King Crimson, and I mean that in a good way.

- Grant

[Dennis]

No Doubt has negative lyrics, is that angry music? depressed angry lyrics are pretty much the only option for most songs these days, what's the alternative? songs about partying and having a good time? that's so david lee roth. there's no money in happy lyrics, so you have to fake angst.

[mattx110]

No Doubt has negative lyrics, is that angry music? depressed angry lyrics are pretty much the only option for most songs these days, what's the alternative? songs about partying and having a good time? that's so david lee roth. there's no money in happy lyrics, so you have to fake angst.

even happy people have problems.

Every time a decent singer plays a concert they need to perform songs from every end of the happy-to-murderous spectrum, even if they're happy or sad. I wouldn't call that "faking it".

[the goddamn batman]

i like music that's happy and fun. I think music is effective when it provokes some type of physical reaction - it makes us want to sing, dance, smile, have sex, beat someone up. it's all about feeelings. what do you want to feel, and why are those feelings good or valuable to you. i don't want to feel what thom yorke is feeling...it feels yucky. it seems like he's genuinely depressed. i think it's pointless to indulge in that type of feeling. unless, you're clear about what you're depressed about. if you clearly state what is depressing you, then that's good. nothing is more maddening than someone telling you he's depressed, but he can't explain why.

Linkin Park is happy music :)

I've never had a problem understanding what Yorke was talking about... I think it's pretty clear most of the time. It isn't handed to you as clearly as Linkin Park, but they're trying to appeal to a teenage market, not make art. That's the difference there. IMO.

Thanks for explaining, I understand what you mean now.:)

[W.Blankenship]

Actually, to dennis, I think being in the position he's in Thom Yorke is happier than he's ever been. Being that you listen to LP, I'll venture that your taste just isn't attuned to it.

3!LL

[W.Blankenship]

Unfortunately I think they're aiming for "angry music"

It's funny, cuz just the other day someone was trying to tell me a band named 'hatebreed' was all about positivity.

:confused:

3!LL

[king mob]

Linkin Park are the band who when headlining the main stage at the Reading Festival (huge annual music festival held in, well, Reading each year) came on stage shouting ''hello Reading, London''.

Apart from being a bit shite, they also didn't brush up on their basic geography. Shame on them.

[Steelhead]

Anyway, to take this thread back on track, or, perhaps a side track--Steven wrote in last week's column,
These musicians are also coming to view recorded music as a loss leader, seeing their real income through increased concert ticket and merchandise sales,

Perhaps for someone like Madonna (who has apparently made a deal with a concert promoter for her next records), or Van Halen (who has no record deal right now), who can tour arenas and charge through the nose. Back down here on Earth, where bands are working their asses off, their livlihood still depends on recordings. In my experience in the metal world, yes, they tour long and hard. But: would fans continue to come to shows without a new record? The fans around the world know these artists because of their records, and seeing them live is just a cherry on top. Their livelihood is their published creative work, and sales of it. The second issue is that, at least from what I've seen in the states, there are few venues for bands on that level (that is to say, less than arena). If you aren't Metallica you can play First Ave., sure, but most aren't, and the choices below that are few and crap.

I'll end with part of quote from Peter Gabriel:

In the case of our record label, Real World, many of the artists get sixty or seventy percent of their income from record royalties. If that is taken away, a lot of them will not be able to continue as working musicians - the same applies to young bands, anyone outside of the mainstream.

[Charles RB]

From BBC: (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7082627.stm)

Nearly two-thirds of downloaders paid nothing for Radiohead's latest album, a survey has suggested.

Fans were invited to put their own price on the 10 MP3 files that made up In Rainbows, from nothing to £100.

But internet monitoring company Comscore found that only 38% of downloaders willingly paid to do so.

The average price paid for the album was $6 (£2.90), the study - based on a survey of the online behaviour of over two million internet users - found.

American fans were the most generous, paying on average $8.05 (£3.85), compared to the $4.64 (£2.22) paid by those outside the US.

Of those who were willing to pay, the largest percentage (17%) paid less than $4 (£1.90). However 12% were willing to pay between $8-$12, (£3.80 - £5.71).

However industry experts said the report showed that only the most successful bands could afford to take such risks.

"Radiohead have been bankrolled by their former label for the last 15 years," said Michael Laskow, chief executive of Taxi, a company that helps bands get signed to record labels.

"They've built a fanbase in the millions with their label, and now they're able to cash in on that fan base with none of the income or profit going to the label this time around."

"How will new artists be able to use this model if they haven't built a fan base in the millions?" he added.

During the first 29 days of October, 1.2 million people worldwide visited the In Rainbows site, but no official figures have been released on how many downloads were made.

Radiohead recently signed a deal to give In Rainbows a physical release in shops, although no date has yet been announced.

Now 38% of downloaders paying an average of £2.90 is still pretty good if it's a 38% of around a million people - this does re-emphasise that many people don't want to pay for their music online, though we did all know that. Whether or not this does mean only bands like Radiohead can pull this off is, of course, rather debatable and we should take Laskow's view with a grain of salt as he's chief executive of a company that makes money from getting people to sign on to labels.

I do love his quote though, trying to make it out like Radiohead is being ungrateful towards their old label and not given it any of the cash that it made sure they could get. It's a lovely quote.

[J Kleine]

Now 38% of downloaders paying an average of £2.90 is still pretty good if it's a 38% of around a million people - this does re-emphasise that many people don't want to pay for their music online, though we did all know that.

Considering they've cut out the record company and manufacturing costs, I'm guessing they've still made more (or nearly the same) money from In Rainbows then previous albums. Of course, they've had the added cost of a webspace capable of doing what they've done, but the cost for that is minimal compared to record company costs.

[NatGertler]

Whether or not this does mean only bands like Radiohead can pull this off is, of course, rather debatableAnd it also raises the question of what portion of the purchases were advocacy purchases - people whose initial instinct is to show support for artists doing things like this. That's something to do once, but if you're downloading thirty albums a year, and if you know that most people are just skipping paying altogether, you may well be tempted to pay a trivial amount or simply skip doing it altogether.

[Paul McEnery]

And it also raises the question of what portion of the purchases were advocacy purchases - people whose initial instinct is to show support for artists doing things like this. That's something to do once, but if you're downloading thirty albums a year, and if you know that most people are just skipping paying altogether, you may well be tempted to pay a trivial amount or simply skip doing it altogether.

I dunno. It's kinda hard to give the bug the slip once you get started.

On emusic, I can get another 50 downloads for twenty bucks (on top of the 90 I get for the month). And I tend to run through the 90 real quickly. And grabbing that next 50 is a big temptation. Ooh! I could get all the Mahler symphonies for that!

That's the thing about a non-scarcity economy. You can price the product low enough to get the cheapest person to fork out that small amount real easy when it's just one little click away.

[Paul McEnery]

From BBC: (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7082627.stm)



Now 38% of downloaders paying an average of £2.90 is still pretty good if it's a 38% of around a million people - this does re-emphasise that many people don't want to pay for their music online, though we did all know that. Whether or not this does mean only bands like Radiohead can pull this off is, of course, rather debatable and we should take Laskow's view with a grain of salt as he's chief executive of a company that makes money from getting people to sign on to labels.

I do love his quote though, trying to make it out like Radiohead is being ungrateful towards their old label and not given it any of the cash that it made sure they could get. It's a lovely quote.

'Cause I'm sure the majors kick down a drink or two to the indy labels whose artists they poach.

[zuludelta]

Back down here on Earth, where bands are working their asses off, their livlihood still depends on recordings.

I'll have to disagree with that assessment. I've worked and am good friends with a good many professional musicians and not a single one of them realistically considers selling records as a primary source of revenue. The most reliable and profitable source of income for the full-time professional musician, at least in my experience, is still the seasonal/semi-regular paying gig at a local venue (playing either other people's music, or if they're lucky enough, being paid to play original music), with creating/playing music for commercial purposes (i.e., for ads, TV, video games, etc., or as a session musician on somebody else's records) second and record sales a somewhat distant third.

Primarily depending on selling records for revenue has always been a dicey proposition for the working professional musician, even before the days of the internet and downloading (illegal or otherwise). The truth of the matter is, only an infinitesimally small percentage of professional musicians can make a decent living off of record sales, because there's only so much store shelf space, media coverage, and marketing push to go around. Most musicians would be lucky to break-even on the production costs of making a record, much less make any sort of profit from album sales. Does the downloading cut into the marginal record sales of the smaller profile musician? I'm sure it can and it does, but the benefits of gaining wider exposure (such as the possibility of getting more job and paying gig offers) through internet buzz and word-of-mouth, in my mind, far offset any of those losses.

I'm not saying that illegal music downloading can't harm the musicians' bottom line, because it can, and stealing is still stealing no matter how one decides to contextualize it. But illegal music downloading is harmful to the professional musician only because of the role album sales play in the traditional economic/business model employed by many musicians and record companies (which I think we can all agree is just plain untenable in this day and age). The solution to the "problem" of downloading isn't to prosecute/legislate it away, but re-evaluating and remaking the business model so as to profit from the consumers' practice of downloading freely available music.

[Steelhead]

Sounds like you're talking about local musicians. I have a couple of friends in local music (Twin Cities and Milwaukee) and based on knowing them, I totally agree.

I'm talking more about national/international acts (such as metal) who are under the radar of any major labels but are able to tour internationally. They are able to do so because of their recorded output (in other words, they can build a fanbase, come to a city and play in a small club or bar, because the attendees will have bought their records in advance). As far as I can tell this model is not changing.
House of Blues used to be a very reliable venue for such acts, but now anything "metal" is not "wholesome" to their parent owners so lately, for example, a multi-act tour of several underground bands was booked months in advance at various HoBs and were booted at the near-to-last minute, having to scrounge for substitute venues.

[zuludelta]

Sounds like you're talking about local musicians. I have a couple of friends in local music (Twin Cities and Milwaukee) and based on knowing them, I totally agree.

I'm talking more about national/international acts (such as metal) who are under the radar of any major labels but are able to tour internationally. They are able to do so because of their recorded output (in other words, they can build a fanbase, come to a city and play in a small club or bar, because the attendees will have bought their records in advance). As far as I can tell this model is not changing.

Ah, I see what you're getting at... there's this no-man's land between established, big-name acts (such as Madonna, U2, etc.) who can still make a considerable fortune by using their downloaded music (whether it's illegally downloaded music or legit freebies like Radiohead's latest release) as low-cost/free advertising and promotion for their money-making tours and the local artists who can reap sizable publicity benefits from their music getting downloaded, and it's these "middle-ground" acts that stand to suffer more from the proliferation of downloads (both legit and illegal) than the artists on either end of the spectrum.

While I can appreciate the reasoning behind your argument, at this point in time, I think one can blame a failure to capitalize on emerging social and technological trends as much as the proliferation of downloadable music for the inability of the almost-but-not-quite-commercially-viable national acts to breakthrough to more commercial success. When you say that the model for these acts has not changed, it's not because the model in use is still the best working model for them, it's because they (or more likely their reps/agents/recording companies) haven't explored an alternative approach to generating revenue and growing their fanbase besides putting out albums, and then touring behind them to support album sales.

[Steven Grant]

On emusic, I can get another 50 downloads for twenty bucks (on top of the 90 I get for the month). And I tend to run through the 90 real quickly. And grabbing that next 50 is a big temptation. Ooh! I could get all the Mahler symphonies for that!

The impressiveness of that kind of depends on: by whom? The other virtue of eMusic is that if you only want a couple tracks off a record, you can just get the tracks there.

That's the thing about a non-scarcity economy. You can price the product low enough to get the cheapest person to fork out that small amount real easy when it's just one little click away.

That's kind of what the record companies are blissfully ignoring, and are simultaneously terrified of: digital file copies of tracks have no physical existence, require little beyond the entire storage costs, have very little in the way of distribution costs, and are endlessly replicable at no additional cost. Pricing them the same way you price a physical CD release is inappropriate.

- Grant

[Paul McEnery]

The impressiveness of that kind of depends on: by whom? The other virtue of eMusic is that if you only want a couple tracks off a record, you can just get the tracks there.



That's kind of what the record companies are blissfully ignoring, and are simultaneously terrified of: digital file copies of tracks have no physical existence, require little beyond the entire storage costs, have very little in the way of distribution costs, and are endlessly replicable at no additional cost. Pricing them the same way you price a physical CD release is inappropriate.

- Grant

If by "inappropriate" you mean dumber than shit, why yes.

And I'm going through the MTT cycle of the Mahler right now. At less than a dollar a pop, that's a total, er, steal. And his Mahler 1 is a very nice idiosyncratic read, if a little "come on lads, the pub shuts in an hour, let's get with it".

[Steven Grant]

That is what I meant, yes.

Tilson-Thomas' Mahlers are among my favorites, but I'm considered something of an unschooled heretic when it comes to Mahler, apparently. (I'm told the seminal Mahlers are Bruno Walter, Leonard Bernstein and Zubin Mehta, but I hate all of those.) My other, marginally stronger, fave Mahler conductor is Simon Rattle, but then I like Rattle on just about anything. But I like Tilson-Thomas on just about anything as well, and his Charles Ives symphonies are the seminal versions...

- Grant

[Steelhead]

While I can appreciate the reasoning behind your argument, at this point in time, I think one can blame a failure to capitalize on emerging social and technological trends as much as the proliferation of downloadable music for the inability of the almost-but-not-quite-commercially-viable national acts to breakthrough to more commercial success. OK, but so far no model to capitalize on new technology (distribution of recorded output via intangible digital files) has emerged. I am really skeptical that this can be capitalized upon, as it is far too easy to get lossy and lossless files for free and more to the point, a sizable amount of the world's population would rather get something for free.
It's gotten to the point where consumers should pay in advance if they want new music from a artist/band. Because paying for it after it's been produced isn't working anymore.

[zuludelta]

OK, but so far no model to capitalize on new technology (distribution of recorded output via intangible digital files) has emerged. I am really skeptical that this can be capitalized upon, as it is far too easy to get lossy and lossless files for free and more to the point, a sizable amount of the world's population would rather get something for free.

I'm sure some marketing "genius" will eventually come up with a way to make money for the artist off of the situation... someone always does. The problem is, as Steven has mentioned multiple times in past columns, the RIAA is actively opposing any new music distribution schemes that don't give them a cut of any profits. RIAA's stranglehold on published music distribution is such that they're even lobbying for legislation that would make it illegal (in the US, at least) for any professional musician to put his/her music online (whether for free or pay downloads) unless they get paid some arbitrary fee.

It's gotten to the point where consumers should pay in advance if they want new music from a artist/band. Because paying for it after it's been produced isn't working anymore.

That's not a half-bad idea. Creating "custom content" for paying customers in the form of real-time, webcam interaction (where customers get to make requests and such) is basically how the on-line porn industry has managed to stay alive (and even expand in some respects) even when they're competing against tons of free porn available in P2P networks and various websites. This strategy has actually helped the "cottage" porn industry outpace the bigger adult entertainment outfits, because it doesn't really cost much to set up and maintain a live video feed and stream it on a pay website. And with "amateur porn" all the rage these days (uh... not that I would know :p ), the costs for make-up, directors, writers, etc. are virtually nil.

Again, it is up to the pornographers to show us the way of the internet :D

[J Kleine]

After all, rock musicians are the new pornographers.

[Steven Grant]

After all, rock musicians are the new pornographers.

Well... the inverse of that is true, anyway...

- Grant

[Steven Grant]

That's not a half-bad idea. Creating "custom content" for paying customers in the form of real-time, webcam interaction (where customers get to make requests and such) is basically how the on-line porn industry has managed to stay alive (and even expand in some respects) even when they're competing against tons of free porn available in P2P networks and various websites.

There have already been a couple Internet-only concerts, and it's certainly no trick to do online pay-per-views as long as the feeds hold and that technology has quietly improved drastically over the past couple years. I imagine the Led Zeppelin reunion concert on the 26th could rake in millions via Internet simulcast... and even if thereafter dubs are everywhere for everyone to see for free, they've already made their money off it and Zep fans who get the dub are still going to want the official DVD/BluRay/HDDVD release when it hits because the sound/visual quality will still be so much better. In that regard, the simulcast would be the quick money, and the dub the loss leader for the DVD(s)...

- Grant