Radiohead New Album- Interesting Pricing Scheme

[Calis]

Surprised this hasn't been mentioned yet. Radiohead has officially put out a release date for their new album (In Rainbows) and it's the 10th of October. They also are currently not with a label and will be releasing it themselves, but the interesting part is the pricing scheme is...up to you. You fill in the amount for the download of the CD, totally up to your judgment.

There's a boxed version you can buy also with a set price, not sure exactly what it contains.

I'd be interested to see what the average amount they pull in is. I haven't read much, have they been having a lot of issues with labels, is this a sort of screw you to the CD industry in general or just something else all together?

[Big Fo]

I tried preordering last night but I think their server was being hammered or something, I'll try again later.

I read that the deluxe edition has the following and will be rather pricey at £40 ($81):

Enhanced CD with extra features.
Second CD of offcuts from the record.
Heavyweight vinyl copy of the record.
Artwork and photographs
Hardback book

[Lathum]

Didn't Prince do something similar recently?

[Groundhog]

Once a band reaches Radiohead's level, do you really need a label? I think it's a smart move, and maybe we'll start seeing more of the big bands doing the same.

[Calis]

Didn't Prince do something similar recently?

I think what Prince did was have a copy of his CD in every copy of some British newspaper.

I'm all for seeing more of it.

[Young Drachma]

Just preordered and paid $4 for it. Smart idea I think. I haven't paid for music save for anything I get from Rhapsody or Zune in ages. I'm intrigued enough to get it on time that I'll pay something.

[CamEdwards]

Just preordered and paid $4 for it. Smart idea I think. I haven't paid for music save for anything I get from Rhapsody or Zune in ages. I'm intrigued enough to get it on time that I'll pay something.


Hey big spender! :p

[Young Drachma]

Well I wouldn't have paid for it at all otherwise.

[samifan24]

Well I wouldn't have paid for it at all otherwise.

Yeah I spent a couple of bucks on it, too, in case I don't like it.

[stevew]

Even if I just pay a pound for it, isn't that basically as much, if not more, than they would have cleared from a record company deal?

[VPI97]

FYI

THANK YOU FOR ORDERING IN RAINBOWS. THIS IS AN UPDATE.

YOUR UNIQUE ACTIVATION CODE(S) WILL BE SENT OUT TOMORROW MORNING (UK TIME). THIS WILL TAKE YOU STRAIGHT TO THE DOWNLOAD AREA.

HERE IS SOME INFORMATION ABOUT THE DOWNLOAD:

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

MOST COMPUTERS NOW HAVE ZIP SOFTWARE AS PART OF THE OPERATING SYSTEM; IF YOUR COMPUTER DOES NOT, YOU NEED TO GET WINZIP OR ZIPIT INSTALLED PRIOR.

YOU CAN DOWNLOAD THEM HERE:

PC: http://www.winzip.com/ (http://www.winzip.com/)
MAC: http://www.maczipit.com/ (http://www.maczipit.com/)

IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR PROBLEMS DOWNLOADING YOUR FILE, PLEASE CONTACT OUR DOWNLOAD CUSTOMER SERVICE TEAM AT
[email protected]<WBR>.com ([email protected])

Cool...looks like I'll have something new to listen to on the way to work tomorrow morning.

[Maple Leafs]

I am really, really interested to hear how this does. Is it asking too much to hope they'll release the figures, including average price per sale?

[Big Fo]

Got the same e-mail, I'm looking forward to hearing the album, I haven't been keeping up with new songs that have debuted on tour or anything.

[Daimyo]

I'm traveling this week and don't want to do online shopping from the hotel so I put in 0 and it accepted it without needing a CC#. I got the confirmation email already. I'll re-buy it when i get back home... probably $8 or so. They've earned it.

[Karlifornia]

I've settled on $7.

[Greyroofoo]

If Pink Floyd were to make a new album I would give at least $50

[highfiveoh]

160KBPS? Isn't that pretty bad quality?

[Maple Leafs]

There are honestly some bands I would pay $50 for a new album from. A really good album from a good band is worth at least as much as a video game.

I'd love to know a.) how much people paid for this album, and b.) whether this made any impact on the number of free downloads.

[VPI97]

160KBPS? Isn't that pretty bad quality?
128 kbit/s is the most common, but I tend to rip my CDs at 192 kbit/s. 160 kbit/s is above average.

[highfiveoh]

128 kbit/s is the most common, but I tend to rip my CDs at 192 kbit/s. 160 kbit/s is above average.

So the options are to pay x amount for average quality mp3s (isn't 320 cd quality?) or 50 for the actual CD (plus some other goodies)? I don't like either option.

[highfiveoh]

128 kbit/s is the most common, but I tend to rip my CDs at 192 kbit/s. 160 kbit/s is above average.

So the options are to pay x amount for average quality mp3s (isn't 320 cd quality?) or $50 for the actual CD (plus some other goodies)? I don't like either option.

[Big Fo]

I read elsewhere that the album is going to get a standard release (normal price, none of the extra stuff in the deluxe version) in a few months. So you could get the mp3s for free tomorrow and buy the CD later on when it's available if you wanted to.

[highfiveoh]

I read elsewhere that the album is going to get a standard release (normal price, none of the extra stuff in the deluxe version) in a few months. So you could get the mp3s for free tomorrow and buy the CD later on when it's available if you wanted to.

Cool.

[ThunderingHERD]

So the options are to pay x amount for average quality mp3s (isn't 320 cd quality?) or $50 for the actual CD (plus some other goodies)? I don't like either option.

Actually, CD audio is 1,411 kbps. But I'd still bet anyone here $100 that they can't tell the difference in a double-blind test.

edit: also, I'm pretty sure that the 128 is standard for mp3 stores.

[Karlifornia]

Actually, CD audio is 1,411 kbps. But I'd still bet anyone here $100 that they can't tell the difference in a double-blind test.



I can tell the difference with songs that I've heard many, many times, and could perfectly, in time, sing the whole song word-for-word without the actual song playing in the background.

But....no it probably won't make much of a difference for songs that I haven't heard. You crank that shit up high enough, it doesn't really matter.

[Daimyo]

Unless you have great headphones (costing hundreds) or home audio equipment (costing thousands) I don't think very many, if any, people here could honestly tell the difference in a double blind test...

[lungs]

Downloaded and listening now...

I paid 3.50 pounds for it.

[QuikSand]

I'm giving it my first listen now as well...

[lungs]

Anybody ever get Thom Yorke's solo album? I downloaded it off emusic the other day. It seems pretty decent, it's more of an electronic album.

This new radiohead album seems to be fairly similar to the usual Radiohead stuff they've been doing lately, which is a good thing imo.

But then again, if it's Radiohead, I'm going to love it.

[Daimyo]

As much as I like Radiohead I didn't like Thom Yorke's solo effort very much.

I'm a few tracks into this album and I like it okay so far which is a good sign I think. More than probably any other band I think their music benefits greatly from repeated listening.

[miked]

Paid about $7 for it. Not bad so far.

[QuikSand]

As much as I like Radiohead I didn't like Thom Yorke's solo effort very much.

I'm a few tracks into this album and I like it okay so far which is a good sign I think. More than probably any other band I think their music benefits greatly from repeated listening.

Agreed on all counts.

[Passacaglia]

Can you listen to it before deciding how much you want to pay?

[st.cronin]

I really like Thom Yorke's solo album.

[Big Fo]

The Eraser was hit or miss for me, some tracks I really enjoyed while others were skippable. I have In Rainbows downloaded, I'll be able to give it my first listen in a few hours.

[Daimyo]

Can you listen to it before deciding how much you want to pay?

You can pay $0 for it and download it and then if you like it just go back and re-buy it for what you think its worth.

[BYU 14]

Even if I just pay a pound for it, isn't that basically as much, if not more, than they would have cleared from a record company deal?

Pretty close, standard is about 20%, which is 3-4 Dollars to the Artist depending on the price. So for somebody paying 4-5 bucks they are making more than the record company would pay them per unit sold, pretty ingenius idea.

I think a lot of Artists will be watching this closely to see how it goes, If this catches on it could potentially be the death knell for most of the record industry.

[lungs]

With Yorke's solo album and now the new album being new to me right now, I'd definitely say I like In Rainbows more than Yorke's solo effort but I don't think the solo effort is bad, either.

But I don't think either capture the magic that OK Computer has had for me. OK Computer and Kid A are definitely my favorites, but trying to compete with either of them is unfair based on the high regard I have for both albums.

Overall, going through my third listen, I'd say In Rainbows is a fairly solid album. Once I get it onto a CD and get it into my car, I'll probably like it more. I appreciate music more when I'm driving.

[Phototropic]

Downloaded and listening now...

I paid 3.50 pounds for it.
Same here. I'm going through it a second time and it seems to be solid. Bodysnatchers is an early favorite. I'll probably pick it up again when they release it in CD format (next year I think.)

[VPI97]

I'm really loving this album...Jigsaw Falling Into Place kicks all sorts of ass.

[Ksyrup]

I have to laugh when I read all of the articles proclaiming this to be some sort of revolutionary distribution method that's going to change the music world. It is revolutionary - not to mention brilliant - but only from a business/marketing standpoint, not a distribution standpoint. As someone mentioned above, but everyone (not just here, but all over the net) is ignoring or missing, this album is going to be released on physical CD by way of the usual distribution methods early next year.

What they have done - and again, I think it's brilliant - is turn 2 alternative distribution methods into mega-money-making opportunities. They have seized control of the leak process and are turning it into a profit-making, marketing, and positive PR event. This album was not released on October 10th - the individual tracks were leaked by the band on October 10th, in poor bitrate format, without artwork. The actual release was always planned for early 2008. This is the leak of the album that would have occurred had they contracted with EMI or whomever to do the release. Instead, they now control the leak and are making some money off of what would otherwise be a free-for-all until you can buy the physical CD at Best Buy (or the download at itunes, etc.) next year. This isn't even them making X more profit than they would if they had let iTunes do the release, because this isn't the release! This is the leak, so every penny they make is pure profit (minus whatever expenses they have in setting it up).

The other distribution method they are using here is what I would call the "fanclub exclusive release" format. Again, this is brilliant, because usually when a band releases a bunch of goodies that only the biggest fans buy, it typically happens after the regular release. Here, they are leveraging the lack of physical CD into offering a premium package (at $80 freaking dollars!) that includes the CD, a bonus CD, and vinyl versions of both. Not only are they going to hook the mega-fans with this, but since you can't get the real thing for a couple more months after the exclusives are released, they're going to get a ton more people to part ways with $80 who probably otherwise would not have bought this.

Again, this whole thing is a coup of marketing savvy, but hardly revolutionary. This album will end up at BB and on iTunes. And instead of people freely trading inferior versions of their album for months until that day (or possibly never buying it), they've offered people the privilege of paying for poor quality versions of songs that will be on their new album, or buying a fanatic-only release at over 5 times what the CD would cost. I mean really, I know vinyl has its fans, but how many people are really going to get use out of the vinyl other than as some sort of collector's item?

Kudos to the band and/or whoever came up with this idea. Too bad I don't like them. Still interesting to follow from afar, though.

And BTW, there is absolutely a discernible difference between 128/160 kbps and 320 and cetainly CD-quality. I listen to my music loud enough in confined spaces that it is easily noticeable, which is one of the several reasons why I refuse to buy downloads unless there is no physical CD available.

[Sgran]

I'm not surprised at all by this idea. If you listen to interviews with Radiohead, they say the same thing over and over again: "if bands/labels wouldn't put out such rubbish records, then people wouldn't be so quick to pirate them." I know that I feel I owe Radiohead some money at this point -- I've actually paid for only The Bends (used) and Amnesiac, the rest were copied or, um, borrowed from friends on the Internet. And they're really my favorite band.
This is not a death knell for the industry, however, since only a few bands can get away with this sort of thing. Would anyone you know who is internet/download savvy really pay for the new Jet CD? This is merely one superhuman band pulling a stunt, like the Beetles playing a concert on the top of a building.
By the way, I like Eraser, and I don't think in terms of "is it as good as Hail to the Thief. I'm grateful for every song I get out Yorke. He's a rare musical genius and I'm thankful he hasn't managed to kill himself somehow. God bless Radiohead.

[Ksyrup]

This is not a death knell for the industry, however, since only a few bands can get away with this sort of thing. Would anyone you know who is internet/download savvy really pay for the new Jet CD? This is merely one superhuman band pulling a stunt, like the Beetles playing a concert on the top of a building.


In terms of magnitude of event, I agree that only a few bands could be as successful with this as RH is probably going to be. But if they tightly control the leak process, and instead of the usual leak during the 3-4 month marketing run-up to the actual release make the same kind of offer to fans that RH has, I bet any number of bands would do well. And the point, really, is that anything they get from offering the leaked version themselves is more than they would get otherwise. I bet there is a segment of Jet fans who would pay a few dollars for a leaked version of a new album that isn't coming out for another 3 months. And with some indie bands, the bond with their fans is so tight, they might even have a higher attachment rate because their fans are looking for reasons to give them money.

Another thing about the genius of RH offering this at 160kbps is that it's probably decent enough that most people won't care, but it's just inferior enough to probably force some people to buy the physical CD.

[Ksyrup]

Oh, and while you wait for the actual release, here's some alternative artwork that you can use:

http://img251.imageshack.us/img251/286/inrainbowscoversx3.jpg

[cthomer5000]

I just bought and downloaded, 2.95 pounds total... so about 6 bucks american.

[cthomer5000]

Once a band reaches Radiohead's level, do you really need a label? I think it's a smart move, and maybe we'll start seeing more of the big bands doing the same.

Once you're huge, you can pretty easily move off a label. The problem is if you aren't huge no one cares that you're releasing album through some quirky method. The other problem there is no vested interest in playing your song on the radio. No label is pushing the stations to play it / no station is playing it as a favor to a label.

It's not necessarily sustainable for a big band, but if they're fine with admitting they'r esentially playing to their existing fanbase, they will probably make much more money selling even way less albums.

[QuikSand]

I'm hearing lots of segments that really sound like they exhumed Jeff Buckley -- I know Thom's voice is in the same neck of the woods, but I have never heard echoes as strong as those on this album. Anyone else hearing that as an influence?

[ThunderingHERD]

their server is showing me its insides

[Critch]

Looks like some other bands may be following Radiohead's plan:

http://www.zmemusic.com/other/band-independece-revolution-oasis-joins-the-fight/

[Anthony]

So the options are to pay x amount for average quality mp3s (isn't 320 cd quality?) or 50 for the actual CD (plus some other goodies)? I don't like either option.

moron, if you could hear the difference between 160 and 192 kbs you'd be an engineer or record producer. if you liked a song and wanted to download it for free you'd grow a beard before you found a 320 kbs version on limewire or kazaa or whatever you use.

[Ksyrup]

if you liked a song and wanted to download it for free you'd grow a beard before you found a 320 kbs version on limewire or kazaa or whatever you use.

You know not what you speak.

[Anthony]

I really like Thom Yorke's solo album.

i didn't hear the whole album, but the 3 singles i heard on XM i loved. think the names were "The Eraser", another was "Black Swan", forgot the name of the other. i'd know it if i saw it.

[Anthony]

You know not what you speak.

hey dickly, i use Limewire and if i were to find a 320 version of a song i'd crap my pants.

needless to say, my shorts aren't stained.

highest you will see often is 192. i download whatever has the best connection. 128 is standard across the board. and regardless, if you're gonna listen to songs in tiny headphones then you need not bother being concerned with kbs.

[Fidatelo]

moron, if you could hear the difference between 160 and 192 kbs you'd be an engineer or record producer. if you liked a song and wanted to download it for free you'd grow a beard before you found a 320 kbs version on limewire or kazaa or whatever you use.

There is an audible difference between 128 and 192. I also have had some 160's that I felt were lacking in quality, but there could have been other factors in that. Still, I wouldn't be surprised if someone felt 160 was still isufficient for their tastes.

Now, I've never been able to discern a problem with 192, so I'm not sure what more can be gained from 320, but who knows? Everyone's ears are different.

Also, I've downloaded lots of music files at 320 via Torrents.

[Ksyrup]

hey dickly, i use Limewire and if i were to find a 320 version of a song i'd crap my pants.

Tha fact that you use Limewire proves my point.

[Anthony]

the fact that you use the spyware-filled kazaa (if that's what you use) is your problem, not mine.

i only use torrent for shows. takes too long for it to be something i use frequently.

[Ksyrup]

I use that which has no name. Kazaa and all of those other Napster-type spinoffs ceased to be effective in what, 1999 or so?

Actually - and this is entirely coincidental - we call non-new releases "trout." Apparently they have uses other than for sticking up your rectum. Who knew?

[highfiveoh]

moron, if you could hear the difference between 160 and 192 kbs you'd be an engineer or record producer. if you liked a song and wanted to download it for free you'd grow a beard before you found a 320 kbs version on limewire or kazaa or whatever you use.

Hey, shit for brains:

a) I can tell the difference whether you believe it or not
b) Who the hell uses Limewire and Kazaa (besides teenyboppers)? If you want free music you use torrents. And if you used torrents at all you'd know that 320 is about all that is out there. Which makes sense considering just about everyone has broadband and there isn't a central server supplying bandwidth.

[rkmsuf]

Fellas, fellas. Isn't this whole downloading thing illegal anyway?

[highfiveoh]

не в России

[rkmsuf]

Is this russia? This isn't russia, no the question is do you want to go to college.

[Ksyrup]

Radiohead MP3 release a tactic to lift CD sales

By Andrew Edgecliffe-Johnson in LondonPublished: October 11 2007 03:00 | Last updated: October 11 2007 03:00

Radiohead (http://idolator.com/tunes/radiohead/)'s much-debated decision to let fans choose what they pay for its new album online is a promotional tactic to boost sales of compact discs, the band's management said yesterday.

"If we didn't believe that when people hear the music they will want to buy the CD, then we wouldn't do what we are doing," Bryce Edge of Courtyard Management told Music Week, the UK's industry magazine.

The decision to release In Rainbows (http://idolator.com/tunes/in-rainbows/) online and to allow buyers to pay as little as they like has been lauded by some analysts as a ground-breaking model for an industry struggling to compete with free illegal downloads.

As many as half of those who registered for the download had paid more than the minimum 45p transaction fee, Mr Edge indicated, but he described the initiative as "a solution for Radiohead, not the industry", and defended the superior quality of CD recordings.

[ThunderingHERD]

Hey, shit for brains:

a) I can tell the difference whether you believe it or not
b) Who the hell uses Limewire and Kazaa (besides teenyboppers)? If you want free music you use torrents. And if you used torrents at all you'd know that 320 is about all that is out there. Which makes sense considering just about everyone has broadband and there isn't a central server supplying bandwidth.

Between 192 and 160!??! No, you can't tell the difference. You really can't. You really, really, really can't.

[Ksyrup]

Between 192 and 160!??! No, you can't tell the difference. You really can't. You really, really, really can't.

When I listen to music as loud as I do with headphones or in the car, I can hear the tinniness and distortion of inferior bitrates. That's not to say 160 is completely unacceptable, but 128 is (to me). Even though it cuts down on the capacity of my MP3 players, I encode everything at a minimum of 192, and usually go with 256 or 320. It's not an option - I must have a full-sounding quality to my music when it's as loud as I have it.

[rkmsuf]

so turn it down there sizzle chest

[Ksyrup]

no

[Passacaglia]

WHAT?

[Daimyo]

Reminds me of the guy at work who insisted he could tell the difference between the DVI and VGA connections on his 19" LCD monitors... obviously, he couldn't when we actually tested him.

[Ksyrup]

I never claimed to be able to tell the difference between, say, 160 and 192. What I said was that I could hear the degradation in the sound of lower bitrate files. The lower the bitrate, the worse it becomes. 128 is unacceptable for me unless it's just background music. Then I don't care at all. But that's not the way I listen to music, so I try to stay away from the lower bitrate files and only encode my own at certain minimum levels.

[Fidatelo]

I agree with Ksyrup, 128 is not acceptable (and noticeably so). 192 and up for me.

[Anthony]

i would think you could only tell the difference at lower decibels. when the music is blaring through the speakers then how could you tell? that's bs. i have an excellent ear for music, but to say i can point out the bitrates in songs, especially the difference between 160 and 192, i'd be shitting you. i must've damaged my ears from too much loud music through my headphones. obviously one can tell the difference between 128 and anything over 192, that's more of a disparity. but i just listen to too much loud music to be able to discern. at a lower level i would think you could hear the subleties of a song. if you're listening to music in your car, especially loudly, then bitrate shouldn't concern you. unless you've invested in a high end car audio system, that's a different story.

i listen to satellite radio, and i find it decent/bearable. and that's nowhere near cd-quality sound.

[Calis]

Not to derail the thread or anything but....

Anyone have any impressions? I haven't actually listened to it yet and wondered how it was.

[dawgfan]

Listened to it once after I downloaded it, initial impressions are I like it and like most Radiohead records, will get better with repeated listens.

I wish I'd been paying more attention to the details of this release though - if I'd realized there was a standard CD release planned later, I wouldn't have paid them so much for the download (I paid $10, or about what I think CD's ought to cost).

[ThunderingHERD]

re: bit rates

128 vs. 256 vs CD (http://www.geocities.com/altbinariessoundsmusicclassical/mp3test.html)

Participants selected for musical qualifications (a guy that worked on AAC, a guy that works on audio processing algorithms for hearing aids, etc.), listening to $20,000 system (and equally ridiculous headphones). They were played the CD as a reference for each sample before the test began. They could flip back and forth between recordings. See the article for results (which I think they interpret too generously--wish I had the raw data).


They also raise a great point:
... it isn’t those with perfect hearing, but those that deviate strongly from normal that seem to be especially sensitive to MP3 artifacts. Psycho-acoustic masking effects are at the basis of the MP3 encoding algorithm (the alarm clock goes on ticking even when it rings [but the algorithm doesn’t encode the ticking because it will be masked by the ringing anyway G.]; and the algorithm relies upon such effects also in the case of the generated normalization noises, which in general are supposed to be masked by the useful signals. But when a hearing impairment cause these noises to surface they will be much easier to detect.
Maybe some people need to have their hearing checked?

[Fidatelo]

re: bit rates

128 vs. 256 vs CD (http://www.geocities.com/altbinariessoundsmusicclassical/mp3test.html)

Participants selected for musical qualifications (a guy that worked on AAC, a guy that works on audio processing algorithms for hearing aids, etc.), listening to $20,000 system (and equally ridiculous headphones). They were played the CD as a reference for each sample before the test began. They could flip back and forth between recordings. See the article for results (which I think they interpret too generously--wish I had the raw data).


They also raise a great point:

Maybe some people need to have their hearing checked?

Actually I do have bad ears, so this might make sense as to why I can tell the difference...

[PilotMan]

Just a bump

Today (the 10th) is the last day to get the download for your own price. It still works as I just picked it up (almost forgot about it.)

The result has been a huge success for the band (according to themselves and media.)

I have heard that the US release for In Rainbows will be Jan 1.

[Groundhog]

I didn't realise it was still available on the site and downloaded it from a torrent instead a month or so ago.

Some nice songs, but I just don't know how many spins this will get from me.

[Groundhog]

dola

So I guess it's a little dissapointing, given Radiohead have been one of my top-3 bands since I was about 14 or 15.

[Router Help]

Some really really good songs, but also some not so good.

I can't get enough of Last Flowers rigth now. (cd2)

[Synovia]

I can tell the difference with songs that I've heard many, many times, and could perfectly, in time, sing the whole song word-for-word without the actual song playing in the background.

But....no it probably won't make much of a difference for songs that I haven't heard. You crank that shit up high enough, it doesn't really matter.

Lots of people say they can. When it comes to double blinds, they cant.

[Daimyo]

I've listened to this album repeatedly over the last several weeks and I love it. IMO, it is so much better than Hail to the Thief. Its not as good OK Computer or The Bends (although at this stage in my life it matches my mood much better than the latter). Its still too early for me to say how it stacks up to the other albums... have to wait and see if I'm still listening and enjoying it months and years from now like I do the others.

If I had to make a single disc Best of Radiohead compilation today Bodysnatchers and Jigsaw Falling Into Place would both make the cut.

[Vince]

Have they released any figures anywhere? Interested to see what a "huge success" actually is.

[miked]

Got tickets to see them play here in the A. Haven't seen them for 4-5 years, the last time they were on tour I saw them in NH (Tweeter Center). I hate Lakewood, but at least it's Radiohead.

[Ksyrup]

If you're talking about internet sales of the pre-release MP3s, I don't think they have given any of that info out. But considering the whole thing was nothing more than a profitable PR campaign that allowed the band to take control of the leaks that would inevitably happen between completion of the album and the release of the physical CD, I'd say it was hugely successful. They made tons of money off of poor quality MP3s that would have just been traded freely otherwise, AND they had the #1 album the week the physical CD was released.

[cthomer5000]

Have they released any figures anywhere? Interested to see what a "huge success" actually is.

I know there was a quote from one of the band members who said they made more money of the internet sales than they had on all prior albums combined. Take that for what it's worth. It is not in any way hard to believe given how little artists generally get from a CD sale.

[Ksyrup]

I know there was a quote from one of the band members who said they made more money of the internet sales than they had on all prior albums combined. Take that for what it's worth. It is not in any way hard to believe given how little artists generally get from a CD sale.

Actually, I believe the quote from Yorke was that they made more money from the digital download pre-sale than the digital downloads of all of their previous studio albums. I'm fairly certain he was not referring to physical CD sales.

[cthomer5000]

Actually, I believe the quote from Yorke was that they made more money from the digital download pre-sale than the digital downloads of all of their previous studio albums. I'm fairly certain he was not referring to physical CD sales.

He also said they weren't receiving any money from digital downloads though, and specifically referenced their contract. So to me I don't see how it doesn't mean that:

digital sales of In Rainbows > all money received for sales of their back catalogue

He didn't out-and-out put it in the language I am, but I think it's a pretty clear implication.

[Ksyrup]

He also said they weren't receiving any money from digital downloads though, and specifically referenced their contract. So to me I don't see how it doesn't mean that:

digital sales of In Rainbows > all money received for sales of their back catalogue

He didn't out-and-out put it in the language I am, but I think it's a pretty clear implication.

I don't agree:

"Yorke: In terms of digital income, we’ve made more money out of this record than out of all the other Radiohead albums put together, forever — in terms of anything on the Net. And that’s nuts. It’s partly due to the fact that EMI wasn’t giving us any money for digital sales. All the contracts signed in a certain era have none of that stuff."

I don't think he was referring in any way to money made from physical CDs. The entire discussion is about revenue from digital sales.

[cthomer5000]

Still, even by his quote... 1 cent of income would have been more money than they had made in digital sales previously.

[Big Fo]

Got tickets to see them play here in the A. Haven't seen them for 4-5 years, the last time they were on tour I saw them in NH (Tweeter Center). I hate Lakewood, but at least it's Radiohead.

Glad I read this post, I didn't know they were coming through the Southeast in a few months. Lakewood isn't that great a place to see a show you're right, I gotta decide if I'd rather drive there or to Charlotte which I think is a similar distance away. The Braves being in town at that time has me leaning toward Atlanta though.

[Phototropic]

Just like to say that I love CD2. Last Flowers, Down is the New Up, and Go Slowly are all great.

[cthomer5000]

back to the actual financial performance of their self-release... i think the most conservative of estimates had them making 2.6 million and the most optimistic having them make 10... and those were estimates for the first week or so.

[Vince]

back to the actual financial performance of their self-release... i think the most conservative of estimates had them making 2.6 million and the most optimistic having them make 10... and those were estimates for the first week or so.

Good lord, that's absurd. Way more than I would have expected.

[cthomer5000]

Good lord, that's absurd. Way more than I would have expected.

I also know two different band members said 60,000 and 80,000 of the physical "discbox" packages they were selling had been ordered. So that's at least 60K sold at a huge price tag of about $80. I dont know what those cost them to produce, but you still have to imagine the profit margin was huge.

And then after all that they hit #1 in the USA with the physical release of the CD for mainstream audiences.

I imagine even they would have to admit some surprise at the overall success of this thing.

[Groundhog]

It amuses me when I wonder how the big wigs at the various record companies feel when they read that.

[miked]

Didn't want to start a new thread, but saw Radiohead last night at Lakewood. Venue sucks, but the show was great. It's the 3rd time I've seen them and they never put on a bad show. They played mostly stuff from Kid A and In Rainbows, with a little Amnesiac mixed in. They didn't play a single song from the Bends (not that I remember) and played Paranoid Android for their encore. Got some almost covered seats which kept us clear from the passing rain.

Radiohead r0x0rs!

[Sgran]

Didn't want to start a new thread, but saw Radiohead last night at Lakewood. Venue sucks, but the show was great. It's the 3rd time I've seen them and they never put on a bad show. They played mostly stuff from Kid A and In Rainbows, with a little Amnesiac mixed in. They didn't play a single song from the Bends (not that I remember) and played Paranoid Android for their encore. Got some almost covered seats which kept us clear from the passing rain.

Radiohead r0x0rs!

I saw them last year in Budapest at a summer festival and they played almost every hit I could name except for High and Dry (apparently they hate this song, or at least Yorke does). Incredible show. My favorite track was There there.

[Maple Leafs]

Interesting followup... even though the album was free, millions of users still grabbed it off bittorrent instead of the Radiohead site.

Free Just Wasn’t Cheap Enough for Radiohead Fans (http://mashable.com/2008/08/05/radiohead-free-not-cheap-enough/)

The obvious answer is the one that the report gives - venue familiarity. The theory goes that folks are far more familiar with downloading files through these networks than they are with going to Radiohead’s website, and so it was far simpler just to click around till they found it there rather than go to the site.

It certainly has a ring of truth to it, but PaidContent’s Robert Andrews isn’t convinced:

But that’s wishful thinking. In Rainbows torrent downloads peaked on the first day data was collected, October 27, at 400,000 - what Page and Garland call “a bloody big number”. How big? More than double the top torrent through March and May (Panic At The Disco’s Pretty Odd) got in a whole week (ie. 10 times Panic’s daily average).

Counterpoint - Nine Inch Nails’ free The Slip album was downloaded more from NIN.com than torrents. And In Rainbows reached number one on both sides of the Atlantic on proper sales.

[QuikSand]

So... pricing scheme and bitrate controversy aside, this album has come up twice for me in album shuffle mode recently, and a single popped up this morning on the radio. I am probably inching this album upward on my personal rankings of their material... I might have it slotted third behind the gold standard OK Computer and the poppy but pleasing The Bends. It is a much more "mature" sound than any of the intervening albums, I'd say, and I like the place where they landed with it, a good deal.

[PilotMan]

<<<<<------- Radiohead fanboy.

[Daimyo]

I still like it a lot. I was worried that were done after Hail and Thom's solo effort (Hail eventually grew on me -- The Eraser not so much).

OK Computer is clearly their best in my mind and I don't think that will ever change. I'd probably put The Bends ahead of it as well, but I think In Rainbows fits me so much better at this stage in my life, if that makes sense, that I listen to it a lot more often.

[Pyser]

yorke has 3 gigs this weekend in la with his new band (flea is in it too). clusterfuck to get tix all 3 tiems, and being scalped at like 300 a pop now. fuckers.

[QuikSand]

So... pricing scheme and bitrate controversy aside, this album has come up twice for me in album shuffle mode recently, and a single popped up this morning on the radio. I am probably inching this album upward on my personal rankings of their material... I might have it slotted third behind the gold standard OK Computer and the poppy but pleasing The Bends. It is a much more "mature" sound than any of the intervening albums, I'd say, and I like the place where they landed with it, a good deal.

Still moving up my rankings.

[Butter]

For a one-two opening punch, it doesn't get any better than "15 Step" and "Bodysnatchers".

[dawgfan]

Still moving up my rankings.
As great as "OK Computer" is, I think "In Rainbows" is now my favorite Radiohead record - it feels like the ultimate distillation of the band they have become.

[QuikSand]

As great as "OK Computer" is, I think "In Rainbows" is now my favorite Radiohead record - it feels like the ultimate distillation of the band they have become.

I feel substantially the same way, though putting it like that is basically heresy. But I too might settle on the great/favorite split here.

[Groundhog]

In Rainbows took some time to grow on me but I eventually ended up liking it just fine. I listen to it more than OK Computer these days, but that is mostly because I've heard OK Computer 1 billion times. OK Computer will always rank higher for me because of the impact it had on my musical tastes back when it came out - I was at just the right age.

Kings of Limbs however... I haven't listened to that record since not long after it was released. Did not grab me at all.

[Daimyo]

OK Computer is clearly their best in my mind and I don't think that will ever change. I'd probably put The Bends ahead of it as well, but I think In Rainbows fits me so much better at this stage in my life, if that makes sense, that I listen to it a lot more often.

Its definitely passed The Bends for me and I listen to it more than OK Computer. Still not ready to say its "better" than OK Computer. Definitely a lot closer than I expected.