Welcome back students to the school of indie rock. I hope you all had a relaxing summer vacation and had a summer love affair with three Swedes named Peter, Bjorn and John.
Ok, the fun is over, so let's get back to business. The most influential, progressive and important band since 1990 has decided to release their seventh full length. With little media foreknowledge, Radiohead announced that "In Rainbows" would be released digitally (via MP3, f- you Steve Jobs!) on October 10th. While this is undeniably great, it comes with a twist of "cursed monkey paw" proportions. The band, in their infinite wisdom (note: this is NOT sarcasm), has decided that fans can pay whatever they want for the album. While die-hards will undoubtedly snap up the $80 box set due to release sometime in November, the rest of us are left with the question: "What exactly do I want to pay for the new Radiohead album?" Well, I'm here to answer exactly that question.
Now initially two answers come to mind: "Duh, I'm not paying anything for something that is being given away" and "Every red cent to my name". Unfortunately, it isn't that simple. To the small crowd that would sign over their first born, I would first say, "wise financial move, kids are expensive and you would be hard pressed to be a better parent than Jonny Greenwood". I would also say the box set, with two discs, a vinyl album, artwork, pictures, etc., costs $80, so the value of the digital version probably peaks around $20.
Now to you folks that tip 7%. This is Radiohead. They have made five generation defining records in a row. They put on live shows that can best be described as religious experiences. This is Radiohead. To put this in perspective, if someone walked up to me tomorrow and said "you can give me $1000 or never listen to Kid A again", well, there would be a For Sale sign on my car. To those of you that are a little more "rational", well, first you need to listen to Kid A again, but even if this is only a pass-able Radiohead album, it will probably get 20 listens. While I wish that I could have only paid $1 per listen for the most recent Sparta and Feist releases (for a grand total of $2.93), "In Rainbows" will provide at least 12-15 hours of premium entertainment for less than $20, that's value. Let's just say a minimum of ten listens at $0.50 a listen and our low limit is $5.
Of course now is probably the time to address the obvious, which is, if Radiohead wanted or expected people to pay for this album, they would charge a specific dollar (err, pound) amount for it. Maybe Radiohead is looking to return the favor to their fiercely loyal following, maybe they are making a statement to longtime label Capitol records or maybe they are just "being Radiohead". We don't really know why Radiohead isn't charging, but I could hardly blame someone for taking advantage of their generosity. So $0 is definitely legitimate, however, if you do feel the need to pay for what will certainly be one of the best albums of the year, the going rate should probably be somewhere between $8 and $12.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I am in favor of the free exchange of intellectual property. Interesting piece of information, artists in Ireland do not pay income taxes on the fruits of their labors (paintings, music, books, etc). I'm not sure where the line is drawn (like, does the composer of video game music have to pay taxes on their royalties?), but at the very least, the concept seems right and just. The idea is that artists, through their works, are contributing to the betterment of the society as a whole, and the money they bring in qualifies as charity, people donating money to a program (or sitar player) that benefits all. Pretty neat stuff.
Now, as far as Radiohead goes, I feel like you're propping them up a little much here, Joe. Radiohead has some nice work, and I'd even venture to say that, were I to listen to a random Radiohead tune, I'd bet on enjoying it. But it's hard to see how Radiohead has altered the face of history with their music. I haven't consciously heard any Radiohead songs since Kid A (which was somewhat intentional; the stuff I heard from Kid A was obnoxious). Just being different doesn't make music good. Thelonius Monk puts together some very unique sounds, and some of it is fantastic, but some of his stuff is just not good.
This prominent concept that stuff that sounds bad is good hurts legitimate virtuosos who happen to compose agreeable music. I cite the Dave Matthews Band as a prime example. Ask any musician whether or not the members of DMB are accomplished musicians, and their responses will undoubtedly be positive. The compositions they produce as well as their ability to drastically change songs at live shows are the hallmarks of tremendous craftsmanship. But because the music is largely undistorted and well-received by the masses, it gets tagged as "poppy," and the "elite vanguard" of music reviewers dog their work.
Off the top of my head, Elton John receives some of the same criticisms, despite his obvious pianistic and song-writing abilities. Though some of that probably comes from him being gay, as well.
I cede the fact that I ought to give the three newest albums a full listen, especially since my musical tastes have evolved over the years. If I have a cathartic experience while listening, I'll come back here and retract my statements.
Don't hold your breath, though.
The Onion did a little feature on the album and its nature here.
Post a Comment