Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
The average price paid for 'In Rainbows' has been around £4.72 and the band have made around £1.3m so far.
Over 275'000 downloads. Oooft.
which sold like 10million copies
I paid nowt
I don't feel guilty
I paid zero. I don't have a credit card. "I promise I'll get a hardcopy!" (but 40# for a boxset ain't gonna happen, sorry.)
I don't have a credit card either. I'll buy it when it's out though.
I've bought Radiohead CD's and records in
the past, I am more than convinced they are
wedged enough to not need the money, so I
didn't pay for it.
if Radiohead are billionaires. It doesn't matter that I've bought all their other albums, etc. the fact is, they've created a new artistic statement - that has value to me, obv - and I feel obliged to pay for it. (Erm, even though I didn't... ha!)
If theyre offering it for free they obviously are happy enough with the adulation they hope to receive. If some tramps had made an album but were offering it for free, then i'd be obliged to pay for it.
But what am i saying? I bought the box set :(
I'm not making a value judgement here and I believe there was a 250+ thread which already went thru this... but I love music, and it's really the only fucking thing I buy I never regret, y'know.
Well, except for that Zutons album, obv. ;)
They're not offering it for free, they're offering it for as much as you think it's worth.
If you choose to take that as 'I'll pay nothing, then' I'd brand you as a twat. Obviously a lot of people are probably going for free or as close to because they plan to buy a proper CD copy next year.
Others may use the reasoning that since they will probably get it for free from fileshare sites that means they may as well pay nothing. I don't think that stops you being a twat but there you go.
I am too a massive twat because I have albums I haven't paid for. But I plan to buy them all on CD at some stage and I don't do it for new albums where I realise that those unit sales are important.
As OR says, the amount of money Radiohead have is immaterial. I don't pay money to bands for their music because they're poor, I pay because they have given me a service in one form or another.
that if you're going to pay for it in the future then fair enough for putting in zero.
I just object to people claiming it's a free album. You can pay what you want: that's different to a free album.
It would be like calling a gig where you pay what you want on the door as a free gig.
you're obviously allowed to buy the band a pint, non?
- as I will be buying the CD when it comes out...I rarely buy digital music.
and you have access to google, what's the point in paying? </filesharing advocation>
but 160kbps bitrate is really shitty quality
should be 320kbps AAC file INNNNIIITTT
they're giving out 160??
about it on this very forum. Seems pretty laaaame
Ha that's funny actually. Make a mint from pre-orders and then offer really crap mp3s!
what is the average amount that an artist gets out of a CD sale after all the record label, distribution, marketing, retailer etc etc cut has been paid? I think I heard somewhere that it was a couple of quid.
Given that it seems that there were miniscule costs associated with this release, do you think that Radiohead always knew they were likely to turn a very healthy profit...
to summarise. it totally depends on what the artist deal is and indeed if they ever break even.
no use as a comparison. bollox. that was my one original thought for the day and all.
Or maybe it could but presumably they can specify the unit cost bracket the album must fall into too.
be surprised if that really could govern that. i'm sure they're voices are heard if they make a peep, but as long as they get their royalty cheques (upon which issue their managers will check and make sure the PPD is okay enough to turn them a decent/reasonable profit) i'm sure they have no say in the mechanics of what money is spent where and how and how that relates (unless very very directly, ie a massive repress and adverising campaign the day before royalties) to their money.
this is in a label scenerio, i mean. whatever they do now is their biz. though i wish they would do deals direct with distributors (I mean, even Clap Your Hands Say Yeah could manage that FOR FUCKS SAKE) instead of saying they need a label infrastructure... it completely belittles the whole of the rest of this and they could happily employ 2 people (or more if needed, but they're not really) in the arts.
Yes it might be true that all the labels would reject it but as I remember CD albums come in three bands, something like full price, mid price, cheap price?
All I'm saying is that Radiohead could well be determining the amounts they want by asking for a higher cut of the profits (a label would accept that since they will naturally make more sales that with other bands overall) and/or maybe by asking the album be in a lower price band, if they feel standard full price is detrimental to it.
If a label doesn't want to take that on then fair enough. But this is Radiohead, after all.
what you are saying is true. well if they can get a deal that they want - cool. my main beef is quite clear i guess! wasted opportunity, really.
I can download it for nothing completely guilt free then.
to hear this album. can't wait till tomorrow.
I felt this was fair
just above the average as it turns out. I'd have paid a little more if I wasn't also intending to buy it when it comes out on CD.
"this is why we did it" statement.
I think art should be free and available
to as many people as possible.
I also think that artists don't "deserve"
a living from their art, but I happily buy
CD's, tickets, t-shirts if I really like
a band cos I'd like the band to be able
to make a living out of what they do and
not have to do office jobs or whatever to
Though feck this argument again.
but I will be buying the normal release when it's out.
the plan was to pay about 3 quid, but then my headphones broke so i had to buy some more (financial crisis!). And of course i needed to hear it at the same time as everyone else etc.
To be honest i did feel a little bit scummy beforehand, downloading music for free isn't something i'd normally condone. But now i've found out it's 160kbps - well, consider my conscience clear. In fact, i think they ought to be ashamed to be offering such appalling quality to all the people who did pay top dollar
but i reckon the majority of people wont notice the quality of the mp3, alot of people seem happy with 128. i paid zero for it but will buy the album when it comes out
they didnt tell people that it was going to be 160, so loads of people must have paid reasonable prices for fucking 160.
not i. id rather use my debit card on as few sites as possible thanx
you get a higher bit rate sent if you payed £40 for the package.
i paid for the box. mine are 160. don't lie pooface.
I chose the price i payed for my disk box
the discbox costs £40 flat rate. you couldn't choose what you pay for it.
yeh they must be angry with only selling 2.06 million pounds worth of stuff.
your info from?
I would love to know your source, being as the person who told me is probably a lot closer to the band than whoever told you that.
they only have to sell 5000 more box sets, and they will cover their costs. No lets not be stupid here, the box set will sell out eventually. Meaning with no more downloads (that they are paid for)they will make 1.8million
before the album is really in the shops
will be waiting until they get paid this month. like me.
the album before ordering
And got a cheque from Thom Yorke this morning....
they are effectively offering it for free. If you like the download (in shit bitrate) then you can show appreciation and pay at a later point by buying the physical product or just sending a cheque to T.Yorke, Oxford