×

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 Open Sources Music Video

kdawson posted more than 5 years ago | from the look-ma-no-cameras dept.

Graphics 120

ruphus13 writes "Following up their 'pay what you like' music album, Radiohead is once again pushing forward with trying to innovate in an industry that has typically innovated with lawsuits alone. Radiohead has now decided to open source a music video. According to the article, 'Its new single "House of Cards" has a video that was created using advanced visualization techniques and various computer-rendered models. The band has teamed up with Google to release the data for the promo as open source using a Creative Commons license.'" The article links a making-of video on YouTube. The music of "House of Cards" was not open sourced, just the visual data. according to a story in the UK Guardian, people are beginning to play around with the data.

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

120 comments

Open source music videos? (5, Funny)

hyperz69 (1226464) | more than 5 years ago | (#24242993)

JUST IMAGINE WHAT THIS MEANS!

Not country and western enough... fork!
Copyright issues on logos... fork!
Can't resize video screen... FORK!

Though I think in the music business they call them re-mixes / mashups.

Re:Open source music videos? (1)

zotz (3951) | more than 5 years ago | (#24243543)

Not for commercial uses.... this is BY-NC-SA iirc. at least the music part of the music video...

all the best,

drew

3 Radiohead (4, Insightful)

sam_paris (919837) | more than 5 years ago | (#24243007)

3 Radiohead, they're like the anti-Metallica :)

Re:3 Radiohead (5, Funny)

sam_paris (919837) | more than 5 years ago | (#24243025)

ugh, there was supposed to be a less than symbol before the 3's, to make little hearts....

As it is I just sound crazy.. :(

Re:3 Radiohead (1)

Atriqus (826899) | more than 5 years ago | (#24243307)

Here, you can borrow this one: <3

Re:3 Radiohead (1)

sam_paris (919837) | more than 5 years ago | (#24243375)

Mind if I ask how you got your symbol to show but mine was automatically removed?

Re:3 Radiohead (1)

Junta (36770) | more than 5 years ago | (#24243497)

did you do just < or did you do &lt;?

Re:3 Radiohead (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24244007)

woah how did you get your &lt; to show?

Re:3 Radiohead (3, Informative)

Junta (36770) | more than 5 years ago | (#24244153)

by typing &amp;lt;

Re:3 Radiohead (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24244249)

Ooh, redundancy on the redundant &

Re:<3 Radiohead (4, Funny)

orasio (188021) | more than 5 years ago | (#24244821)

by typing &amp;lt;

Wow!!
And how did you manage to type that?
When I type the same, it keeps showing as &lt; . You seem to be always a step ahead. You are something, man.

Re:3 Radiohead (1)

Junta (36770) | more than 5 years ago | (#24246025)

Skipping ahead a bit in the logical progression...

&amp;&amp;&amp;&amp;&amp;&amp;&amp;&amp;lt;

Ok, I officially went and made it unfunny now.

Re:3 Radiohead (1)

Smauler (915644) | more than 5 years ago | (#24245217)

Yes, this may be informative... but did you not notice GP actually showed the thing he was asking how to show in his post? Anyway, how did you get &amp;lt; to show? I only managed to get it here because I copy-pasted yours.

ps. ;)

Re:3 Radiohead (3, Informative)

compro01 (777531) | more than 5 years ago | (#24243707)

The parser eats opening angle braces as it's assuming they're for HTML tags. Use the HTML special entities.

&lt; gives you < and &gt; gives you >

quick reference available here [htmlhelp.com].

Re:3 Radiohead (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24244891)

I like the :3 in Re:3 Radiohead. Radiohead makes me :3

Re:3 Radiohead (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24243081)

they're also like Anti-metallica in the sense that their new music sucks.

Re:3 Radiohead (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24243449)

they're also like Anti-metallica in the sense that their new music sucks.

Wouldn't that make them exactly like Metallica?

Re:3 Radiohead (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24245759)

Totally.

Re:3 Radiohead (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24245665)

In Rainbows actually is pretty much as awesome as any of their other work, on average. You just haven't listened to it enough. Bodysnatchers, Reckoner and DITNU are certainly as high quality as their previous best tracks.

Re:3 Radiohead (1)

msormune (808119) | more than 5 years ago | (#24245957)

They still want money for their music, don't they? I mean, you can download for free but you should pay if you have money and like their music. So it's more like "pretty much like Metallica, but with a different attitude."

The moderation is going to hurt on this comment... (1, Funny)

kellyb9 (954229) | more than 5 years ago | (#24243019)

Radiohead is making some fantastic steps for the open source community, now if they only go back 10 years and start putting out good music again....

Re:The moderation is going to hurt on this comment (5, Funny)

oodaloop (1229816) | more than 5 years ago | (#24243173)

Exactly. I can't stand country music, but for whatever reason some people continue to listen to it. I don't understand why they don't consult with me first so I can tell them what music is good and what's bad.

Re:The moderation is going to hurt on this comment (1)

kellyb9 (954229) | more than 5 years ago | (#24243283)

Exactly. I can't stand country music, but for whatever reason some people continue to listen to it. I don't understand why they don't consult with me first so I can tell them what music is good and what's bad.

Well that's a little extreme. I would prefer it if the bands just came to me and I'd give them a few pointers.

Re:The moderation is going to hurt on this comment (5, Funny)

ari_j (90255) | more than 5 years ago | (#24243377)

Yes. All artists from all genres of music would sound better if they took a few pointers from me.
  • "How about you replace that turntable guy with Eddie Van Halen?"
  • "Those lyrics are really good ... I just think you should space them out more so they have greater effect. Here's a perfect example: Right now, you say 'fuck you' thirty-five times in the chorus with no other words to frame them. Try adding a few, to make it 'Who the fuck are you?' Then get Pete Townshend to add a guitar track and you're set."
  • "I really like what you've done here. Let's do this, though. Set aside a track on your Pro Tools for a saxophone. We'll get a small live room set up with a really warm tube condenser mic, bring in Kenny G, and have him beat you to death with his sax in the live room."

Constructive criticism FTW.

Re:The moderation is going to hurt on this comment (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24243807)

I have one more pointer to add - MORE COWBELL!!

Re:The moderation is going to hurt on this comment (2, Interesting)

moosesocks (264553) | more than 5 years ago | (#24244743)

I think this may refer to Radiohead's extreme aversion to doing anything that could be considered remotely "popular."

For some reason, they were upset by the success of OK Computer, and dove off the edge, into stranger, more experimental territory, where the music has to be more "appreciated" than "enjoyed."

This is a shame, because they're amazing in their moments of brilliance, and incredibly talented musicians. However, their latest stuff just seems a bit too pretentious to be palatable.

Re:The moderation is going to hurt on this comment (1)

TheSambassador (1134253) | more than 5 years ago | (#24245169)

Really? I think In Rainbows is Radiohead's most accessible album (besides The Bends) to date. I wouldn't be afraid of playing "15 Step" or "Jigsaw Falling Into Place" to my parents, whose musical tastes aren't exactly broad.

Couldn't stand Kid A though... I mean I guess there was something there to be appreciated, but like you said, I really didn't enjoy it. I don't get why there's all this need for "experimental" albums... why do people think they have to create the weirdest possible stuff to be given good album reviews??

Re:The moderation is going to hurt on this comment (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 5 years ago | (#24246071)

Maybe they're not trying to get good album reviews, just make an album they like. There's more to music than the 4 minute pop radio format. Kid A is perfect atmospheric mood music. If you're giving it your full attention, you're doing it wrong.

It's not even correct to call Kid A "experimental", they knew exactly what they were doing, and succeeded.

Re:The moderation is going to hurt on this comment (1)

Joe Jay Bee (1151309) | more than 4 years ago | (#24249335)

Kid A and Amnesiac may well be slightly "pretentious", but they're good experimental music albums. If you're willing to listen to what's basically Miles Davis' Bitches Brew, David Bowie's Low and Aphex Twin mashed up together, then they're a rewarding listen.

In Rainbows and Hail To The Thief however could hardly be considered pretentious, though. Hail To The Thief is, for the most part, straightforward alt rock (even if with some eclectic electronica in places) and In Rainbows is, as a sibling comment said, extremely accessible. The damn album has love songs on it, for christ's sake, and the last time they did one of those so straightforwardly was on Pablo Honey back in 1993.

Re:The moderation is going to hurt on this comment (3, Funny)

Hatta (162192) | more than 5 years ago | (#24244929)

Try starting with bluegrass. Any real music lover can appreciate the virtuosity and songcraft of Bill Monroe. Then broaden your horizons a bit, try some Jimmie Rodgers or Doc Watson. There's definitely good country, they just don't play it on the radio.

I think Waylon Jennings said "Garth Brooks did for country music what panty hose did for finger fucking."

Re:The moderation is going to hurt on this comment (4, Funny)

rallymatte (707679) | more than 5 years ago | (#24243443)

True right! It was only their first album that was any good. That one with Wonderwall on it!

Re:The moderation is going to hurt on this comment (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24243507)

In Rainbows is a great album.

Re:The moderation is going to hurt on this comment (1)

Comen (321331) | more than 5 years ago | (#24245337)

Agreed, I love all thier albums, including In Rainbows.
I saw them live just a month or so ago, and they were great, the light show was pretty new and really awsome.

Oh you must have missed some albums that came out (2, Interesting)

jaypaulw (889877) | more than 5 years ago | (#24243587)

...between now and ten years ago.

Check out:

Kid A
Amnesiac
Hail to the Thief
In Rainbows

they're all excellent.

Re:The moderation is going to hurt on this comment (1)

imipak (254310) | more than 5 years ago | (#24243799)

I rather like In Rainbows, it's quite a lot more accessible than Kid A / Amnesiac / Hail to the Thief. (The songs from the first two make more sense on the live mini-album "I Could Be Wrong". They'll never make another OK Computer, though, just as the Manics will never make another Holy Bible.

Re:The moderation is going to hurt on this comment (1)

MrMarket (983874) | more than 5 years ago | (#24244679)

I rather like In Rainbows, it's quite a lot more accessible than Kid A / Amnesiac / Hail to the Thief.

Too bad their audience hates accessible music.

Stunt (1, Insightful)

scubamage (727538) | more than 5 years ago | (#24243107)

Considering they've already issued a press release that they won't be doing the pay your own thing again, (it was just a publicity stunt), I'm thinking this is exactly the same. Just a way for a bunch of old rockers to get some notice. I'll ignore it - if their efforts were genuine support for open source, that'd be one thing. But they're not.

Re:Stunt (1)

MaxEmerika (701730) | more than 5 years ago | (#24243589)

Who cares if it's a stunt? I think both stunts (pay-what-you-like and now the Creative Commons video) are pretty cool. Sure, it's just enlightened self-interest on their part. They're not open source acolytes, they're just after the publicity. Does that mean that this isn't a good thing? Or does it only count if you are also proclaiming to be one of the faithful?

Re:Stunt (1)

Candid88 (1292486) | more than 5 years ago | (#24243709)

"Does that mean that this isn't a good thing?"

They must first perform the sacred ritual and give thanks to Linus Torvalds.

Re:Stunt (2, Insightful)

twistah (194990) | more than 5 years ago | (#24243763)

While I do agree that some bands, such as Nine Inch Nails, are more genuine in their efforts, that doesn't mean you should discount Radiohead. They are not "aging rockers", in the sense that they're not relevant anymore; they have a huge in-built fan base that would buy their records even if they come out on 8-track. It's a bit of a publicity stunt, but it's more progressive than what most major-label bands are doing.

Why "Only" a publicity stunt? (4, Insightful)

GroeFaZ (850443) | more than 5 years ago | (#24243829)

It's not like they have some purely altruistic, over-arching mission statement that forbids them to have any kind of publicity, do they? First and foremost, they want to make and sell music. Unlike many other artists, they also happen to express strong views on politics and economics, but those expressions wouldn't matter much without any amount of publicity. The way they distributed and marketed "In Rainbows" was INTENDED as a strong statement (a publicity stunt, if you will) on the business model of the big labels, a proof that success in this business is possible without them. Even if they don't repeat this exact method of distribution with their next album(s), I'd be truly shocked to learn that they want to rebuild the bridge they have nuked in word and deed.

Re:Why "Only" a publicity stunt? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24245413)

The way they distributed and marketed "In Rainbows" was INTENDED as a strong statement (a publicity stunt, if you will) on the business model of the big labels, a proof that success in this business is possible without them.

And then they went ahead and released it as a CD on XL Recordings, which is a major label.

Releasing the album online gave Radiohead a lot of attention. It also let them scrape up some extra money before a CD release. Had they just released it on CD, there would have probably been album leaks online before it even hit store shelves. The leaks would have reached fewer people, but they would have also made less money initially.

With the CD release, Radiohead hit the top of the sales chart in the UK. Additionally, in the US, they sold over 100,000 copies in the first week alone.

It's a really good marketing scheme.

Re:Why "Only" a publicity stunt? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24245797)

XL are not major. They may have grown substantially from the days when I worked with them. But you need a dose of reality here if you believe that. They used them for distribution. You know, get the CDs to the stores. They didn't let them control the entire recording process like regular bands have to do. RH cashed in big time, they controlled the entire process. This is what all bands should be doing.

Re:Why "Only" a publicity stunt? (1)

jdgeorge (18767) | more than 5 years ago | (#24246459)

Hmmm.... According to RIAA Radar [riaaradar.com], "In Rainbows" was released on Ato Records / Red.

In any case, Ato Records / Red is a RIAA label, so I think your point stands.

Screw those evil big labels (who made you famous!) (1)

AnomaliesAndrew (908394) | more than 5 years ago | (#24246697)

It's not as though this would have been possible without the recording industry propelling them to stardom. Nobody would even know who Radiohead is, much less care about their dot matrix music video (which they probably couldn't have afforded.)

It's easy for them to go against the music industry now that they got what they needed out of it: brand recognition.

Re:Why "Only" a publicity stunt? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24247599)

I don't think it's exactly a "publicity stunt." In Yorke's own words: "Every record for the last four, including my solo record, has been leaked. So the idea was like, we'll leak it, then." Source [wired.com]

It was more of an experiment to Radiohead. They are showing people (specifically other bands) that you don't need to follow the business model of big labels to sell music successfully. Radiohead made more money out of the In Rainbows "strategy" than all their previous albums made, put together! They didn't think this would be as successful as it ended up being. However, they didn't want to look snobbish by not selling actual CDs, so doing what they did went hand in hand with cooperating with label companies. Everybody wins, or so I see it. I don't think they could have dodged working with the big labels entirely.

Re:Stunt (1)

hugecabbage (950972) | more than 5 years ago | (#24248269)

Who really gives a shit as to HOW they're putting their stuff out there? Despite what one thinks of Radiohead as musicians, artists, innovators, pretentious hacks, or shameless promoters of their own, collective bloated ego, I think the world is a much more interesting place with WHOMEVER is putting creativity-inducing stuff like this out there, than without. But I could be wrong. Maybe most people would rather be passively entertained by Kid Rock videos, such as the one of him wiping his ass with toilet paper with "Radiohead" written all over it.... True innovation.

What's the license? (1)

zotz (3951) | more than 5 years ago | (#24243199)

If it is not BY (think BSD) or BY-SA (think GPL) then the analogy is wrong...

BY-ND? No derivatives?

BY-NC, BY-NC-SA, BY-NC-ND? Cant use for commercial purposes... not close to what Free Software or Open Source Software is all about. I looked for an indication of the license but could not find one.

Odd that. I will look some more. Has anyone found what I have not?

all the best,

drew

Re:What's the license? (3, Informative)

zotz (3951) | more than 5 years ago | (#24243435)

Found this:

"The CSV data files are released as follows:

  * Copyright 2008 Radiohead.

  * Some Rights Reserved: Data used to produce the House of Cards music video

  * is made available under the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 License"

Not open Source folks... at least not like the open source according to the OSD.

all the best,

drew

Re:What's the license? (1)

FilterMapReduce (1296509) | more than 5 years ago | (#24245787)

Not open Source folks... at least not like the open source according to the OSD.

And Creative Commons agrees, as indicated by how the open-source-style licenses [creativecommons.org] have a green bar at the top of their pages, while the less permissive ones [creativecommons.org]have a yellow bar. Nonetheless, it's quite a progressive thing to do, so good for Radiohead.

Re:What's the license? (1)

zotz (3951) | more than 5 years ago | (#24247117)

"Nonetheless, it's quite a progressive thing to do, so good for Radiohead."

That may be, but people want the caché and benefits one being Open Source or associated with Open Source but don't want to play the game all the way. That is not a good thing and we should certainly not contribute to the confusion. Call it what it is. People can decide for themselves if they like the reality or not.

And, for instance, I may have been more positively inclined to their actual play, but with the mistake / deception, it reduces my thoughts of the play.

all the best,

drew

Big Ideas (don't get any) (3, Interesting)

pzs (857406) | more than 5 years ago | (#24243241)

They're just jealous because their videos aren't as good as those done by amateurs [youtube.com].

Re: What's the license? (1)

Blice (1208832) | more than 5 years ago | (#24243273)

Creative Commons. You can find a list of works published under the license here [wikipedia.org]

Re: What's the license? (1)

zotz (3951) | more than 5 years ago | (#24244767)

Creative Commons is not a license. They put out a range of licenses, not all of which would be considered Open Source licenses. So, do you know which Creative Commons license(s) is/are being used?

all the best,

drew

Pretty neat (1)

Alarindris (1253418) | more than 5 years ago | (#24243309)

Sure, it's a publicity stunt, but I think it's pretty cool. Fits their electronic theme well, and just looks neat.

Nothing wrong with trying something new. Have you seen most of the other videos out there?

Re:Pretty neat (1)

Bazman (4849) | more than 5 years ago | (#24245443)

Four ideas. Count 'em.

1. Laser-range scan the band.

2. Laser-range scan a street scene (slight variation of #1)

3. Colourise and dissolve the street scene (maybe two ideas here)

4. Add lots of jittery noise.

That's it. Nothing else. Yes there are videos with fewer ideas (eg "stick band against white backdrop and film them") but Radiohead are supposed to be cerebral and have lots of ideas.

editing? (5, Funny)

1u3hr (530656) | more than 5 years ago | (#24243621)

THe music of "House of Cards" was not open sourced, just the visual data. according to a story in the UK Guardian, people are beginning to play around with the data.

I suppose the double capitalisation in the first sentence balances the lack of initial caps in the second.

Very innovative (0, Flamebait)

aevans (933829) | more than 5 years ago | (#24243811)

too bad their music sucks now, so no one cares.

Re:Very innovative (2, Interesting)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 5 years ago | (#24243963)

Which is funny, because this is only the video parts of it. You can put your own music to this. Take their data, models, etc and go do something completely unrelated with it if you want. It's art, man.

Wow, plotting 3D points. Very innovative. (1)

kgkeys (239243) | more than 5 years ago | (#24244255)

Really. Did I miss something? Other than the actual methods of gathering the data, which we don't get, they're just animating and plotting 3D points like the old java examples that plot an arbitrary data file of 3D points.

Re:Wow, plotting 3D points. Very innovative. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24245219)

They are using LIDAR to gather the field data, which while it may not seem visually impressive, it is a technology used in GIS but usually from airplanes. Then data returns on those lasers supply very useful (and huge data sizes) data that can be used for a wide variety of scientific purposes. Google it, it's cool stuff. You'll be hearing a lot more about realtime LIDAR in the future (think Big Brother and drones).

Re:Wow, plotting 3D points. Very innovative. (1)

kgkeys (239243) | more than 5 years ago | (#24245433)

OK, maybe I didn't make myself clear. The gathering of the data is cool. But nothing they've released is going to help you use LIDAR technology. They released a set of data files of 3D points and some routines to display it and animate it, right?

Blah (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24244321)

They're attention whores trying to get a rise out of the technophile market. The 'In Rainbows' release was a PR stunt and so it this. Lame.

I love how someone always feels the need to throw Metallica into the mix on conversations like these too. That's how you win 'teh internets' these days apparently.

Already Done? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24244781)

Didn't the Counting Crows already do this with their new cd? You can download raw footage from their studio sessions and use it to make a video for their single.

Most important rock band in the last 10 years (0, Redundant)

pinkfloydhomer (999075) | more than 5 years ago | (#24244837)

Radiohead is the most important rock band in the last 10 years, and not because of their pay-what-you-want and open-source-music-video ideas, but because of their great music.

They will be in the music history books 100 years from now.

Their music is not easily accessible, it takes 10-20 listenings before you get it, but after that it just keeps growing on you. And it never gets old, like so much music does. Truly the mark of a classic.

Looking for some free music to go to the visuals? (3, Insightful)

politicsapocalypse (1296149) | more than 5 years ago | (#24245199)

Unlike the Radiohead music our music is released via creative commons. Free even for commercial uses. http://www.politicsapocalypse.com/ [politicsapocalypse.com] I agree this is a cool thing to do but Radiohead charge people to download the sources to remix their album, they have said that the preferred way of listening is to buy the CD - not the mp3s, etc etc... Check out bands such as Nine Inch Nails to see a way of making $ while being nice to the fans.

Re:Looking for some free music to go to the visual (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24246553)

If you're finished spamming Slashdot about your garage band now, can you go make its website NOT look like a 12-year old's MySpace page? Thanks!

this has absolutely nothing to do with open source (3, Insightful)

jacquesm (154384) | more than 5 years ago | (#24245339)

It's a clear case of using open source as a buzz word to get publicity, and /. has fallen nicely for it.

Re:this has absolutely nothing to do with open sou (1)

Safiire Arrowny (596720) | more than 5 years ago | (#24245681)

In what possible way could they have given away this data that would make you think it was not solely a publicity stunt?

What is wrong with them wanting attention or wanting to sell music anyway? Radiohead and Nine Inch Nails are actually *doing* something, in different capacities to change the music industry.

Would you have a problem if Lame Garage Band from down the street did this for attention, or does the fact that Radiohead is famous affect your decision?

Also, making some data file CC has almost nothing to do with open source.

Re:this has absolutely nothing to do with open sou (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24247511)

It would appear that Radiohead is attempting to co-opt 'open source' for their own commercial gain, not unlike the RIAA co-opting 'art' for their own commercial gain. All capitalism is about conflating feelings/values/experiences with a consumable good, though, so it can't really be held against either of them.

Re:this has absolutely nothing to do with open sou (1)

hugecabbage (950972) | more than 5 years ago | (#24247551)

It's a clear case of using open source as a buzz word to get publicity, and /. has fallen nicely for it.

well, they're encouraging the download of the open source "Processing" development environment, under the GPL, in order for others to play with Radiohead's free data. Sounds pretty open source to me.

Re:this has absolutely nothing to do with open sou (1)

jacquesm (154384) | more than 5 years ago | (#24247763)

Radiohead is not distributing a single byte of code, open source or otherwise. They are giving out a dataset that you can use to play with using other software, which in fact is open source.

In other words, the summary title 'radiohead open sources music video' is absolutely misleading, there is no such thing as an 'open source music video', and radiohead didn't make one.

They made a music video using some artsy 3d scanner and then converted that to a format that allows you to view it in some open source viewer / analyzer.

It's a promotional gimmick, nothing else. It could have been pink elephants and it would have been just as relevant (not at all) to open source.

The better title would have read 'radiohead releases data you can play with using open source software', that at least would have been correct.

Re:this has absolutely nothing to do with open sou (1)

hugecabbage (950972) | more than 5 years ago | (#24248039)

I see your point. But upon further inspection, it would appear that Radiohead are not touting this project as open source. The Ostatic article that the OP linked to IS. At least I don't see any mention of open source on their Google code page. Maybe they're publicizing it as such somewhere else?

Re:this has absolutely nothing to do with open sou (1)

jacquesm (154384) | more than 5 years ago | (#24248317)

it's pretty much all over the web:

http://www.techradar.com/news/internet/radiohead-embrace-open-source-426545 [techradar.com]

They're all quoting some radiohead press release that I've yet to find, until then apologies are in order.

So, sorry for jumping the gun and not checking the press release first, but I just can't find the thing. I expect when - if - I do find it that we'll find that all those news articles that are out there will quote the press release word for word.

Pretty bleak video (1)

nidarus (240160) | more than 5 years ago | (#24245651)

I prefer the fan-made ones [aniboom.com] (or rather, the "talented animator fan"-made ones).

Look at the stage 2 submissions as well - there are some cool videos that didn't make it to the finals.

$1 per CD? (2, Insightful)

copperconductor (1325789) | more than 5 years ago | (#24245683)

So let me get this straight: Radiohead sells 1 million albums and each member gets what? 200k? (How many members are there again?) 200k for a platinum-selling album? And assuming people were only paying $16 a CD the label grosses $15 million from that same album? Great Jebus that is lopsided. And here I thought indentured servitude had gone out of style.

Re:$1 per CD? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24249579)

Have you actually looked at HOW they've released their last album?
I'll give you a hint, it was free on the internet with optional payment, they later released it on actual CD after everyone had already gotten the music.

Ironically, they made like $6million from the optional payments online, more than they've made from any other albums when released with a record label.
It's kinda sad that they can make more money given stuff away for free, than selling it with a record label

Open Source, Music, Artists (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24246097)

All this Slashtardian talk of Open Source and its alleged transformative effects on the music industry is a self masturbatory excerise in futility.

    Lets see you may a pimple sized dent in the software industry and it still looks like the "open source" economic model means that no one really makes any money while working this so called collaborative effort, and then you all just congratulate yourselves in a circle jerk of self serving techno mumble about how successful it will all eventually be.

As for Music,

      Historically musicians have always been at the bottom of the music industry supply chain despite being the producers of the very commodity that serves as the basis for the industry.

      So now you Slashtards are telling me, and I am using some of your buzz terms, that musicians "sharing" their wares via "open source" is going to transform the biz and allow them to practice and perpetuate the art form, providing them the means to simply EAT, fidn Water and Shelter let alone an instrument or the time to pursue it.

      You couldn't be more wrong dipshits, and if anything "open source" will only lead to "open sores" as artists who once eeked out a living in the industry now find themselves sleeping in the gutters, and all because dickwads like you all think your entitled to the fruits of their labor for free.

    Enter the Randian Apocalypse

    Then of course you all will follow once your movement runs out of steam and you all realize you need to eat and there is nothing left to sustain your delusions of granduer and once that happens, the Opens Source Utopia you created will discard you like yesterdays trash and you will now really be living "Open Sores".

Radiohead meets Javascript (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24246107)

One of the most impressive implementations I've seen using Javascript and Canvas: http://www.nihilogic.dk/labs/radiohead-meets-javascript/

Done last year. (1)

Vampyre_Dark (630787) | more than 5 years ago | (#24247761)

Ozzy Osbourne did something like this last year. The video for Never Going To Stop was shot on green screen and the data was uploaded for the fans for play with. Than there was a contest to see who could make the best video, and that became the official video.

Fantastic. (1)

Greyor (714722) | more than 5 years ago | (#24247843)

Whether it's a ploy to suck in ./-ers or not, I think the video simply looks fucking awesome. I suppose that's not surprising, though, seeing as I'm a longtime Radiohead fan. I'm quite impressed in any case.

Parallels to Pink Floyd (1)

javajeff (73413) | more than 5 years ago | (#24250155)

Pink Floyd wanted to innovate with their music. Radiohead wants to do the same thing, but they have the technology age to innovate an entire industry beyond the music. I just started listening to them, and they are great! As a Pink Floyd fan, it is easy to see the appeal. All of Radioheads albums are VERY different, but they share that common sound...Just like Pink Floyd. Put The Wall against Dark Side of the Moon, Wish you were here, Animals, Final Cut...etc. Each album was very different and innovative.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...