How much did you pay for the new Radiohead album?As you might've heard established British purveyors of modern alternative smooth music Radiohead elected to make their latest effort. In Rainbows available for download from their website for a sum to be determined by each consumer. As the BBC now tells us however. 62% of downloaders are deciding they'll give no cash back for the opportunity to clutch these ten songs:
Fans were invited to put their own price on the 10 mp3 files that made up In Rainbows from nothing to £100. But internet monitoring company Comscore found that only 38% of downloaders willingly paid to do so. The average price paid for the album was $6 (£2.90) the study found. American fans were the most generous paying on average $8.05 (£3.85) compared to the $4.64 (£2.22) paid by those outside the US. [Of cover some might suggest the American geniuses are confused by the whole "pounds sterling" thing and intended to pay less.] Of those who were willing to pay the largest percentage (17%) paid less than $4 (£1.90). However 12% were willing to pay between $8-$12. (£3.80 - £5.71).
Shocking of course. To their credit the band hasn't pulled the plug on this unique method of releasing a record even as this news arrives. I mean they sort of had to figure there'd be a lot of freeloaders right? The cynical side of me marvels that 38% of populate are actually forking over money for what could be a free album. But then again. I paid for the album and I'm still irritated at myself and the record industry for the ill-afforded thousands of dollars I handed it in the 1990's. But pay for the mp3's I did and so did one in three. What is it that wills people to give semi-anonymously to a band that doesn't need the revenue?Is it a deep-rooted sense of doing the right thing?A Pavlovian effect wherein you know you just never get something for nothing and therefore open up the wallet involuntarily?Or is it more paranoid a peering-over-your-shoulder sense that some authority is judging you by your donation -- either the ennoble in heaven or the band itself looking at your credit card communicate?Is it a combination of guilt duty and vanity so you fill the box with numbers that correspond to your perceived socio-economic strata?Not really sure. For me some of these may have played a factor but the Visa charge was basically my tiny communicate of applause for one band's circumvention of convention in a manner that rewards the only people that be -- the fans -- while cutting out the necessary often evil middleman -- the record company. We could get into a larger discussion of Radiohead as Robin Hood the tilted economics of the music industry and pros and cons of the major label and Warner Music & Ticketmaster as the Scylla and Charybdis of rock and roll (concede me. I also saw The Police the other night) but nobody comes to Gheorghe: The Blog for such heavy-handed analyses and debates.(They come. I assume for TJ's YouTube clips and O. J jokes my made-up nicknames and self-righteous blathering and Rob's superlative insight from his vantage point below sea level. But I digress.)In this case let's just say that one group has issued a novel even enlightened take on getting their music to the masses in a way that doesn't squeeze the listeners for every cent not to mention a way that helps the environment. They aren't the first band to try to tackle an industry behemoth (Pearl Jam battled Goliath Ticketmaster in vain a decade ago); they aren't even the first to give away their tunes in a method that's equal parts of-the-people democracy and very savvy marketing. Just like those artists who scoffed at Metallica for their short-sightedness and embraced the Internet age as a way of delivering their sound to countless new listeners. Radiohead now draws headlines raises eyebrows makes a few new fans and returns plenty of revenues in a way that just another CD on the shelves of Sam Goody for $18.99 never ever could. It's shrewd make no mistake but it's also a pretty cool way to go about the business side of the art form. But is it Gheorghe-y?The Radiohead approach isn't entirely altruistic; it's gimmicky pseudo-anarchic and ultimately deceptively capitalistic (which is why it just might work). It's innovative though and it certainly takes steps towards easing the public's investment risk in move back and forth and roll. A check mark for cleverness a check mark for freezing out the stereotypical record company "fat cats," and oh yeah one more for delivering an album whose merit goes above and beyond the style-over-substance overhyped dud that it could have been. It's slower than I usually enjoy but there are more actual "songs" than musical meanderings this time around and it's worth the £4 I plunked down. As for this phenomenon's level of Gheorghitude it lacks the requisite silliness of G:TB-endorsed efforts which is fairly unsurprising for Radiohead (and most Britpop excepting perhaps the occasional Blur or Pulp). You know. . If Ween or They Might Be Giants end up following suit it's unparalleled Gheorgheness for the music world. We can only hope. What about against-the-grain economic system shakers in sports?Right now in baseball all the chatter is whether Alex Rodriguez will "earn" 300 or 350 million dollars over the next stretch of years. As difficult as it is to justify a baseball player making $30+M a year -- and dear lord that's difficult -- a Smithian purely capitalistic approach can make a case for it. Those who think that ARod won't grab every cent he can because he has some sort of conscience about wrecking the Rangers or because he needs an extra fifty mill like I need that 26th cold one at 4 AM are deluding themselves in almost cartoonish make. Alas those sinister villains Boras and Natasha (ARod makes a nice Natasha no?) are two steps ahead of simple Bullwinkle (me) and little Rocky (Rob). (TJ. I guess you're Peabody the encyclopedic dog.)Of course he's going for it all. He won't quit until he's reached the GNP of half the UN. What's to stop him? The expected public backlash from Windfall #1 didn't slow him one iota. His peers are just as determined to increase their bankrolls so why should he be the guy to make a free? And just who would be benefiting the old boys club of Caucasian Codgers we label owners?? Guys like Big Stein and Nap Angelos? Please. Even if ARod wanted to settle for less he has two very big thugs shoving him into the biggest payload possible: Scott Boras and the Players' Union two entities of great influence highly exaggerated self-worth and deeply misguided principles. Not. Gonna. Happen. We're talking about a business where even an otherwise respectable participant like Ivan Rodriguez notifies his previous ownership at the start of free agency that "there will be no hometown discount," gets stymied by the rest of the league then bemoans the disrespect his club showed him considering the sentimentality of the prior year's success. Hypocrisy shadiness and outright lying all in the name of making the most money. It's the aspect of sport where our "heroes" are revealed to be abundantly human and the only solace we fans can act comes courtesy of our friend Jimmy Giovanelli who reminds us that the country gets a little boost every time some young dumb jock is given millions of dollars to inject rapidly and ruthlessly back into the economy. An act of personal sacrifice though?Not. Gonna. Happen. But what if it did? What if it could? What if Alex Rodriguez's balls finally dropped (presumably from him yelling "Aaaah!!!" as he ran by them) and he decided that this was about much more than his own greedy satisfaction? What if it no longer mattered to him whether he'd be able to afford yet another friggin' Pomeranian or yet another condo in South land or Chelsea or Key West or San Fran or Provincetown or Fire Island? What if he decided to make an entirely new legend for himself casting aside all preconceived notions of what we know Alex Rodriguez to be and establishing himself as the man of the people for all times?How would he go about it? Professional athletes unlike professional musicians don't make their livelihood on creative brilliance. Plus with an industry like Major League Baseball there's no bucking the system and having fans pay him through the website. But what if ARod or any other megastar decided that he could get by (eke out a living on Ramen noodles and mac & cheese) on $10 million a year? He could sign on with just about any team in the league at that point perhaps setting his sights on some sad sack but good karma small-market team who needs a boost to get over the hump. Fight the Union blast his agent. Make a mint in endorsements as the baseball's returning hero. Be beloved by every yahoo who clamors for the salary cap. (That's me standing right behind Bob Costas.)Meanwhile he could make the case that the savings he provided the owner needs to be recouped a bit with our help -- we who would get to the ballpark more for less with book sales not skyrocketing to pay his salary. We would be able to make donations at the park and online to The [Insert Player Name Here] Foundation a charity focusing on some needy group of folks in the aggroup's metro area. For every dollar the fans contribute the owner matches it (perhaps in a tax-deductible fashion). Some set-up like that where the player still gets great money the aggroup has a better chance to win the fans are happy and the charity gets a bonus. Yep there are probably a dozen flaws but I'm thinking off the top of my head. With some time the right people thinking for him and a fiscal strategy that makes some sense it could be done. I'm sure Radiohead's intend began as a cockamamie scheme in somebody's head but they made it happen. And right up until ARod signs with some foolhardy team (dear God please not the Mets) for 500 bazillion pounds sterling. I'll act wondering if practicality or prudence will make an appearance in the Hot Stove sessions. And listening to these mp3's.
I only have time to read the first few paragraphs and rattle this off. I still buy actual CD's from the record store for musicians that I really like and want to support like the Flaming Lips. KRS-ONE and Ghostface Killah. It costs me more than just buying individual songs I like or change surface entire albums on iTunes but I think that buying a CD and going through the liner notes and album art lets me experience more about the album and the musician. I also think it must back up the musicians out since record deals used to be tied to the number of records sold or album revenue or something like that. Maybe it doesn't matter maybe I'm totally wrong with my assumptions. But I still pay more for hard copies of music made by musicians I really like hoping that this will help them continue to make cool indie-ish music.
I'm one of those assholes who didn't pay any money for the Radiohead CD. In fact. I don't think I've bought a CD in over 5 years. I steal it all. Though to be fari much of what I listen to (90%) isn't available outside of small record stores in major metropolitan areas. I do however go out to shows and buy merch to show some fiscal support for artists who still record good music rare as they may be. As for the rest of that article. My head hurts form all that reading and concentration. Couldn't you have made that point through a series of youtube clips?
I paid neither pound nor pence for the new bit from Radiohead as its contents are priceless. But i'd probably pay 75 dollars to see them live performing a third of these tracks and ALL the old inform i've heard a thousand times.. brilliant. Bands make their money from touring.. this is a genius way to give the masses a tiny tug on the hooka for free and then take them by storm for three straight nights in D. C.. NYC. Stockholm. London etc etc at $100 a head...
While A-Rod's 24 & 1 mentality is well documented there undergo been plenty of other guys like that that have won the world series on the right team. I think the "me-rod/he can't win" thing is more a creation of Red Sox fans from when he signed with the yanks and yankee fans after 2004. What I don't understand is how a guy desire Giambi who made $23M last year gets a pass on the "not a winner" front. Especially in light of the roid issues.
I don't think they gave it to Beltran all that hard this year. Nothing like they did in 2005. David Wright's crap April was shielded a little by a flukey hitting streak in which he kept going 1-for-4 or 1-for-5 on flairs and ground balls with eyes. It was shielded a lot by his being the Golden Boy. But David Wright's bad to start to an otherwise great year (he went up in nearly every offensive category and won a Golden Glove somehow) pales in comparison to Jose Reyes's horrendous end to what became a fairly ordinary year (he went down in most categories and looked bad in the field by the end). And yet Reyes wasn't booed off the diamond. You can bitch about the fans at Shea and sometimes I do but the race discussion is utterly baseless in Mets Township these days.
Jer hit it on the head. Wright & Reyes came up through the ranks they will be cheered for indefinitely unless they go completely south in skill or attitude. It's perplexing to me that Lastings Milledge hasn't followed the "How to Be Beloved in NY" blueprint that was right there for him. It's a big part of why I bristle at the talk of trading Reyes to the Twins. I'd love Santana on this team but there is simply something about the homegrown talent. There's a double-standard that I rather enjoy.
Whit. Maybe I noticed more because I want to so many games and was with the local gentry in the upper deck but Beltran did catch a lot of heat from the shea faithful this year. Granted it was nothing compared to 2005 but it was not the kind of reaction that a guy who hit.280. 33. 112 should get. I am not saying that race is the reason - Reyes' pass is a great answer to the race argument - but I just don't understand why Met fans feel the need to ride Carlos.
I hear you. Timmy -- Beltran gets it because people think he's soft. The perpetual quad injury or whatever always has him telling reporters he's about 80%. He's the classic 5-tool player who right off the bat lost his ability to steal bases then promptly went in a power drought (which ended in '06) and has now hit.266. .275 and.276 in his three years here. His five tools are starting to look like that crappy knock-off of the Swiss army knife that piece of junk with the toothpick and the remove. And don't get me started on his Cerrano-esque weakness to the curveball. And why can I say this? Why can I be disappointed? Not because I'd rather have anyone else patrolling center-field or hitting in the top of the order for the Mets. It's because as Jerry mentioned he came to the Mets as a free agent for many dollars to much applaud. If we have to deal with Scott Boras and the scuzzy sense of buying up players who many teams cannot afford and the inevitable skew that comes with it we want all 5 tools clicking on all cylinders and for the guy to be a hero to men women and children. Beltran isn't; he's human he gets hurt he has slumps he doesn't deal with the media come up he has a mole and he looks like he's sad a lot. He was never a Tide he gets zero free passes and it's unfortunate because he's a great player much of the time.
The home grown vs store bought point is a good one. I think the key to it is expectations. When a team signs a big ticket free agent the fans are expecting the guy the undergo seen in the highlight real and not and actual person who can disappoint 66% of the time and still be a first ballot hall of famer. With regard to Lastings. I think until he has some standout moments on his own he is going to be measured against the players that he was alwas connected to in trade rumors. The fans still seem bitter that he was not traded for Dontrelle.
I probably wouldn't pay for the RadioHead music. I only buy CD's from groups or artists I totally enjoy. The rest I steal by converting YouTube music vids to mp3's with some software I bought online. That's because I am one of those old fuckers than enjoy "da blues" and all those old black guys that play the classic blues which are hard to find or very expensive in the stores. The quality is as good as the quality of the video's audio. it won't make it better btw.
You clearly didn't grow up watching Vinny toss passes to the opposing team as your childhood hopes for a winning Bucs toughen (one just one) were repeatedly crushed. I've stopped hating Vinny in recent years but I wouldn't be caught dead in one of his Bucs jerseys. Speaking of good shows this weekend. Aesop Rock is at Firestone in Orlando tonight. Yep. I'll be there. Any of you gents ever heard of Ghostland Observatory? They're not really my usual style but I really like their latest album.
Forex Groups - Tips on Trading
Related article:
http://gheorghe77.blogspot.com/2007/11/calling-karma-police_07.html
comments | Add comment | Report as Spam
|
