Radiohead Leaks Its Own Track To BitTorrent; Apparently Still Happy With 'Free'
from the oh-look-at-that dept
Last week we did some debunking on the unsupported idea that just because Radiohead was sick of recording full albums, it somehow meant that the band's business model experiment had been a failure, and that the band did not like using "free" as a part of its business model. Amazingly, the usual cast of characters in our comments continued to insist that Radiohead had clearly learned that "free" doesn't pay. Amusingly, that very same day a "brand new" Radiohead track suddenly appeared on BitTorrent, leading to all sorts of speculation (much of it wrong). But on Monday, the band not only officially released the track for free, but in order to distribute it, it pointed to the very same torrent tracker that had been uploaded last week. In other words, the band leaked its own latest song (for free) via BitTorrent, let the buzz build, and then officially announced the "release" a few days later. But, of course, we're to believe our commenting friends who insist that the band learned that "free" doesn't work?
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: business models, free, radiohead, songs
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
If I had the fan base of Radiohead and the money they have, I would do the same thing, because I wouldn't care.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
1) Radiohead has no label.
2) Radiohead can produce and distribute songs just fine on its own.
3) Radiohead "learned" that free is a bad idea.
4) Radiohead doesn't care if its songs are free, and promotes its free songs.
So, the labels are necessary but unnecessary, and free is bad and good.
Nice to see some logical thinking here.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ooh, ooh, me! Me! I know!
Did I hit all the buzzwords?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Then you state that if you had the fan base and money of Radiohead you would also give it away for free cause you "wouldn't care"
Do you give to charity cause you "Don't care"? Do you give blood cause you "don't care" because your body can just produce more? Why would someone do something if they didn't care?
I can see taking a position of inaction in a state of "not caring" but to go about and make an official release shows that there is some caring going on. So there must be a motive.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
listen here
Radiohead sells In Rainbows for any price the fan wants.
They have been known to complain about poor quality FREE releases on bitTorrent.
Why is this such a surprise that Radiohead would release their own high quality track on purpose?
Trent Reznor from Nine Inch Nails did this a year or two ago.
This isn't new marketing genius or a mistake,
This is Radiohead and Trent saying "**** you record labels"
And guess what, I fully support that.
I'm buying whatever they release.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
6) Radiohead have made enough money that they have no concern about income
Basically, it works because of who they are, not what it is.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: listen here
"This is Radiohead and Trent saying "**** you record labels"
And guess what, I fully support that."
...and they only got there because of record labels. Sort of twisted, isn't it?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
aka, it wouldn't work for a smaller, unknown band?
Hot damn, I love Masnick's Law. (on the first post, even!)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: listen here
Yes, in the 90's. The Record Labels' role has changed, whether they like it or not. They are no longer *required* to market a band. Especially if that band wants to keep control of their art.
It must be tough to have all that power and still be powerless to stop the slow, steady decline into being a simple middleman. It reminds me of Flowers for Algernon. Sad.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Why so anonymous anyway?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
it only works cause their Huge, because of the Labels
it only works cause their small, --
Guess to be a Label Shill and/or RIAA Shill Logic is not required... maybe thats why the computer generations cant stand the Labels, we like computers, therefore logic, and can stand the Illogic of the labels.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: listen here
One of my favorite arguments, because it leads to only one extremely obvious conclusion. Assuming what you're saying is true, and I'm prepared to do so in a decent percentage of cases, then a band can get popular using the promotion power of traditional labels before going out on their own and marketing themselves.
That sounds like an excellent service and business model....if they got paid a one time fee for services rendered. Why are they getting residuals after the fact? They service they are providing, according to you, is the popularity push. They aren't making the music, they aren't adding anything else other than the popularit push.
So labels are a PR firm....fine, they should get paid like a PR firm.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Ooh, ooh, me! Me! I know!
Missed **AA
BTW was playing Music Buzzword Shot Game. I'm so wasted....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: listen here
I don't think anything you give away for free can have "commercial intentions".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: listen here
Please prove there were zero radiohead fans before their record deal.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Ooh, ooh, me! Me! I know!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Ooh, ooh, me! Me! I know!
Who are you to speak for Radiohead? Why should I believe what you say over what they say since they are clearly in a better position than you to tell us why they are giving away their music?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: listen here
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Change to Anonymous Harold or Weird Coward and I'm on board...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: listen here
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: listen here
In Trent's case, "in SPITE of" record labels. Do a little research. Trent's first label called his first album "an abortion", and refused to fund his touring. He funded the recording of his next album/EP by getting on the Lollapalooza lineup - which happened because of his live performances, not label influence. Every release he put out, he fought tooth and nail with the record labels to have them delivered as he intended.
And when he quit the labels, he released a double album of instrumental tracks - something the labels would have nixed right off the bat - and made a mint in under 48 hours.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Ooh, ooh, me! Me! I know!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: listen here
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Ooh, ooh, me! Me! I know!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
And, by the way, I apparently (see #19) forgot to put "/sarcasm" at the end of post #3. Sorry about the confusion.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: listen here
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Wouldn't it be ironic...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
It's like spoiled rich kids inheriting their grandfathers business and running it into the ground.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
really?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Ooh, ooh, me! Me! I know!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Record Label Role?
What is the role of these huge multinational corporation labels and what services do they provide to the artists that promote success?
Are their recording facilities superior then that which can be obtained without them? More importantly, are superior recording facilities relevant to the production of music and it's acceptance as an appreciable art form to either the general or specific public markets for such art?
Is their distribution method, primarily the compact disc, a superior product to other alternatives currently available? More importantly, is access to their production resources and/or 3rd party outsourcing superior to that which can be obtain without them?
What promotional advantage is only available through large multinational record label corporations is there over alternative avenues of promotion? More importantly is it advantageous to the artist to relinquish their intellectual properties rights as well significant amounts of artistic integrity in order to obtain those advantages towards becoming successful as determined by the generally accepted definition of artistic succes.
Finally, what exactly does it mean to be artistically successful? Is it financial success (i.e. net profit)? Is it popularity? Radical cultural change or enrichment? Political and social change? Making people want to dance? Goosebumps?
Loaded but honest questions for the astroturfers out there.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
fairly easy to link a pin number to an IP address.....then of course that IP could be used to show how RIAA members are "wasting time with filthy pirate supporting websites" instead of finding those artists for who they are holding hundreds of millions of dollars but they just can't find.....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
CwF: You can't connect without fans, otherwise you are connecting with yourself.
RtB: Your music should be enough reason to buy. If it isn't, then you need to go back and make better music.
Radiohead already has millions of minor and some major fans, and they could put out the sounds of a computer voice reading a poem and people would love it (fitter, happier, more productive). So pointing to things like this as some sort of revolution is fairly insulting to whatever revolution is supposedly going on, because they are just using their position built by the record labels, managers, and promoters to suddenly act like they never needed anyone.
Listen to the song without considering it a Radiohead song, and honestly, is it really any good?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Mike has stated examples over and over again, using up and coming artists and already successful artists.
And each time you have someone saying "Oh, only successful artists can do this!" or "Only artists with nothing to lose can do this!".
So, since this business model has been proven to work with people who never had major promotional backing, where does that leave your arguments?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
When you claim something "works", you need to look at it and see WHY. Usually, the simpliest explaination is what makes the most sense. Radiohead did well with their "name your price" thing because (a) they were well known internationally with a large existing fan base, and (b) they could afford to make absolutely nothing off the recording.
So you go down through the lists of Masnick poster children. Jill Sobule, Corey Smith, Trent Reznor, Facepalm Palmer... each and every one of them has benefited greatly from a record label deal, which is what allowed them to reach out and have a fan base wide enough to support their current actions. Heck, even his latest example, The Flaming Lips, have been solidly on Warner for the last 10 years. How do you separate out X from Y to come to a conclusion of something "working"?
More over, and this is something I think is truly important, Mike has yet to reveal the secret of how a band goes from being known at best regionally (or in a niche market) and getting wider acceptance. Do you honestly think the flaming lips would be playing the Albert Hall in the UK on the basis of some free songs on a myspace page?
All the talk of "flash mobs" (facepalm appeared to have even faked that), name your price, and all that other stuff comes down to a pile of noise and very little to actually show for it. Can you imagine how much more expose Facepalm would have if she had allowed her record label (ready to spent money to promote her) had been allowed to edit her video slightly (to get better angles of Facepalm)?
Oh yeah, she seems to have signed on with Live Nation now. So much for hating the music business. You have more success when you can actually get more than 1 gig a month.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Um... who cares? I never said the labels went away. In fact I've said -- repeatedly, even directly to you in previous comments -- that the labels still have a role. I'm really not sure what you think you're proving here.
So you go down through the lists of Masnick poster children. Jill Sobule, Corey Smith, Trent Reznor, Facepalm Palmer... each and every one of them has benefited greatly from a record label deal
Well, Corey Smith didn't, but that's ok. I like how you skip over Jonathan Coulton, but ok... But again it's meaningless. I have nothing against labels. So I don't know what point you're proving. Besides most of them used a label back when that was their only choice.
More over, and this is something I think is truly important, Mike has yet to reveal the secret of how a band goes from being known at best regionally (or in a niche market) and getting wider acceptance.
Someone hasn't been paying attention again.
All the talk of "flash mobs" (facepalm appeared to have even faked that),
Heh. Dude, your claim about her "faking" that was debunked so badly that I can't believe you're still bringing it up.
For anyone who actually think she faked it, please read the full thread where that was proved as totally made up by this particular commenter, who couldn't read some rather basic info. http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090731/1920485735.shtml
Oh yeah, she seems to have signed on with Live Nation now. So much for hating the music business. You have more success when you can actually get more than 1 gig a month.
Actually, I'm a big fan of what Live Nation is doing. They've got some smart folks at the top there, who we've spent a lot of time talking to about business models. They have some legacy issues to deal with, but if they can get past that, Live Nation is one to watch -- and it's because they agree almost 100% with what we talk about here.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Actually, yes...
How did Mozart and Beethoven and Schubert and Paganini et al make it big without record labels? Or are you saying they are not big names or were not big names back in the day?
Let's take it a step further. Improv Everywhere, a group out of NY that does some wacky stunts just to make everyone's lives a bit more surreal as far as I can tell, managed to pimp a band simply by playing a prank on them (a fairly beneficial prank, as it made that band more well known).
As mentioned, a record label is nothing more than a marketing or advertising agency nowadays. Do you seriously buy music from a 'label'? Or from the artist? If from the artist, and you don't care which label he/she/they signed up with, then the label doesn't really have a brand presence or brand loyalty with you, does it? And if so, then what, really, is the label giving the artist? And WFT should *we* be paying for those so-called services to the artist?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, they have a role, one where they aren't making any money.
"Well, Corey Smith didn't, but that's ok."
You should go back and check that again. Corey Smith won a "battle of the bands" type deal, and one of the prizes was an album recorded and released through a record label. That release is what actually got him on the air on many of the college stations, where he is a fixture to this very day.
"Someone hasn't been paying attention again."
No, someone has been paying attention - which is why I can say you haven't shown how it happens. Usually when cornered, you say something about "who needs to be a big star anyway?"
"Heh. Dude, your claim about her "faking" that was debunked so badly that I can't believe you're still bringing it up."
Mike, seriously: There was no 20 minute miracle, the stage manager and crew were hired ahead, the "extras" were instructed days ahead on what to wear, etc. There was no "flashmob", it was well planned and well orchestrated, from location to time of day to the "crowd" itself. I just think you are embarrassed that Facepalm got one over on you bigtime.
As for the thread, notice everthing I mentioned had nothing to do with 'dates on a video'? Sorry Mike, but there is way too much information that makes it clear that shooting a music video was planned for days ahead, not something that randomly happened.
"I'm a big fan of what Live Nation is doing. They've got some smart folks at the top there, who we've spent a lot of time talking to about business models. They have some legacy issues to deal with, but if they can get past that, Live Nation is one to watch -- and it's because they agree almost 100% with what we talk about here."
Actually, I would think you would hate Live Nation, because their intention is to end up scooping up all the loot, paying the artist a contract rate and then getting involved in all parts of the artist's income, including the "loooots of t-shirts" and everything else.
Facepalm is also a good example of the difference between "label" and "no label". 2008, she toured in Europe and the UK, did about 30 dates, plus a bunch more in the US to support her "who killed Amanda Palmer" album. She was a busy girl getting tons of exposure. Then she went nuclear on her record label (because they wanted to edit her video to remove her less than, umm, appealing near nakedness), and she went from working regularly and on the fast track to the top to someone who played a few days in Australia and had to pass the hat to make ends meet.
She spent almost all of 2009 playing for little groups, a few shows here and there, and her big income appeared to be her friday night flea market. Now she makes a deal with Live Nation, and suddenly she has 4 or 5 shows in the UK out of nowhere. Hmm. Who killed Amanda Palmer? It would appear she did it herself.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
1. Why is it when people bring up artists and their fan base being a result of an association with a major label, they fail to mention any of the large number of bands that successfully make a living touring and almost never producing an album unless it's self-produced or indie?
While most of these bands may not be mainstream, they do what they love, have a huge following, and make a decent living. Bands that come to mind include The String Chees Incident, Yonder Mountain String Band, etc. The list is long. Go to any music festival and a large portion of the bands will be in this group.
Face it, in the music world news gets around, usually through word of mouth and sharing downloaded music which every one of these bands freely embrace. Hell, most of them even allow people to plug into their board at concerts, or setup their own recording equipment, with the full knowledge that these recordings will be shared! Try that with a major label.
2. The fact of the matter is, early music had no form or predictable outcome. The same song would be entirely different when performed by another artist or the same artist at a different performance. It was a social event with the intention of communicating individual or community feelings in a non-verbal, powerful medium. We supported these early performers by providing shelter, sustenance and appreciation. Nothing more was necessary. Definately there was nothing illegal about ArtistX performing the same song as ArtistY.
Once humans developed a way to note and reproduce a performance (sheet music), it became a commodity. Once a product is a commodity, it's salable.
That's when the scavengers begin to appear. The idea that we should pay a middle-man, whose only (questionable) service is PR, to enjoy the fruit of a musician is laughable at best. News gets around.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"early music had no form or predictable outcome"
Define early. Early would be banging sticks on rocks and going "ooga-ooga" before clubbing cavegirl over the head and taking her back to the cave for a night of "fun".
The reality is that in the last 50-60 years, song writers have learned that what the produce (new songs, new music) is every bit as valid a product as a painting, a book, or any other type of art. It is unique and valuable. It isn't the "middle men" doing this, it is the artist themselves realize the value of their work.
As for those middle men, if their own job was "pr" then they wouldn't be in business. Perhaps you should learn what all these middle men do and think about it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: new Cwf+RtB idea
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Is this another experiment? A "let's see what happens..."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
She spent almost all of 2009 playing for little groups, a few shows here and there, and her big income appeared to be her friday night flea market. Now she makes a deal with Live Nation, and suddenly she has 4 or 5 shows in the UK out of nowhere. Hmm. Who killed Amanda Palmer? It would appear she did it herself."
You are increasingly giving me a really creepy feeling. You are truly obsessed with Mike and Amanda Palmer.
The level of detail of your knowledge of the latter's career is quite bizarre given your stated dislike of her music.
Your collected posts about both of them add up to more words than some novels. And the fake-friendly nastiness of your posts is pretty much the standard style for notes from stalkers and serial killers.
Seriously, dude, you need to get out more.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This. Freaking THIS.
When the labels go away, the system of discovering music will change, the same way it changed when they popped up in the first place.
They need to wake up and smell their own irrelevance.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]