Radiohead killed the industry mold

As many of you know, Radiohead will be releasing their brand new album, "In Rainbows," on October 10th in a revolutionary, label-bucking way. Not only is the band releasing it independently as a download mere days after it was completed (essentially killing any chance of the album leaking), but they are asking you to name the price. That’s right, you, the music listener, has the final say as to how much this should cost. And as of now, over 2 million people have named their price and are anxiously awaiting an album that is easily Radiohead’s most hyped record yet.

Radiohead manager Brice Edge has faith that people will pay for the album instead of simply downloading it for nothing. “We’re prepared to take a risk,” he explained. “If your music is great, people will then pay for it.” So in response to such a moral dilemma, how have people responded? What will people pay to hear a record they know they can get for free? Well according to British mag New Musical Express, many British people polled are essentially paying retail price for it, if not more.

“I paid £10 ($20.35) for it.,” says Chris Rogers. “They deserve it. I'm just glad they're back making music. It's hard to put a price on it.”

"What price do you put on happiness? For me, £7.99 ($16.26),” says Jason. “Now let's see how many cheapskates try and download it free.”

“I've pre-ordered the album for £7.50 ($15.26),” says Andrew of Canada. “That's the standard price of a CD here. It is because Radiohead made the album available for free that I have decided to pay. They have rejected the branding and commercialism standard in the music industry. Absolutely amazing, this band is.”

Some, like Mike Wakelam, had an interesting way of figuring out the price. “For a normal CD the dealer price is around £9. The record company gets 25 percent, leaving £6.75. I've heard artists get 18 percent of that, which is £1.215. So I'll pay £1.22 ($2.48).”

So across the pond, people are willing to pay for the album. But what about over here in America? I went to a popular music forum, Red Mosquito, to see how much people here are willing to pay for it. And the results would make Radiohead squirm.

“I just bought it: $0.” “This is the first album I've bought since 2003, even though I paid $0.00 :).” “I'll get the download for free hoping they come out with the full set in record stores for a decent price.” “There isn't a bitrate specified for the download so I won't be surprised if many people enter 0 as their purchase amount.” “Got a free DL coming on the 10th.” “I put $0 in because I'm broke as fuck.” “I feel way too guilty putting 0 into the pay box.” “I'm going to pay at least $5 i think.” “I paid $0 as well. I feel bad, but I can't afford much now.” “Ordered my download. Paid $2.44.” “I paid zero, but if they release a cd i'll buy it for sure.... also music is free anyway.” And my personal fav, “someone call Radiohead up and tell them that i'll pay more than $0.00 if they change the title.”

One person did comment on all of the 0s, however. “Of all the people to admitting paying $0, I can't believe that they can't afford $.50 or $1.” To which someone else said, “I'm sure I could but I don't believe in paying for downloads and I don't think Radiohead needs anymore money.”

So what does this all mean? Granted, I’m sure there are quite a few people in the UK who paid £0 for the album, and there were a few people in the forum who forked over the £40 ($81) deluxe version that includes the album, a bonus disc of songs, vinyl versions of both, and a bunch of other window dressing. But to me, it seems like people here really do take music for granted. Gone are the days when people would anxiously await for a record to come out, buy it that day (or even midnight, in some cases), rush home, unwrap the cellophane (which I admit is a pain in the ass), plop it into their CD player, and listen to it while gazing at the artwork. It’s an experience that I still cherish, which is one big reason why I rarely buy albums on iTunes or any other online music stores. Nowadays, people seem to think music should be as free as the air they breathe and the water we drink, and when asked why they shouldn’t pay for it, they offer up a range of excuses, from being too broke to saying that the artists already have enough money in their bank accounts. Now I applaud Radiohead for this move; the question of how much should one pay really does bring up a sort of moral dilemma, and this is the only effective way of preventing an album from leaking onto the internet early. But these guys are artists who have had albums at the top of the charts, who have a huge following of fans, and have people paying top dollar to see their shows. But what about new artists? Can they compete in this type of marketplace, can their music get out there and be heard by the masses this way (especially when major bands are releasing albums this way), and can they even afford to pull off something like this? And bigger still, is this the first nail in the coffin towards the death of the music industry? Only time will tell, although Radiohead’s management have said that the band will sign to a label and release the album traditionally. “The band think they [are] incredibly proud of this record and feel that it deserves to be brought into the mass marketplace. That's why we need a record company who have that infrastructure to deliver the CD,” says manager Chris Hutton. This may not be the funeral, but this is the closest we’ve come yet.

All I can say is that, as someone who wants to have a career making music one day, this has me shaking in my boots.
— Jason Shoff