Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Radiohead Changes Tack, Joins iTunes

timothy posted more than 6 years ago | from the meeting-people-is-easy dept.

Music 176

Joe Jay Bee writes "The British rock band Radiohead, who previously stated that they wouldn't want to have their music on Apple's iTunes Music Store (and, indeed, were unhappy when their Kid A album was released via the store) have performed something of an about-face; virtually their entire catalog, including singles and their B-Sides, has appeared on the store. The band previously said they only wanted their work sold as complete albums, which Apple refused to go along with; however their tack has apparently changed, and all their songs are available to mix and match, including their most recent work, In Rainbows. The albums are all available in DRM-free AAC format."

cancel ×

176 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

DRM - Free (5, Interesting)

elguillelmo (1242866) | more than 6 years ago | (#23707223)

Maybe the fact their songs are available DRM-free has something to do with their changing of mind...

Re:DRM - Free (5, Interesting)

spandex_panda (1168381) | more than 6 years ago | (#23707245)

Yeah, I guess its good, they don't have a record label now right? If I hadn't already bought all their cds I might give them some money, but not through itunes, I would get mp3 from tpb, and order some cds from their website. Its the future.

Re:DRM - Free (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23707363)

Christ, I love Greek! Women just don't seem to understand that a man can find just as much pleasure in the warm confines of a well- muscled ass as they can in the satin embrace of a well-wetted cunt. Maybe we men have conditioned them too well to ignoring one hole for the other: nonetheless, every man I've talked to about it loves Greek and every woman who I've talked to about it has been less than enthusiastic. So imagine my surprise last weekend when Kathleen treated me to the joys of anal sex in what must be the first time in five or six years.

The night started our strangely. Kathleen had just finished re- arranging her large library and was exhausted. As suits my biological clock, I was just coming awake at 10 PM when she was turning in. She invited me to bed and I politely declined: I was horny as usual and told her I'd keep her awake. After a couple of more requests from her, I stripped and crawled in beside her. Kathleen loves to snuggle and wasted no time in curling her small body up next to mine. I turned and kissed her. She was oddly responsive for her tired state, and teased me with a hint of tongue in her kisses. I reached down to feel her muff and found it just beginning to rev as her right hand slipped down her belly to her clit.

I took up what has become my customary position between her legs - kneeling and using my cock as a sex toy to tickle her lower labia and the entrance to her cunt. But this time I let my aim wander lower to the wonderful curve where ass, crotch, and leg meet. I rubbed my cock against this soft crescent and expanded the stroke to brush against the entrance to her ass. I noticed that every time that my prick touched her rosebud, her strokes on her clit quickened. It wasn't long before I was pressing the tip of my cock against her asshole.

Surprise! My cock slipped easily into her ass until the entire head was buried inside, and just as I was about to pull out and apoligize, she handed me a bottle of sex lubricant and said "What the fuck? Why not?". I pulled back and poured the lubricant on my hard cock and noticed her pussy was swollen and very wet. I worked my cock back into its previous nest. It was so easy. I could feel her ass muscles relaxing and opening for me. I eased ever so slowly deeper. Such heaven! Like a warm, wet hand gripping all around my prick - so much tighter than pussy, and delightful in an entirely different way. I could feel her hips grind against me as I worked the last of my seven-plus inches into her back door. Realizing where I was and how long it had been since I'd known this pleasure, I had to fight to pull the reigns in on my orgasm.

It seemed like forever - my slow rocking pulling my cock almost full-length out of her ass before easing it back in until my balls rested against her firm buns. Her right hand furiously massaged her clit and her left hand played at the entrance of her cunt, pressing on the full length of her labia. And all the while my cock was enveloped in a firm net of gripping muscles that wrestled to bring the cum from me. "It's so weird," she said as she searched for the grip on her own orgasm. Suddenly, it was upon her. I felt her ass open up like a mouth that was just to blow up a ballon. "Are you close?" she hissed. "No," I grunted. She was close, tho'. Too close to stop. I felt her stiffen and lurch under me. "Uuhhhh! Come on you bastard! Fill my ass!" she yelled as she dug her nails into my back. Amazing what a little dirty talk will do - from that special nowhere where good men hide their orgasms until their lovers are ready, my load bolted from my crotch to my brain and back to my flushed balls. I gripped the pillow with my teeth and jerked my neck back and forth and tried not to deafen Kathleen when my cum blasted out of my cock like water from a firehose. The rush of jism racing up my tube seemed to last for stroke after stroke until sweaty Kathleen gasped, grunted, and pushed me from on top of her. Since I have a little anal experience myself, I knew the sudden discomfort of having something in your ass after you've orgasmed. I considerately slipped out of her despite not having finished my own orgasm to my complete satisfaction.

I kissed her and thanked her for her special gift, but she pushed me away. "Go wash off and fuck my pussy," she said " I feel like something's undone." So after a quick and thorough shower, I returned to the futon where her dripping, swollen twat waited for my not-quite-recovered cock.

And that's another story...

Re:DRM - Free (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23707589)

Can't the lameness filter do bayseian filtering on this crap? This is ridiculous.

Re:DRM - Free (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23707681)

I only read it for the pictures.

Re:DRM - Free (1)

aceofspades1217 (1267996) | more than 6 years ago | (#23708303)

Wow this is perhaps one of the weirdest comments I have ever seen (and thats saying something!)

Please sir do me a favor and get off my internets....

Go use usenet or something under "misc.news.WTF?!".

Re:DRM - Free (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23708515)

Bwhahahaha

Wow. That was odd and hilarious

Re:DRM - Free (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23709595)

Unless she was organizing a library of radiohead digital downloads, this is offtopic.

Re:DRM - Free (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23707707)

I thought they were releasing their music for free? Doesn't this make them two faced money grubbing whores?

Re:DRM - Free (1)

bcguitar33 (1001772) | more than 6 years ago | (#23708969)

Do you ever do things for free that you charge for at other times? I work on computers for money but sometimes I'll do it free of charge, for friends or family or just because I like to help out. Am I a two-faced money-grubbing whore?

Re:DRM - Free (2, Informative)

leamanc (961376) | more than 6 years ago | (#23708757)

Yeah, I guess its good, they don't have a record label now right?
No, that's not right. While they self-released In Rainbows before putting out a physical release, they are signed to (and the album was physically released on) ATO in the USA, and XL Recordings in the UK/Europe.

Re:DRM - Free (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23707343)

Or maybe its the fact that downloading is "greener" than driving to a store and buy the CD, yeah? *hugs-tree*

Re:DRM - Free (3, Insightful)

stewbacca (1033764) | more than 6 years ago | (#23707523)

Or maybe, as an artist, you want your work exposed to as many people as possible and iTunes is the #1 music distributor in the world.

Re:DRM - Free (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23707611)

Or maybe, they decided they like money more than integrity.

Re:DRM - Free (0)

dintech (998802) | more than 6 years ago | (#23707697)

May I be the first to say "No Surprises" hmm?

Re:DRM - Free (1)

Slimee (1246598) | more than 6 years ago | (#23707833)

I agree with this...what a step back for music...how two faced, to offer your music up free, and then turn your back on it and go crawling back to the big corporations. I've lost considerable respect for Radiohead after this.

Re:DRM - Free (5, Insightful)

aceofspades1217 (1267996) | more than 6 years ago | (#23708379)

<quote>Or maybe, they decided they like money more than integrity.</quote>

Um so your basically saying that simply by selling their albums on iTunes they have no integrity. After all they did release them in DRM Free format and have never gone after filesharing. Heck radiohead doesn't even have a Music Label and don't have to listen to the RIAA or anyone about P2P.

If they want to give people th option to buy their music over iTunes...why not. It's not like they can put them on iTunes for free even if they wanted to....So what you want them to stop selling CDs also because you don't think they have integrity simply for selling something.

Obviously they give people the option of getting it for free on P2P or buying it. If you want to support them buy it if not don't. They aren't saying don't download our music TPB they just turn a blind eye to it. So cmon why must selling something be considered a lack of integrity?

Re:DRM - Free (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23708087)

For the little guys, sure, but Radiohead worried about exposure? Mah...

Re:DRM - Free (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23708243)

Or maybe its the fact that downloading is "greener" than driving to a store and buy the CD, yeah? *hugs-tree*

Hehe, only true iff you weren't on your way to the store already or passing by it to/from work or some other engagement.

Otherwise, ordering via mail is "green", those mail men typically walk door-to-door in the city and their cars are going that way with or without your package. If you're at a superstore already, picking up a CD hasn't affected the environment any more than not picking it up.

It would be mute to argue about the energy required to run the computer to download as it would probably be on, even if you didn't download the song.

The real difference is packaging. Which, if you download, then you simply don't have... unless you print out a label, burn a CD, and put it in your own jewel case. At which point, you've pretty much defeated an environmental advantages. And still, those things aren't so much "green" as it's marketed today, as it was in the 80's. It's about wasteful production, the filling of landfills and not just the melting of ice caps due to carbon emissions.

Which is sadly, the REAL focus and marketing that should be emphasized. All this carbon credit stuff is bullshit. What should be marketed it getting people and companies to understand efficent means. Turning the lights off, water off, turning your WiiConnect24 standby mode off, and preventing as much "waste" of energy and resources as possible. It's a lot harder to do than one thinks (I've not been able to do it constantly myself, bad habits).

Re:DRM - Free (5, Informative)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 6 years ago | (#23707357)

Maybe the fact their songs are available DRM-free has something to do with their changing of mind...

Nope. They made their statement about refusing to sell on Tunes 5 months after Apple had started offering DRM-free downloads for EMI, Radiohead's label. Their spokesman said they objected not to DRM, but to Apple refusing to require customers to buy the whole album at once, whereas Apple requires each song to be available for sale individually as well. The quote from their spokesman was:

"iTunes insists that all its albums are sold unbundled, but 7 Digital doesn't. Radiohead prefer to have their albums sold complete. The artist has a choice, and if they feel strongly then we respect that."

Re:DRM - Free (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23707565)

"iTunes insists that all its albums are sold unbundled," ... Unless it's a soundtrack.

Re:DRM - Free (1)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 6 years ago | (#23708019)

...that's about the dumbest policy I ever heard.

"Soundtracks" are more likely to be random collections of
songs from wherever. They're like those albums that are
meant to be collections of "hits" from a particular
genre or year.

Besides the fact that a particular director likes them,
they have no real connection to each other.

If it's a genuine "Score" then there's no less reason to
want to rip out the title theme than there would be to
extract that hit single from some pop group's album.

They make compilation/hits albums for those too...

Re:DRM - Free (2, Informative)

goonerw (99408) | more than 6 years ago | (#23707607)

whereas Apple requires each song to be available for sale individually as well.

Bollocks. I've seen quite a few songs on iTMS that are only available as an album bundle. There's a couple on the U218 album, "The Saints Are Coming" is an example.

Re:DRM - Free (3, Informative)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 6 years ago | (#23707703)

Yes, you are right. However most are just certain songs you can only get if you buy the whole album. Usuallly all but one of the songs is available as singles, with one or two requiring that you buy the album. What RadioHead wanted was for the whole album to only be available, and no singles at all. It's a different case. Although I would argue for RadioHead. If that's how they want to sell their music, iTunes should let them do it. Apple's head is getting way too big lately.

Re:DRM - Free (3, Interesting)

Kibblet (754565) | more than 6 years ago | (#23708359)

Yes, you are right. However most are just certain songs you can only get if you buy the whole album. Usuallly all but one of the songs is available as singles, with one or two requiring that you buy the album. What RadioHead wanted was for the whole album to only be available, and no singles at all. It's a different case. Although I would argue for RadioHead. If that's how they want to sell their music, iTunes should let them do it. Apple's head is getting way too big lately.
Heaven forbid Apple do something for their customers! I prefer to buy what I want, not a whole album. And it has nothing to do with artistic integrity, but pure greed. Take the Napoleon Dynamite soundtrack. There is a song there only available if you get the whole album. It's not like it is the original artist saying "we want these works together as a whole", it must be that no one else wants the crap on that soundtrack and it is the only way to make any money. So kudos to Apple for standing up for their customers. I wish they would do it more often, and unbundle ANY song that requires you buying the whole album.

Re:DRM - Free (3, Interesting)

Altus (1034) | more than 6 years ago | (#23708639)



I get both sides in this. On the one hand you are right that many people would just like to buy a few songs that are on the radio and leave it at that.

On the artist side though, its like selling the bottom right corner of a painting. Admitedly the Album is a dying artform these days (mostly due to MP3 players and shuffle) but there are still some artists who develop entire albums rather than just a few songs and some filler. These are the sort of thing thats meant to be listened to from start to finish. I can understand not wanting your album chopped up and sold piece by piece if you put that kind of effort into a whole album.

Still, I see this transition as fairly inevitable. The album has been dying for quite some time and the rise of the MP3 player is going to pretty much end it.

Re:DRM - Free (4, Insightful)

samkass (174571) | more than 6 years ago | (#23708555)

Yes, Apple is really getting evil. First they keep prices at $0.99 per track when the music industry wanted to charge 2x to 3x (or more) that much for popular tracks... and now they're allowing customers to buy whatever they want. Without DRM. The horror!

Remember, Apple's clout is the only thing standing between you and the record labels at this point. Even if you do nothing but buy from Amazon's MP3 store, you're benefiting from Apple iTunes, since the labels would never have given Amazon such a sweet deal if they weren't trying to break Apple's position in the market.

Re:DRM - Free (1)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 6 years ago | (#23707691)

Probably market pressure made them change their tune. iTunes is now the biggest online source of music sales in the business and sometimes you just can't argue with numbers.

Re:DRM - Free (1)

Ryan Amos (16972) | more than 6 years ago | (#23708181)

It probably has more to do with the fact that they're officially no longer with their big record label. EMI recently released a "greatest hits" album; something Radiohead has also been vehemently against in the past. Something tells me EMI realized that the band has been too successful on their own to ever come back to a major label, so they might as well just make a buck without having to worry about pissing them off.

And really, Amnesiac and Kid A are albums greater than the sum of their parts. I'll admit they're not for everyone; but the albums stand better as albums than on the strength of the individual songs. You'd be disappointed buying individual tracks.

Re:DRM - Free (1)

Keeper Of Keys (928206) | more than 6 years ago | (#23709691)

Amnesiac and Kid A are albums greater than the sum of their parts.
I find I listen to Radiohead's "experimental" stuff a lot more now than OK Computer or The Bends, but I don't agree with you on this. Not all the "mood pieces" work for me; if I wasn't a completist where Radiohead are concerned I would be tempted to cherry-pick the two albums you mentioned. But then I have already listened to Pulk-Pull Revolving Doors enough times to know that I will never come to love it. New listeners should be given the chance to decide for themselves (and isn't that what p2p excels at?)

Re:DRM - Free (1)

timeOday (582209) | more than 6 years ago | (#23709259)

Who gets to define a "track"? Maybe their next album should just have one 70 minute track with a dozen or so short pauses within it.

Anyways, it's kinda silly. Radiohead never seemed to object to getting radio play, which is just one track at a time.

Re:DRM - Free (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23707385)

Maybe the fact that they are a bunch of whiney, tone-deaf, talentless sellouts has something to do with changing their minds.

Only fags like Radiohead, so I guess they fit in well with the loose wristed Apple crowd.

Re:DRM - Free (1)

somersault (912633) | more than 6 years ago | (#23707693)

lol.. someone is bitter about not being able to play any instruments.. or only likes music where guys that have daddy issues shout out all their anger.

Re:DRM - Free (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23709753)

Yes, because if you don't like Radiohead then one of those things must be true.

You are an uncultured idiot. Go learn something.

Re:DRM - Free (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23707577)

Great - now I can get miserable one track at a time rather than having to endure a whole album's worth of self-pitying derivative crap.

Re:DRM - Free (1)

dintech (998802) | more than 6 years ago | (#23707713)

Well at least I know you're not Scott Tenorman.

Re:DRM - Free (1)

DonkeyKongJr (1304497) | more than 6 years ago | (#23708967)

Great - now I can get miserable one track at a time rather than having to endure a whole album's worth of self-pitying derivative crap.

Alright, smart guy. Of what exactly is Radiohead derivative? And influences don't count... back up your ridiculous claim.

Re:DRM - Free (1)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 6 years ago | (#23707959)

That's good... now mebbe they can make them "iTunes free" as well.

Their app shouldn't be necessary in order to make a sale and their NIH format is not supported by other devices out there. That's why there's the idea of bolting ipods onto devices that really should have no need.

Re:DRM - Free (1)

EastCoastSurfer (310758) | more than 6 years ago | (#23708043)

Their app shouldn't be necessary in order to make a sale and their NIH format is not supported by other devices out there.

Huh? DRM-free AAC (this is what the Radiohead tracks were released in) is support by nearly every device you can buy today. For the size and bit-rate it's also mostly superior to MP3.

Re:DRM - Free (1)

dmoo (1255628) | more than 6 years ago | (#23709361)

'The band previously said they only wanted their work sold as complete albums' - or maybe the fact that they just released their greatest hits album.....

Re:DRM - Free (1)

nieltown (1060788) | more than 6 years ago | (#23709389)

I assume it's EMI that's doing this, not Radiohead. Months ago they released a boxed set of all their albums (no bonus material!) without the band's permission, and last week (I think) they released two versions of a best-of comp, also without their permission. Their label owns the rights to their music and can do what they please. Radiohead even commented on the two aforementioned releases, noting that they had nothing to do with it. Do yo' research!

Re:DRM - Free (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23709427)

I await their next album titled: "Indecision."

I say... I have my principles! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23707241)

And Apple said "How much?" And I said "That's a very large check, sir!"

Re:I say... I have my principles! (4, Funny)

El_Muerte_TDS (592157) | more than 6 years ago | (#23707265)

What!? Outrageous!
I will never buy a single Apple product in my life. Ever. Just out of principle.

ps, Apple, please contact me via email.

KidA individual songs available at Amazon also (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23708789)

I just bought "Optimistic" from Amazon, DRM free.
Apparently the album only policy has also fallen at Amazon, not just ITS.
-Jay

reason why they only want to sell albums (4, Funny)

muftak (636261) | more than 6 years ago | (#23707255)

Probably due to the fact most radiohead albums only have 1 good song on.

Re:reason why they only want to sell albums (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23707347)

You're not being fair. Only a couple of their albums have a good song.

Re:reason why they only want to sell albums (0, Flamebait)

that this is not und (1026860) | more than 6 years ago | (#23707477)

'Good song' being defined, it seems, as: 'able to catch the attention of the shortest attention span twitchboys.'

Unfortunately for the attention-deficit-crippled, the world of sound isn't entirely composed of short shiney-thing jingles.

Re:reason why they only want to sell albums (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23707669)

'Good song' being defined, it seems, as: 'able to catch the attention of the shortest attention span twitchboys.'

Unfortunately for the attention-deficit-crippled, the world of sound isn't entirely composed of short shiney-thing jingles.
The only good song Radiohead has done was "Creep". That was a favorite song of mine back when I was in middle school.

For the record, I mostly listen to industrial and melodic metal.

Re:reason why they only want to sell albums (1)

stewbacca (1033764) | more than 6 years ago | (#23707531)

Way too fair. They have that one good song.

Re:reason why they only want to sell albums (1)

anilg (961244) | more than 6 years ago | (#23708255)

Luxury! In my days we singers got-together for a raffle, and those who lost had to buy from the winner.

Thats not how it goes, is it..

Re:reason why they only want to sell albums (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23708295)

You are fools. They are the best band in the world today. Well, maybe not the best but up there anyways.

Re:reason why they only want to sell albums (2, Interesting)

dprovine (140134) | more than 6 years ago | (#23707821)

What I don't understand is this: there are already things on iTunes which are listed as "Album Only", so you can't buy just one song but have to get the whole set.

It seems strange that Apple has that in place and then refuses to let somebody like Radiohead use it. How do they decide?

Re:reason why they only want to sell albums (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23708259)

Album only is only for tracks longer than 7 minutes and bonus content, not entire albums.

Re:reason why they only want to sell albums (0, Troll)

lsolano (398432) | more than 6 years ago | (#23709085)

This comment was undoubtedly intended to be funny.
I think is impossible that someone could think that Radiohead is not one of the best acts ever appeared in music history.
I understand that someone could not like Radiohead's music. That's ok, just a matter of taste. But, they're great.

Break From EMI (2, Insightful)

Catchyusername (1248504) | more than 6 years ago | (#23707271)

I think this has more to do with the break from EMI than them warming up to iTunes or the DRM issues.

Re:Break From EMI (1)

spandex_panda (1168381) | more than 6 years ago | (#23707277)

It is said that they previously would not let EMI sell their albums song by song, but that they must be sold as an album. They changed their minds [wired.com] with In Rainbows and now with their entire back catalog.

Re:Break From EMI (1)

117 (1013655) | more than 6 years ago | (#23707909)

Having read TFA (I must be new here), the only comment is from EMI - it looks like that EMI were previously going along with the band's wishes to only distribute in album format, but now that they've seen Radiohead release the new album unbundled they've decided that it's fair game to do the same for the old ones, I doubt the band themselves have had any say in it at all.

Well... (1)

Fackamato (913248) | more than 6 years ago | (#23707293)

If this makes them more money in the end, I don't see a problem with it. But still, who buys files!? Get the physical thing, man, otherwise it's not worth it IMO.

Re:Well... (1)

stewbacca (1033764) | more than 6 years ago | (#23707645)

While your opinion is, well, your opinion, I'm sure there are thousands of us on here that will answer your question of "who buys files" with, "I do". I haven't bought a CD in probably 8 years or so, thanks to "files". Now lets just hope digital video moves in the same direction. I'm tired of devoting half a book shelf to stupid shiny discs.

Re:Well... (1)

David Gerard (12369) | more than 6 years ago | (#23707687)

I buy a CD, rip it to the household server and then put the CD in a box, never to emerge again, until I'm looking for CDs for a car trip (hire cars never seem to have a CD player that plays MP3s) upon which I tend to grab a random handful.

Re:Well... (1)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 6 years ago | (#23708105)

A whole book shelf... you poor thing you.

A whole book shelf can hold at least 400 DVDs and as many music Albums.

The problem with "files" is that you never own anything physical that
serves as some sort of confirmation that you own anything. If someone
disputes you it's pretty much your word against theirs.

A media server (which will take up more than a book shelf's worth of
space) is certainly the bee's kness but it's still not a substitute
for having some way of confirming legal posession.

Re:Well... (1)

stewbacca (1033764) | more than 6 years ago | (#23708423)

A half book shelf... I don't need a plastic cd case to know I own something either. I'm pretty sure you are a dying breed of people who prefer physical media, which is fine--just stop acting like it is so weird for anyone to actually download a song (or two thousand) when it appears most people prefer that now.

Re:Well... (1)

afidel (530433) | more than 6 years ago | (#23708505)

Amazon watermarks their tracks with your purchase number so if the record labels ever dispute I own the file they can do their own discovery and ask Amazon, on the other hand if I rip a cd and lose the physical disk I am screwed when it comes to proof of ownership. Therefore purchasing physical media is the poorer option. Not only that but with physical media you will come across DRM'd disks that will attempt to stop you from ripping them, while these attempts are futile they will require an investment in time. There's also the instant gratification and reduced cost both because albums in mp3 format cost an average of $8 on Amazon but also from not having to burn fuel to get the disk.

Re:Well... (1)

Kevin72594 (1301889) | more than 6 years ago | (#23707663)

What do you think your buying when you buy a cd? Files on a physical medium are still just files.

Re:Well... (1)

Fackamato (913248) | more than 6 years ago | (#23708235)

That is true, but I do get a case, booklet and the CD itself, which for me is important. Not worth the USD34 though, which is the average price of a new CD over here.

Yay, junk! (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 6 years ago | (#23707961)

Why buy more physical junk that you're going to rip and then toss into a storage room? I don't know about you but I'd prefer to have my files stored in large quantities on DVDs or hard drives (on a server) in a nice handy format (MP3/OGG for music, DivX for video) that I can move around, back up and share quickly and easily across multiple devices.

Buying files saves me the trouble of ripping...my only complaint is that sometimes you can't get the quality rip you want.

Pick and choose (5, Insightful)

Dan East (318230) | more than 6 years ago | (#23707295)

I guess they finally realized that consumers can and will "pick and choose" regardless, so they might as make some money in the process. It doesn't exactly take a genius to figure that one out.

Re:Pick and choose (1)

prelelat (201821) | more than 6 years ago | (#23709319)

It was most likely not radio heads decision at all, and they were probably pissed off by the release by their ex-lable. I do recall hearing on the radio a few weeks ago that they were upset that their old lable had released a best of album halmarking their time at EMI.

EMI probably made the deal with Apple not Radio Head.

The reason why (5, Insightful)

EEDAm (808004) | more than 6 years ago | (#23707313)

Radiohead finished their term with EMI Parlophone who originally signed them. In the usual way, their ex-record label are now pushing out as much as they can to cash in - 'Best of Radiohead' just having been released for instance. I suspect this is the cause. Mind you after the crap rip-quality of the In Rainbows interweb release and the volte face of the cd release following, I have less sympathy than I once would have done despite the quality of the work.

Re:The reason why (1)

slim (1652) | more than 6 years ago | (#23707551)

How was the In Rainbows CD a volte-face?

I remember clearly that when the downloads became available, I decided to wait for the CD (because I'm old fashioned and like things I can touch) -- so they must have made it clear that there would be one. I did buy the CD and I was very pleased with it.

Re:The reason why (1)

Chris Pimlott (16212) | more than 6 years ago | (#23708281)

Mind you after the crap rip-quality of the In Rainbows interweb release and the volte face of the cd release following, I have less sympathy than I once would have done despite the quality of the work.
I think you were perhaps misinformed. It was always clear that an eventual CD release was to come, even if the precise when and how were initially uncertain. For example, see this Pitchfork news item from Oct 1 [pitchforkmedia.com] , 9 full days before the online release. But I do agree with your other point, they really should have provided a better quality rip for those who took the plunge.

Radiohead is customer-savvy (5, Insightful)

freedom_india (780002) | more than 6 years ago | (#23707361)

Instead of sticking its head in sand like Metallica did, Radiohead is showing surprising maturity and acute understanding of what a customer wants: Go to the Customer, instead of sitting on your arse and expecting them to come to you.
Perception is all-important in Marketing and Radiohead is taking Apple lessons.
By direct-download of their albums (free and paid) they proved DownloadMusic!=crime.
Second once they realized people mix and match their music (just like i mod my computer table and computer), they allowed it instead of sending RIAA goons after them. After all, Alienware does not raid my home, if i chose to decorate my PC with Yuletide spirit. Apple does not care if i laser-engrave my iPod. So should music be: If i mix-and-match their tunes with mine, i should be free.
RIAA believes otherwise. Paying customers think otherwise.
Who pays for Radiohead's food? Customers and not RIAA. So Radiohead did the sensible thing and listened to customers.
By releasing their tunes DRM-Free in iTunes they hit the likeness factor a lot: iPod users now have direct-download to iPod; which is 90% market share of MP3 players (Zune; you Turd, you really have no chance). The DRM-free enables users to mix and match.

Its a pity that Radiohead's music is not country/hip-hop

Re:Radiohead is customer-savvy (1)

EEDAm (808004) | more than 6 years ago | (#23707403)

"Its a pity that Radiohead's music is not country/hip-hop" Yeah, it'd be a load frikkin better if Radiohead were like Oxford's equivalent of Kid Rock *8)

Re:Radiohead is customer-savvy (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23707443)

Alienware does not raid my home, if i chose to decorate my PC with Yuletide spirit.

No, but the fashion police are going to have a field day.

Re:Radiohead is customer-savvy (1)

Marwood (697026) | more than 6 years ago | (#23707521)

Country you say? Yee ha! [youtube.com]

Re:Radiohead is customer-savvy (1)

somersault (912633) | more than 6 years ago | (#23707831)

wow, that's surprisingly good :)

Re:Radiohead is customer-savvy (2, Funny)

c (8461) | more than 6 years ago | (#23707855)

> [a whole pile of stuff which makes perfect sense] ... then ...
> Its a pity that Radiohead's music is not country/hip-hop

At this point, the reader builds a mental image of Radiohead performing a country/hip-hop fusion. The Elder Gods claim another victim.

c.

Re:Radiohead is customer-savvy (1)

Capitalist Piggy (1298699) | more than 6 years ago | (#23708267)

once they realized people mix and match their music


Holy crap, that is Insightful? Being a child of the 80s, myself and pretty much everyone I knew used dual-cassette decks to copy our favorite tracks over to these things we called "mix tapes". It's been known for many, many years that people prefer to be able to pick and choose what they want to listen to and not be stuck with an entire album when they only want to listen to one or two tracks.

The mere suggestion they were somehow unaware of this makes it sound like they lived in the back of some deep cave and were only exposed to people who like music, have mp3 players, cassette decks, cd burners when they occasionally play a show. It is quite obvious they were trying to pull some shit with your wallet.

Also, what is this about Metallica? They signed with iTunes in 2006 and somehow their head is in the sand when Radiohead is just coming around now. I think both bands leave a lot to be desired, but I don't think it's a good comparison.

Re:Radiohead is customer-savvy (1)

HockeyPuck (141947) | more than 6 years ago | (#23709359)

Radiohead is showing surprising maturity and acute understanding of what a customer wants: Go to the Customer, instead of sitting on your arse and expecting them to come to you.
Have you been to Metallica's website lately? You can listen to many of their songs, and watch their videos on their website. Also, i wouldn't consider Radiohead "savvy", I'd say they are realizing that if they want to make money of their music, they need to charge for it.

C'mon Radiohead show the industry that you can make millions by having people 'name their price'. I'm sure this works for all companies. I'll call up Ferrari and suggest they start allowing us to name our price.

I'm shocked. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23707387)

Well, well. Slashdot Poster Boys go for the $. I'm shocked.

This is EMI's decision, not Radiohead (2, Insightful)

Travis Mansbridge (830557) | more than 6 years ago | (#23707427)

This was a decision made by EMI, as they still own the rights to the Radiohead Catalogue. In the same vein, they're attempting to make even more money off of the success of Radiohead by selling "The Best of Radiohead," which, as far as I know, is not approved by the band themselves.

Please do not take this as Radiohead's decision, when it's clearly that of their (former) label.

Re:This is EMI's decision, not Radiohead (1)

freedom_india (780002) | more than 6 years ago | (#23707445)

EMI?? It is the artist who owns the copyright. Not the Label.
If what you say were the case, Britney would be soccer-mom with 3 kids, and Ashlee simpson would be a waitress in a Del Hugos bar.
Radiohead/artist decides to move to a distribution medium. The label had CD rights: Not digital. Which is why labels are trying to shoot for 360 degree contracts; and why artists avoid it.
EMI has vinyl, cassette, CD and DVD rights. Radiohead owns live and all other rights not gifted to EMI.

"The" Copyright? Umm... there are TWO copyrights. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23707869)

There is one for "Music and Lyrics" and one for "Performance". 99 times out of 100, the music label negotiates for ownership of the latter.

Britney may own the song "Oops I did it again", but her label owns the "master tape".

Re:This is EMI's decision, not Radiohead (1)

SimonGhent (57578) | more than 6 years ago | (#23707637)

This was a decision made by EMI


That's not correct as this deal includes the new album "In Rainbows" which was released post-EMI

Nothing to do with EMI (2, Informative)

mrsmiggs (1013037) | more than 6 years ago | (#23707705)

(apart from they'll make money on some of songs) It includes their latest album In Rainbows which was physically distributed on XL Recordings. Perhaps EMI have maintained the digital distribution rights to the latest album, since Radiohead are freelance and all but it's clearly the decision of the artist not the label.

No full discography though (1)

J_DarkElf (602111) | more than 6 years ago | (#23707447)

When I first saw the announcement they had finally joined the ITMS, I was hoping for a full discography deal like U2 did a while back. Unfortunately this is not the case -- each album has to be purchased individually, and there are absolutely no extras.

I don't see the added value in this. For almost the same cost I can just buy whatever albums I do not already have on CD (thanks to the ridiculously cheap dollar), and rip in a far higher quality than ITMS offers.

Itunes is only worth it when there are extras, like bonus songs or interviews. Or at least a discount!

Not everyone is a completist.... (4, Interesting)

argent (18001) | more than 6 years ago | (#23707505)

Itunes is only worth it when there are extras, like bonus songs or interviews. Or at least a discount!

Not everyone is a completist. If I find a song I like, I'll buy it on iTunes. If I like an artist enough after a while to go ahead and buy an album, I'll buy it on CD. Sometimes I'll buy an album on iTunes if there's enough tracks that the $10 album price makes sense, but usually I just buy a couple of songs.

Re:No full discography though (1)

afidel (530433) | more than 6 years ago | (#23708835)

in a far higher quality than ITMS offers.

Unless you are doing a lossless format that's probably not true, ITMS on non-DRM'd tracks is AAC at 256kbit, that's imperceptible from the source for 99.99% of people and tracks, heck even mp3 at that bitrate is imperceptible in most situations (my old collection is ripped at ~220kbit VBR with LAME at -extreme settings which is shown to be fine in double blind testing.)

Nude Garageband stem sales (3, Interesting)

theurge14 (820596) | more than 6 years ago | (#23707451)

I'm curious as to how much money they generated from the sales they made of the Nude Remix [radioheadremix.com] contest via iTunes and Garageband. This may have been the band and/or the label testing the waters.

Re:Nude Garageband stem sales (4, Interesting)

Alioth (221270) | more than 6 years ago | (#23707979)

It's a pity that this missed the deadline for the remix contest:

http://www.vimeo.com/1109226?pg=embed&sec=1109226 [vimeo.com]

It's possibly one of the most awesome covers I've ever seen.

Have some sympathy. (3, Funny)

Jacques Chester (151652) | more than 6 years ago | (#23707463)

Well, what with the price of oil these days, even rockstars are feeling the pinch.

Do you have any idea how much it costs to fill up the tank on a Ferrari?

Re:Have some sympathy. (1)

Blimey85 (609949) | more than 6 years ago | (#23708691)

Mine was $180 last week for half a tank, but I'm using fuel I buy at the airport, not the standard crap you most likely put in your engine. I doubt it makes me go any faster but ya never know.

How to split music (2, Insightful)

manwal (648106) | more than 6 years ago | (#23707511)

Providing individual tracks from a CD is just one way to present a musical work. Music in itself is sound, not tracks. There is music recorded today that doesn't conform to the idea that each song is a single musical entity, and splitting these works does more good than bad from an artistical point of view, or at least some artists'.

Anyhow, for the same reasons that providing music in these smaller parts is a good thing (which I believe it is), one could easily argue that even smaller parts of the music should be available for buying. What if I'm only interested in measures two to four of the second bridge? It might sound crazy, but as a musician I sometimes meet this exact problem when transcribing songs from memory. Why should I have to buy the whole song when I just want four seconds of it?

Re:How to split music (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 6 years ago | (#23707965)

You don't have to buy the whole song. I mean, if you want those 4 seconds you do, but there isn't anything forcing you to buy the song.

By prepackaging the song into chunks that most people find useful, the band is able to lower their average transaction costs. This is much like a grocery store that won't sell you 1 stick of butter out of a package of 4. Basically, they care less about exactly what you want than they care about their own convenience.

It doesn't hold as true for something like digital music, because the store server could slice and dice as needed, but the store and band would end up needing to track the rights for each part of the song much more closely (why should the singer sacrifice his royalties to the second guitar who is not audible during the portion you want to purchase...or the guy who fixed up some of the words in a different part of the song).

Money talks (1, Insightful)

192939495969798999 (58312) | more than 6 years ago | (#23707643)

I'm sure that when apple drove a dump truck full of money up to radiohead-quarters, all of a sudden selling a few albums here and there at indy record stores started to look kinda dumb.

Radiohead Already Free On Imeem (1)

illectro (697914) | more than 6 years ago | (#23708427)

A couple of weeks ago they released their 'Best Of' album for free on imeem [imeem.com] , well technically it's ad supported, so they get some cash from this page. But essentially you can listen to the whole album online at their page on imeem, you can't actually download it, it streams via the flash player and every downloader I've tried doesn't work (even though they frequently say that they do.....)

Trivia Question - "B-sides" (1)

AppleTwoGuru (830505) | more than 6 years ago | (#23708493)

Any you kiddies know what a 'B-side' is?

Re:Trivia Question - "B-sides" (1)

SimonGhent (57578) | more than 6 years ago | (#23708747)

Any you kiddies know what a 'B-side' is?


The interior of a hive?

Album Artwork (2, Interesting)

chriscrowley (221157) | more than 6 years ago | (#23708687)

Since I already own all of Radiohead's CDs (I'm a huge fan) and have them ripped to iTunes, I'm happy that iTunes should now retrieve all their album artwork. I never even knew that Radiohead wasn't available in the iTunes store until recently when I noticed all of their songs on my iPod were missing the album artwork.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?