This is why Radiohead could be killing music

By James Rivington

October 10th 2007 | Tell us what you think [ 0 comments ]

Hero or villain: will Radiohead's radical move improve or harm the music industry?

If you've been waste deep in a Cornish bog for the last twoweeks, you probably haven't heard that British superband Radiohead are 'sticking itto the man' and releasing their new album for download on the web without help from a recordlabel.

What's more, they're letting punters choose exactly how muchto pay for it before they download it. You can choose to pay aslittle as one penny or as much as, well, anything.

Radiohead are using the web in this way to protestagainst record labels 'screwing over' bands by absorbing all the revenue frommusic sales without giving anything back to the artists.

People all over the world have been absolutely lapping it up. The international mediais swollen with articles praising the band for its heroics and declaring ThomYorke the saviour of music.

Radiohead: good move or bad?

But there is another argument that doesn't seem to have beengiven much attention. The argument that instead of scoring a win for the musicindustry, this could be the worst thing that could possibly happen.

Let me explain. Radiohead are capable of putting out thisnew record on their own because they have made so much money from mega-sellingalbums like The Bends and OK Computer. They've got enough cash to record andpromote their album themselves. Plus, they're so famous and have so many fansthat it's really not that hard for them to get people to download their music.

But what of all the start-up indie bands out there that haveno such international footprint?

If record labels like EMI and Sony BMG are no longer goingto be making all their cash from massive bands like Radiohead, Coldplay, GreenDay etc, how else are they going to make money?

In Rainbows

I'll tell you how: by screwing over the smaller bands whocan't afford to go it alone in the same way. Instead of settingbands free, Radiohead might actually be worsening the plight of struggling start-up acts by encouraging labels to shake them down with even more vigour andconviction.

Small bands need labels to fund the recording of their firstalbums. They need labels to help promote those albums. They need them toorganise tours, get them on TV and to make music videos. That means these bandsare tied to labels no matter what, there's no other way.

And therefore the big bands who no longer need labels, mightnot be helping the music industry as a whole by abandoning them, it mightactually be causing untold harm.

Because not only will labels starting screwing over thelittle guys even more aggressively, but they'll also be even more keen to churn out those putridand detestable manufactured money-machine pop acts. And that can only be a badthing for music.

Radiohead are likely to make more money out of this new album, as a result of this move. For any big band the story would most likely be the same. And so maybe, just maybe, this web-release move is a lot less selfless than most people think it is.

-----------------------------------

Email me

-----------------------------------

Go back to Rungsberry HOME

Or read more Rungsberry by clicking on entries below...

Top 8 reasons why MySpace sucks

This is why the HD format war with never end

This is why Facebook is going down the toilet

PlayStation 3 v Xbox 360: Future Wars