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 Helps Fans Make Crowd-Sourced Live Show DVD

Soulskill posted about 4 years ago | from the welcome-to-the-riaa's-hitlist dept.

Music 103

Kilrah_il writes "After having a go with a Name-Your-Price album and an open-source video, Radiohead is again breaking new ground, this time with a fan-based initiative. A group of fans went to one of the band's shows in Prague, each shooting the show from a different angle. By editing it all together and adding audio from the original masters provided by the band, they have created a video of the show that is 'Strictly not for sale — By the fans for the fans,' adding, 'Please share and enjoy.' Can this be the future of live show videos?"

cancel ×

103 comments

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

Nine Inch Nails did this first (4, Informative)

longacre (1090157) | about 4 years ago | (#33479314)

...sort of.

NIN unofficially released 400gb of raw, professionally shot concert footage and told the internet to turn it into a DVD, resulting in Another Version of the Truth [thisoneisonus.org] .

Re:Nine Inch Nails did this first (4, Informative)

hex0D (1890162) | about 4 years ago | (#33479348)

IIRC, the Beastie Boys had their fans shoot video for a live DVD as well. But they didn't give it away. Thumbs up for Radiohead! They're not really my style but they seem to have more integrity than most bands out there and I got to respect the hell out of that.

Re:Nine Inch Nails did this first (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33479844)

Your mom has a very nasty, stanky ass pussy with way too much cheese on that taco. Does she ever think of maybe douching that thing? I'm not licking her pussy again until she does and that's final. I'll still stick it though.

Re:Nine Inch Nails did this first (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33485086)

Your mom has a very nasty, stanky ass pussy with way too much cheese on that taco. Does she ever think of maybe douching that thing? I'm not licking her pussy again until she does and that's final. I'll still stick it though.

That cheese on my mom's pussy? Those were actually maggots. The necrosis is what makes it stink though. Wouldn't it be much easier to pay a hooker than to keep digging up my mom's grave just to satisfy your need for raunchy twat? It honestly doesn't bother me either way but seriously dude... I can't imagine it's fun going down on a corpse that has been buried for a few years now.

Re:Nine Inch Nails did this first (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33481014)

IIRC, the Beastie Boys had their fans shoot video for a live DVD as well. But they didn't give it away. Thumbs up for Radiohead! They're not really my style but they seem to have more integrity than most bands out there and I got to respect the hell out of that.

I'd pay twice the going rate for the Beastie Boys example (Awesome, I fuckin' shot that) rather than accept the Radiohead one for free. Breaking new ground, indeed.

Re:Nine Inch Nails did this first (1)

trum4n (982031) | about 4 years ago | (#33481232)

Daft Punk, Alive 2007.

Re:Nine Inch Nails did this first (3, Insightful)

digitalunity (19107) | about 4 years ago | (#33479378)

As Trent Reznor pointed out in an interview with Digg's Kevin Rose, this business model can only work for those who are already well established or can accept not being megastars.

Getting traction in a market flooded with crap when you don't have advertising money is a losing battle.

Re:Nine Inch Nails did this first (4, Insightful)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | about 4 years ago | (#33479776)

As Trent Reznor pointed out in an interview with Digg's Kevin Rose, this business model can only work for those who are already well established or can accept not being megastars.

I have to say - that's a good thing. I'd rather 1,000 productive artists making a living wage than 10 megastars living the life of luxury. After all, being a megastar today is mostly an artifact of the monopoly on distribution enabled by the monopoly of copyright.

What I think is likely to ultimately happen though is that we'll just end up with another avenue to megastardom. People really seem to like to be the same as their neighbors, so I think one way or another they will tend to converge on a handful of artists in order to share in that common experience that comes from listening to the same music (and watching the same movies and reading the same books, etc).

I just hope that whatever new avenues to megastardom become popular, that they don't have the same level of deleterious effect on society and culture that modern copyright law has.

Re:Nine Inch Nails did this first (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33479924)

ANY 'business model' (method of promotion) for a music artist requires an established artist and/or crapload of advertising money to work. There is still yet sadly no such thing as an artist who makes it "big" via merit virally on the internet. (Die Antwoord and those treadmill guys actually had label backing and/or were signed beforehand. Don't believe the BS that they "made it" otherwise! Do a little digging if you don't believe me.)

But the age of music superstardom has come to an end. (Unless you call American Idols and Nick/Disney kids music superstars.) Sure, we'll miss not having a new Beatles in these later days, but overall, it's probably for the best that the paradigm is shifting.

Re:Nine Inch Nails did this first (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33480258)

It bacame this way... Originally artist sent demo tapes to radio stations and depending of the DJ's taste he either played them on the air or did not play them, but that was when I was young and beautiful in the 1950's and 1960's.

Re:Nine Inch Nails did this first (1)

Smauler (915644) | about 4 years ago | (#33483548)

The Artic Monkeys [wikipedia.org] had very little paid for advertising prior to their no.1 single "I bet you look good on the dancefloor". Much of what has been written about their popularity prior to their success has been exaggerated, but their success was not due to marketing primarily, at least. They signed to a small label only a couple of months prior to the single's release.

Re:Nine Inch Nails did this first (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33480100)

Yes, exactly. This is why the internet is a totally different market place than concerts / gigs / every other music market...

That was sarcastic, in case it seemed genuine.

These exact same problems are in the "traditional" business model. I've had a lot of experience with groups who did both, and to suggest that anything is different, is just someone splitting hairs.

Re:Nine Inch Nails did this first (1)

dov_0 (1438253) | about 4 years ago | (#33480138)

As Trent Reznor pointed out in an interview with Digg's Kevin Rose, this business model can only work for those who are already well established or can accept not being megastars.

Getting traction in a market flooded with crap when you don't have advertising money is a losing battle.

I don't think Radiohead care if they are megastars or not. They just want to do what they do and they do it very well. I agree with you though that this really would not work for the general consumable background noise that the record companies make most of their profits on.

Re:Nine Inch Nails did this first (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33480580)

I don't think Radiohead care if they are megastars or not.

Says the 'already-Megastars' band Radiohead.

I think they would care if they were NOT already mega-stars and just starting out.

Integrity is a nice aspiration, but human nature (and the desire to acquire 'wealth' and/or fame) unfortunately isn't so glib.

Re:Nine Inch Nails did this first (1)

pksyn (1456523) | about 4 years ago | (#33479420)

Exactly. The "gift" footage was released almost two years ago.

Re:Nine Inch Nails did this first (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33479450)

Not really. NIN produced a music video for free, not the processed sounds of animals being put thru an industrial shredder aka radiohead.

You're thinking of NIN, not Radiohead (1)

InvisiBill (706958) | about 4 years ago | (#33481972)

the processed sounds of animals being put thru an industrial shredder

It sounds like you're describing a cross between the Happiness in Slavery [wikipedia.org] and unreleased March of the Pigs [wikipedia.org] videos.

Re:Nine Inch Nails did this first (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33479504)

Another Version of the Truth [thisoneisonus.org] also includes a DVD of fan shot footage from another show from the same tour.

Re:Nine Inch Nails did this first (0, Redundant)

S-4'N3 (1232394) | about 4 years ago | (#33479790)

Heck yeah. Nine Inch Nails totally beat them to the punch. By almost TWO years! KEEP UP, RADIOHEAD, YOU'RE LAGGING!

YOU ALL ARE WRONG. The Whig Party did this 1st!.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33479820)

The Whig Party, sponsor of the 1st President of the United States, are the one's that let the fans compose the album known as The Republic.

See? That wasn't toooooo hard to do, now was it? Then in 1812, the Brittish came a comin'--they burned the Whight House and shot the kin folk, so we fired our guns and the British went a runnin' down the ol' Mississippi to the Gulf of Mexicoooooo!

Then Thomas Jefferson started behaving like a Genghis Americunt with his fellow Democrats and fellow Republicans, that by the Year 1850 we got the Monro Doctrine that then led to Erie Doctrine of The Credit River Monopoly, and then all shit hit the fan with 1861 incorporating the United States, and look-out that corporation declared bankruptcy in 1933.

Re:Nine Inch Nails did this first (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33479994)

Wrong. Really a slew of inde artists did it first but you'll never hear about any of them in the mainstream.

Re:Nine Inch Nails did this first (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33480942)

I hate to have to say this, but it doesn't really matter *who* did it first. The fact is that Radiohead could've done what just about any other "major label" band in their position would've done, and tell their fans to get lost -- or, more likely, file a copyright infringement suit and get the footage killed.

The balance is simple: "indie artists" live and die on the fickle whims of their fans; established groups like Radiohead and NIN could probably go on stage, say "Hi, I'm Thom Yorke," throw their guitar into the audience and leave with little to no ill effect on their bottom line.

When you're a (relative) nobody, giving something away for free is generous but not unusual and certainly not newsworthy. A major band, on the other hand, has well-established reasons not to. How many hundreds of thousands of dollars did that stage setting cost to assemble? How many roadies and managers and agents and other hangers-on need to be paid out of that revenue?

Radiohead could've taken those master recordings and released another "live" album to likely millions in revenue, which would not just have recouped their concert costs but significantly lined their pockets. And they gave it away. There's very few "indie" artists capable of making, let alone walking away from, that kind of money.

Re:Nine Inch Nails did this first (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33481238)

Are you sure that wasn't the Simpsons?

Re:Nine Inch Nails did this first (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33481474)

Yes. I downloaded the main DVD in (checks timestamp) January and it's great (if you like NIN :-)). It's available in Blu-ray, DVD, and several other formats (1080p MOV, 1080p + 5.1 audio in mkv format, etc.) with nice, high-quality audio options. You could download the mp3 and FLAC audio for months before that, and there's a ton of additional stuff available [thisoneisonus.org] .

So, yes, what they are doing is cool, but Radiohead is not breaking new ground here.

Re:Nine Inch Nails did this first (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33482390)

They also allowed fans to film several shows and that will be or has already been turned into a similar video.

Re:Nine Inch Nails did this first (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33485600)

...sort of.

NIN unofficially released 400gb of raw, professionally shot concert footage and told the internet to turn it into a DVD, resulting in Another Version of the Truth [thisoneisonus.org] .

yes they sure did! this is nothing new and was done over a year ago...this is quite common now and not very hard to do.

bah (1)

Simmeh (1320813) | about 4 years ago | (#33479330)

The pay-what-you-want album was new ground, this is just Creative Commons work with some official help.

Re:bah (1)

catbutt (469582) | about 4 years ago | (#33479582)

Except the pay-what-you-want idea was kinda lame. Great for a band that already has a huge following and more money than God. And for one album, where the novelty effect makes a huge difference.

I think it turned out to be a distraction from actually finding an intellectual property solution that worked for the long term.

Regardless, Radiohead will always be associated for me with this most brilliant "review" of their Creep video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=It6VWk1yT5o [youtube.com]

Re:bah (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33479640)

Radiohead SUCKS, so who really cares? They can't sell CDs so they give the shit away?

but in argentina... (5, Informative)

ltcdata (626981) | about 4 years ago | (#33479338)

when they came here (argentina), last year, the tickets were VERY expensive... almost 100USD each... impossible to buy for many of the fans, like me :(

Re:but in argentina... (5, Informative)

bm_luethke (253362) | about 4 years ago | (#33479586)

They have to make their money someplace. They really do not have many choices.

They can have normal day jobs - which means the likely hood of seeing them outside of a 200 mile radius of their residence is quite unlikely. Not really a good option so we will cross that one off the list. There are others in the "cross off list" category too - say a life of robbing banks and such, I'll assume (though given posts here I have to recall what assuming does) that we will not go there.

They can make it from album (or CD, or MP3, or whatever the format of the day is - I'm old enough to use that term generically) sales. We here do not like this type of thing - recorded music wants to be free and it is my Right to make all the copies I want of it. So for the most part that is not going to happen. Indeed, while I do not agree with that sentiment it *is* reality. It is too easy to copy and that makes it too expensive to purchase for most. Things like jackets, art work, and such are nice - but too many of us will take a decent MP3 over a high quality loss-less digital recording with full artwork for the latter to be a money maker without artificial legal protections. Even with said protections that models days are numbered.

So that pretty much leaves us with live shows. Not movies of them - they end up being a version of the second method to make money but with video. It will suffer the same fate. Therefore it leaves it up to live performances. Since they are popular it is going to be expensive. Given how they sell at 100 dollars a pop the chances of you getting in at 20 dollars a pop was just as slim (if not slimmer) due to demand.

The expense has to come in some area. Maybe you already know this - after all even knowing it I wouldn't be happy if I couldn't afford tickets to something I really wanted to see - but they have to make their money someplace. Further things like "supply and demand" mean something, even were they to drop prices to cheap and their expenses somehow magically get payed you would *still* most likely be putting frowny faces on a post for the tickets being sold out and a huge number of fans angry they didn't get to go. In that case almost no one is happy other than the small group that got cheap tickets. That isn't going to be a workable long term market either.

It's like complaining that some Open Source company want to charge for support - umm, yea.

Re:but in argentina... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33480070)

I agree with most of your post, but one thing:

...but too many of us will take a decent MP3 over a high quality loss-less digital recording...

A lossless digital recording of an analogue event?
By definition, there is no such thing.

Re:but in argentina... (4, Informative)

Enleth (947766) | about 4 years ago | (#33480296)

There is. Sample at twice the Nyquist frequency of the recorded signal and a sample size that gives a sample resolution a tad bigger than what the recording equipment is capable of registering - measurement error formulas from the theory of metrology are your friends, coefficients come from the instruction manual for the microphone. You do know that an analog microphone doesn't have an infinite recording quality, right?

Re:but in argentina... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33480404)

You do know that an analog microphone doesn't have an infinite recording quality, right?

Let's assume you're correct and the mic isn't really analog. What about the rest o the instruments?
No matter how many bps you use to record, there's always a loss when converting from analog to digital. It may be negligible, but it's still there.

Re:but in argentina... (3, Informative)

lurcher (88082) | about 4 years ago | (#33480618)

The important fact you are missing is real world signal to noise ratio. No source has zero noise, so below a certain signal level there is no signal only noise, so as long as the bit depth is sufficient to cover the available S/N ratio, and as long as the sampling frequency is high enough to cover the frequency range of interest, and in the case of audio thats well defined, and we could up the limit a few times to be sure. So as long as thats all met, and the equipment is working as it should, then yes, loss-less recording of the world is entirely possibly.

Re:but in argentina... (1)

shermo (1284310) | about 4 years ago | (#33484328)

You're only saying that because you're not using the right type of cables on your stereo. Buy these elementium plated diamond cables, then you'll be able to tell the difference.

Re:but in argentina... (1)

FiloEleven (602040) | about 4 years ago | (#33481318)

No shit. There's always a loss when you record with analog, too. You miss a bunch of inaudible frequencies. You miss the thump of powerful speakers. You miss standing in the midst of a crowd that is all tuned into the same experience. You miss being there at the moment of creation. Nobody mistakes a recording for a live performance without being keyed for it (Milli Vanilli, anyone?) and even then it isn't easy.

A recording is not live. Whining about how very high-quality digital is worse than very high-quality analog is pointless. I guarantee that in a double-blind test you wouldn't be able to reliably pick which is which, and I further bet that you wouldn't even be able to tell the difference were the same event recorded both ways.

Re:but in argentina... (2, Insightful)

DMUTPeregrine (612791) | about 4 years ago | (#33483728)

In addition, since all energy is quantized the momentum of the air molecules is quantized. A sufficiently sensitive recording would STILL be "digital" due to this quantization of energy. There is no analog, just very, very, very high resolution digital. Of course, that's an insanely distant limit for recordings to achieve, but ultimately true. Useless in practice.

Re:but in argentina... (1)

Zero__Kelvin (151819) | about 4 years ago | (#33481310)

"Sample at twice the Nyquist frequency

Actually you need 10 tines the Nyquist to be lossless. Twice the frequency merely guarantees no aliasing.

Re:but in argentina... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33481554)

hahah
      you have NO idea what you're talking about:

"Nyquist Theorem:

According to the Nyquist theorem [1-9] the discrete time sequence of a sampled continuous function { V(tn = n Ts) } contains enough information to reproduce the function V=V(t) exactly provided that the sampling rate (fs = 1/Ts) is at least twice that of the highest frequency contained in the original signal V(t):"

I did find this from: http://zone.ni.com/devzone/cda/tut/p/id/3000

"If the shape of the waveform is desired, you should sample at a rate approximately 10 times the Nyquist theory."

Since any wave is made of multiple sines, sampling at twice the highest frequency will give you an accurate reproduction of that highest frequency, and everything below it: (i.e. lossless, i.e. a perfect reproduction).

Re:but in argentina... (1)

Zero__Kelvin (151819) | about 4 years ago | (#33481676)

You are confusing "accurate reproduction" with lossless,

Re:but in argentina... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33482478)

Hell, why let the Nyquist rate stop you? It is a constraint that can be overcome with super-resolution techniques.

For example, take multiple recordings (each at 2*Nyquist) at different time-shifts and reconstruct a higher-res signal.

If there's anything equivalent to a point spread function in audio signals (I assume there is since it is a scattered signal), one could also oversample and use deconvolution to get a higher resolution interpretation of the signal.

Re:but in argentina... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33482544)

Stupid me, forgot the major difference in wavelength/frequency between audio and (visible) light, leading to the lack of need for super-resolution techniques in audio.

Re:but in argentina... (1)

lurcher (88082) | about 4 years ago | (#33483296)

"For example, take multiple recordings (each at 2*Nyquist) at different time-shifts and reconstruct a higher-res signal."

And that differs from a higher sampling rate in what way?

Re:but in argentina... (1)

Avallach95 (446867) | about 4 years ago | (#33480860)

Live shows may be a non-starter, too. Most bands have a flat (or somewhat negotiable) fee for the show and a promoter or venue hires them for the gig and sells tickets, for which they set the price, pay the advertising, accept the risk and keep bulk of the profits, if any. Where most touring bands make their money is off merchandising. There's a reason those cheap black concert shirts are $25-30. My (very limited) experience in promotions and negotiation with bands indicates that NOT having a house cut on the merch sales will result in some leeway with the performance fees or even the tech riders in some limited cases.

Re:but in argentina... (1)

ltcdata (626981) | about 4 years ago | (#33482830)

Yes, but they do all this "free" or "cheap" things in everywhere, but when they come here, they go to a very small place, called "Luna Park" with capacity for a maximum of 16k people, when the can go to other places like the river stadium that can hold almost 80k people, they can have cheaper tickets and earn the same quantity of money, or more. When pearl jam came here, they had tickets for $60 (almost USD 15)... and also they did 2 shows! and in a stadium!. Radiohead is like Zack de la Rocha from RATM, they speak about freedom, socialism, etc, and then you see him driving down his bentley to his mansion...

Cool .... But (-1, Troll)

rudy_wayne (414635) | about 4 years ago | (#33479340)

Wow. Very cool idea. Unfortunately it's only the lame, sucky, douchebag bands that do this sort of thing.

Re:Cool .... But (1, Redundant)

Atypical Geek (1466627) | about 4 years ago | (#33479366)

You think Nine Inch Nails is a lame, sucky, douchebag band?

Re:Cool .... But (2, Informative)

ltcdata (626981) | about 4 years ago | (#33479436)

I don't like NIN. I like Radiohead.

Re:Cool .... But (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33479460)

.... I like Radiohead.

That is creepy.

Re:Cool .... But (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33479474)

I hate them both.

Somebody bring back Elvis as a Vampire.

Re:Cool .... But (1)

schon (31600) | about 4 years ago | (#33479738)

Somebody bring back Elvis as a Vampire.

Too late, they already did. [imdb.com]

Re:Cool .... But (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33479974)

Wait...which one of them is going to get fat in later years? (Say both, say both!!)

Re:Cool .... But (1)

wgoodman (1109297) | about 4 years ago | (#33480348)

the Zombie one was better.

Re:Cool .... But (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33479930)

Undead Elvis? This may be as close as it gets. [youtube.com]

Re:Cool .... But (1)

Briareos (21163) | about 4 years ago | (#33480884)

I hate them both.

Somebody bring back Elvis as a Vampire.

Too late, Charlaine Harris already did [wikipedia.org] ...

np: The Fall - I'm Into CB (Rebellious Jukebox Volume 3 (Disc 1))

Re:Cool .... But (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33481514)

I can't do that, but there's always Dread Zeppelin [wikipedia.org] . I recommend Un-Led-Ed [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Cool .... But (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33479876)

Yes.

Re:Cool .... But (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33479580)

If being lame and sucky means I were to get legions of fans that appreciate me for what I do and remain faithful to the music that I make and actually BUY my stuff all the time.... well hell, sign me up.

Better that than resigning myself to only what the record execs want you to pump out.

I'm not a Radiohead fan... (5, Interesting)

KingSkippus (799657) | about 4 years ago | (#33479408)

...but damn if stuff like this doesn't make me want to go out and buy some of their albums, even if I just give them away, to support what they're doing.

Re:I'm not a Radiohead fan... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33479498)

I have the same knee-jerk response (also not a Radiohead fan), but it is important to realize this style of economics (consumer determined price) only works in the long term if the material created is desired by consumers. If you're going to throw coin around in a philanthropic fashion, I think you should do it with something you'd like to see more people taking part of/in?

Re:I'm not a Radiohead fan... (0)

pksyn (1456523) | about 4 years ago | (#33479628)

I'm pretty sure they only did that once with "In Rainbows" and they ended up pissing off their fans b/c the physical release contained additional songs. So those that paid $20 for the download got less than those that paid $12 for the CD

Re:I'm not a Radiohead fan... (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33479680)

It's not like they were unable to download the songs later, and they paid what they thought the original tracks worth to begin with, so what is there to be pissed about? Somehow, they felt that value they paid for up front was diminished when the physical product cost less than their self-determined price? IIRC, the average patron paid about $8, so the preponderance of fans got a "good deal" (whatever that means in this context) anyway.

Re:I'm not a Radiohead fan... (2, Interesting)

pksyn (1456523) | about 4 years ago | (#33479780)

I wasn't one of them, I can't listen to radiohead with out getting dizzy and blacking out. But I remember reading that people were pissed b/c of the difference. Maybe they "fixed the glitch"

Re:I'm not a Radiohead fan... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33481102)

I had already downloaded the files from The Pirate Bay and listened to the album. I really liked the album and thought it was one of the best albums of the year. So I went to the official site and payed $5 to Radiohead.

The point was not to get the files (the same ones that I already had). The point was to vote with my wallet for a price which I think is reasonable for 10-12 good songs in medium quality lossy encoding.

If they had released the songs in FLAC as well as mp3 (mp3 for compatibility) I would have payed about twice as much money.

If people complain that they didn't get enough for their money, I would argue that they should have payed less for their download. Maybe I'm a weird person.

Re:I'm not a Radiohead fan... (2, Interesting)

kainosnous (1753770) | about 4 years ago | (#33479882)

That's exactly my reaction. I have no interest in their music. In fact, I don't currently listen to any contemporary music, and I haven't paid for music in years. However, seeing something like this almost makes me want to find a way to contribute. In reality, I'll probably never get around to sending any cash their way. Nevertheless, if I can be swayed a little, I'm sure that there are many almost fans who will get to know them and like them because of this move. I don't know if this type of marketing could work without also selling albums, concerts, etc., but I'm sure that it adds to their appeal.

Good for them! (4, Insightful)

StuartHankins (1020819) | about 4 years ago | (#33479416)

In today's world, it's nice to see people who "get it" and are finding new fans and publicity by doing something which hurts no one, by giving of themselves. I wish them continued success!

Re:Good for them! (2, Insightful)

pushing-robot (1037830) | about 4 years ago | (#33479942)

Yeah, I hope more bands start realizing this is the right message to give to their fans. A lot of big artists would rather tell you to go stick your head in a pig.

Re:Good for them! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33483894)

Stick your head in a pig...?!?... That's a new one.

The first? Really? (3, Interesting)

matt-fu (96262) | about 4 years ago | (#33479438)

A group of fans went to one of the band's shows ... each shooting the show from a different angle.

...editing it all together and adding audio from the original masters provided by the band

So this is exactly like the making of Bon Jovi's video for _Bad Medicine_, then?

Re:The first? Really? (5, Informative)

EDinWestLA (453682) | about 4 years ago | (#33479614)

A group of fans went to one of the band's shows ... each shooting the show from a different angle.

...editing it all together and adding audio from the original masters provided by the band

So this is exactly like the making of Bon Jovi's video for _Bad Medicine_, then?

Bon Jovi didn't do it for a whole concert then give it away for free.

Re:The first? Really? (1)

matt-fu (96262) | about 4 years ago | (#33481730)

I love Radiohead considerably more than Bon Jovi, but the difference between one song and a whole concert isn't enough to make what they did some kind of revolutionary move. The "free" thing might have been, but when you consider that in those days almost everybody who could afford MTV had a VCR (just like everyone these days who can afford the Internet has a disk drive), and the video was shown ad nauseum when it was released and continued to be played until the mid '90s happened (just like Radiohead's video will be available for download until someone decides that it shouldn't be), it is essentially the same deal.

The Beastie Boys also did this (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33479606)

with Awesome, I Fuckin' Shot that.

Handed out cameras to fans and let them go crazy during a show in 2006. That one was sold, however.

Re:The Beastie Boys also did this (0, Redundant)

Anaerin (905998) | about 4 years ago | (#33479846)

And Daft Punk's fans did this for the "Alive" tour.

Clear Channel (5, Interesting)

countertrolling (1585477) | about 4 years ago | (#33479740)

They could raise a fuss [techdirt.com] ...

Re:Clear Channel (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33480140)

Was this (act by RadioHead) done within the area where that Patent is valid?

Nope.

Then CC can just go and piss in the wind for all I care.

Bands have been releasing 'official bootlegs' of live gigs for decades.
I have Pink Floyd's 'Best of Tour 72'. This was recorded on the Rolling Stones Mobile Studio at Brighton Dome in June 1972. It features just one piece of work titled 'We did it for you'. That is actually Dark Side of the Moon a full year before the official album was released and less than 6 months since it was first played to a live audience at that same venue on 20th Jan.
How do I know this?
I went to both Concerts.

Here Radiohead have let the fans loose with Video Cameras and done something pretty neat. Those fans who have bits of their work in the final cut must be really chuffed withemselves. They have a lot of bragging rights with their friends.
Carry on with this RH. you are making lots of new fans by these acts. They will go and buy your music. IMHO, everyone wins except the Record Companies who are gradually becoming more and more pushed aside which after the actions of the RIAA etc can't be a bad thing.

If those record companies were to 'get with it' and sign decent deals with bands (ie not ones that rape and pillage the profits) then they stand a chance of surviving. Otherwise, they are IMHO as dead as the DODO in today's world.

I also support moves by the creative artists to control how their music is sold. As a bit of an old Prog Rocker myself, albums were (back in the day) meant to be listened to as a whole piece of work. sure, 'Money' can be played as a track on its own but to get the full impact of it you have to listen to the whole album from end to end. It all flows together. After all, the Floyd never played just bits of it(apart from their last gig AFAIK). They played it from beginnig to end as one piece of work without interruption. If the artists laid the tracks down that way then surely they have the right to dictate how it should be sold?

Re:Clear Channel (0, Troll)

dissy (172727) | about 4 years ago | (#33480238)

That's the type of sleazy weapon clear channel doesn't dare use against a band who can afford to go to court and show the many decades of prior art. It would get invalidated for good.

No, that's the type of thing they will only use against bands who can't afford justice in our legal system.

Really nice job (1)

Super Dave Osbourne (688888) | about 4 years ago | (#33479788)

I like it, worth watching.

Re:Really nice job (4, Funny)

Larryish (1215510) | about 4 years ago | (#33479920)

Would buy from again, A+++plus++++++++plus++++

wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33480190)

and for a second there I thought kdawson submitted this article...no wait.

How is this not political bias not the nerd news, you know articles you can read where you go: I have to research more on this because its that cool!

Mark me insightful if you will, or even flamebait, but remember im just a g.d. ac

I was at that show (2, Informative)

dorpel (1331133) | about 4 years ago | (#33480254)

It is interesting to note that cameras weren't allowed in the venue. The tickets had a very distinct notice about that, and I personally witnessed at least one person who had to go back to the safety deposit booth to store her camera when the security guards found one in her bag entering the park. Of course there were thousands of cameras at the show, all of which must have been sneaked in. Seeing this great project and knowing the band's reputation, I assume it was the venue's idea to ban cameras. Maybe next time Radiohead will make sure this won't happen.

3d aspect (2, Interesting)

sheriff_p (138609) | about 4 years ago | (#33480412)

I skim-read this, and was disappointed on closer reading when I realized they hadn't created a 3d montage from the video shot from all the different angles :-/

Black Crowes (1)

WinstonWolfIT (1550079) | about 4 years ago | (#33480550)

The Black Crowes have provided direct soundboard access to all of their live concerts, which has resulted in numerous high-quality 'bootleg' distributions of some great rock concerts.

Just like... (2, Interesting)

RotateLeftByte (797477) | about 4 years ago | (#33480862)

The Greatful Dead did for years.
They sure sold millions of Albums as well as bootlegs.

Rock on in Heaven Jerry Garcia.

Once again Slashdorks get it wrong (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33480898)

Just like how they think they're revolutionaries because open software now has a little label and a mascot...

This kind of thing really isn't anything new. And this isn't the oasis in the desert you think it is. Radiohead wants to give away one video and that's it. They're not going to do this for every show like the Grateful Dead did.

And as for their "open album"? They already said they'd never do it again. I wonder why that is.... Hmmmmm... Even an established band is having a hard time making enough coin to cover their costs when the potential price is zero. But Slashdorks will never see it that way.

Pandering (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33481042)

They are pandering to the fans, because they can afford to, and they know it'll make them stand out.

Well... (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33481180)

Bleh... NIN did it first, and better.

Huh? (2, Funny)

Hognoxious (631665) | about 4 years ago | (#33481500)

Please share and enjoy.

Eh? I thought we were talking about Radiohead here.

Re:Huh? (1)

meringuoid (568297) | about 4 years ago | (#33482210)

Please share and enjoy.

Eh? I thought we were talking about Radiohead here.

Well, if you have a problem with 'share and enjoy', I suppose you'll just have to go stick your head in a pig.

Re:Huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33485126)

Only the "enjoy" part was in bold, you dim-witted fool. On second thought, I suppose you're trying to make some joke that I'm not getting.

Re:Huh? (1)

meringuoid (568297) | about 4 years ago | (#33489620)

Well, clearly you've never had a run-in with the complaints department of the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation [caltech.edu] .

Re:Huh? (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | about 4 years ago | (#33494846)

A bit obscure, maybe you should have put the link first time.

Now let's bring the discussion to a neat conclusion by returning to the subject of paranoid androids [youtube.com] .

Daft Punk did it too! (1)

DJ Particle (1442247) | about 4 years ago | (#33481716)

Except they hadn't intended to.

At one of their "Alive 2007" concerts, they noticed many fans were filming the concert, so they asked fans to send in their concert footage. They paired segments of many different fan videos with the master audio recording of the concert to make the "Alive 2007" video album.

Sadly, the video isn't available in the USA. Only in PAL DVD.

Re:Daft Punk did it too! (1)

synth7 (311220) | about 4 years ago | (#33483002)

You're close, but you've got quite a few of the details wrong. Daft Punk did film a couple of their massive Alive 2007 tour dates, but were completely unhappy with the result... it was all just the same overly-slick swooping camera shots. There is at least one live video posted to youtube that comes from this footage, and it's reminiscent of every other concert video out there. The fan-made video is not "available" in Europe, as it's just as bootleg there as it is here... so you have to find a copy to download in the wilds of the internet.

The fan-produced concert DVD (ISO of a PAL-format video of one of the several Bercy, France shows) is a bootleg (that Daft Punk has nodded at in appreciation but has never formally blessed or condemned because they can do neither without either angering their label or their fans) splicing together video from about two dozen high-quality digital cameras that were shot by various fans during the show. Read some of the commentary surrounding their opinions of the fan-made videos over on wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daft_Punk [wikipedia.org]

As a side note, it is incredibly easy to transcode the PAL DVD into NTSC. I used Nero's tools to do it, and it was no hit to the quality since the original is mostly shaky hand-cam to begin with. I've got several copies of the show on a DVD laying around here somewhere... and while you're at it you can insert some proper chapter markers for the "before the show" segment and the "encore" segment, although I went whole-hog and put in chapter markers between the songs as well.

For those interested, the video was originally hosted all over... I got mine from theworldisdaft.com, but it appears it is no longer available there. If you want to roll the dice on the torrent world, it should be fairly easy to get your hands on the PAL ISO and then transcode it to something more Region 1 friendly.

I'm Old School.... (1)

pandrijeczko (588093) | about 4 years ago | (#33481962)

... I say leave it to the experts.

I am actually a bit of a Radiohead fan and I admire the sentiment behind what they're doing - but frankly, given the choice between a paid-for live concert DVD shot by trained cameramen or a free fan-recorded "shaky-cam" version, I choose the former.

I'm middle-aged and lazy, I'm quite happy to just hand over some money and be entertained without all this interactive "by the fans, for the fans" nonsense.

If you're a musician or band, make a nice-sounding CD for me and I will buy it and enjoy it. I don't want to go through all the hassles of picking odd tracks off of it.

If I like your CD enough, I may come and see you live. You sell me a ticket, I watch you play live, have a beer or two while I'm doing it, then come out the concert venue two hours later with a smile on face having had a good time.

And if it was that good a concert and you had a proper set of cameramen doing a good job of filming it, I may even but the live DVD as a memento of that concert.

Straightforward and simple - I hand over money, you entertain me.

"Groundbreaking"...not so much (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33482420)

I'd just like to echo what some others here have said.
Nine Inch Nails helped their fans with the making of their own live DVD (and Bluray, might I add) over a year ago. The ThisOneIsOnUs project has been going strong ever since it started, and to this day it's still one of the best looking and sounding live videos I've ever watched; better than most professionally recorded and released ones.
I might also add that the audio and video sources for the NIN video are much higher quality.

inb4 people telling me I just don't like Radiohead. I own all their releases on disc, so try harder.

Dizzy (1)

ukemike (956477) | about 4 years ago | (#33483644)

Can this be the future of live show videos?"

Not until fans can hold cameras steady.

Maybe (1)

masini (1707522) | about 4 years ago | (#33486496)

May not be the future of this area but certainly will be an important step. Hopefully that will be enough though popularized.dezmembrari auto [auto-tip.ro]
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?