Awkward Utopia

IT’S UP TO YOU. NO REALLY. IT’S UP TO YOU.

So says Radiohead, the thought-dead “band” full of interesting characters with interesting perspectives. Basically, their formula for music is: grab some synthesizers, throw in some wailing, add a dash of dancing based on the movement of trees in wind, and one cockeyed dropout from a Coast Guard Academy named Thom Yorke and — woo lah! Radiohead! Welcome to part II of the my “Musical Revolutionaries or Retreads” series.

Radiohead is back and better than ever, if you were to believe the hype. On October 10th, Radiohead releases its new album, “In Rainbows.” Mike Nizza in The New York Times reports:

How much would you pay for the next Radiohead album, “In Rainbow”? “IT’S UP TO YOU,” the rock band’s site informs customers pre-ordering the digital download, which will be available Oct. 10. Doubters get a second assurance: “NO REALLY. IT’S UP TO YOU.” As proof, the order form’s section for price is blank — and it will accept the lowest possible amount for the site: One British penny (about two American cents). After a perfunctory credit-card charge, Radiohead, one of the most popular and innovative rock bands of the past two decades, will gladly hand over a copy of the whole album for less than a dollar.

Perhaps looking for tickets to the first performance of the show in America, Nizza goes on to quote the sunny predictions for the album and the revolution it heralds. There’s Bob Lefsetz, who says:

This is the industry’s worst nightmare. Superstar band, THE superstar band, forging ahead by its own wits. Proving that others can too. And they will.

This is what happens when you sell twenty dollar CDs with one good track and sue your customers for [file-sharing]. This is what happens when you believe you’re ENTITLED to your business. This is what happens when music is a second-class citizen only interested in the bottom line.

Not quite, Bob. Rumors of the industry’s demise have been greatly exaggerated. Besides, if this is some sort of movement, it was started by Prince. What’s really interesting is that Prince was the first to pioneer this so-called revolution in two ways. One, he was the first to buck the industry and establish complete control over his own music in the 1990s, allowing people to order music right off the internet. THAT was a revolution. Two, Prince released his music for not so much as the vaunted British penny in the UK itself earlier this year. I’m still waiting for the stampede in the industry.

So is Professor Tyler Cowen of George Mason University, prolific blogger of Marginal Revolution and Discover Your Inner Economist fame. He writes in agreement with me [my notes in brackets]:

…no this model won’t much change the music industry. Yes you really can download this album and “tip” Radiohead as you feel inclined to. But note that:

1. Radiohead is an indie cult band with extreme loyalties from its partisans and the possibility of attracting more such partisans by seeming “cool.” [--meaning, in short, that it can afford to do this, while most cannot, reason 1 this will not spread--]

2. Radiohead peaks high on the charts (#3 for their last release, if I recall…) but I believe they sell the product pretty quickly and don’t have a long run at the top. Again, they’d like to widen their fan base. [--making the product free is an investment for future releases who will buy or see them on tour, which is nowadays the most lucrative part of the music business for many... if anything, it is the value of touring and the outrageous prices generated there that makes this all possible--]

3. Radiohead’s gambit has reaped enormous publicity, but this won’t be the case next time. [--meta-analysis: this kind of release is possible in part because it is an outlier--]
… 5. Radiohead probably has an especially high ratio of touring to CD and iTunes income; see #1. This scheme is a natural for them but not for Kelly Clarkson. [--see notes on 2--]

Emily Bobrow at moreover takes issue with Professor Cowen:

Few of these points seem to negate the potential lasting impact of Radiohead’s decision. If this scheme is indeed a good way for the band to widen their fan base, why wouldn’t other bands follow suit? Also, doesn’t this sales approach create a new “authenticity” challenge for other bands? And isn’t Radiohead now locked into this approach - of giving their work away for potentially nothing - for fear of bad publicity if they resort to something more conventional next time?

First of all, all of the reasons negate the potential lasting impact of Radiohead’s decision, but more importantly, they call into question that it is really a revolutionary decision on Radiohead’s part. Rather, they may have simply finally maximized their profits! There has to be enormous value in the goodwill this has generated just for the band’s name itself! The point is that so many other bands or musical talents couldn’t follow suit even if they wanted to (see: Kelly Clarkson point). This has its place, but only due to the broadening of the market itself. Not from any profound concern for the people, or dare I say, to demonstrate any modicum of authenticity. And trust me on this: they’re going to charge you for your “Radiohead’s Greatest Moans” album whether you think they’re “locked in” or not. No one is locked in. Them going back, if need be, to charging for albums would cause negligible losses at best for the same reasons that this shift will suit them fine: they have the base! As long as they record a quality product, all is well.

The bottom line is that Radiohead’s action is designed to soothe its base. This doesn’t work for most other sectors, but Radiohead fans are particularly likely to respond to the hollow ring of authenticity of this market-driven decision. If you don’t believe me about their motives, consider this interview with Thom Yorke, the band’s lead screamer, revealing his utter dedication to the socioeconomic ills of the world that he has championed so distendedly:

“I don’t like the way I behave,” says the skinny, slightly hunched man sitting opposite me.

“I mean,” he expands with apparently genuine contrition, “I don’t approve of the way I behave.

“I don’t approve of the language I use. It’s pointless, I mean . . . I have this unfortunate technique of putting people’s noses out of joint before even having met them.”

He trails off with a remorseful sniff. This might sound like a perfectly normal scene from a radical self-help group. …
“I have no integrity in these things, I haven’t done enough,” he laments.

“I don’t have solar panels on my house yet. I haven’t sorted out the heating, my car’s not a Prius, I f—ing fly all the time for my job and I hate it but at the moment I haven’t really got a choice, you know, and all these things. The job I’m in is a job that wastes energy left, right and centre. It’s madness.”

The guy who can’t be bothered to pick up the phone to pick up some inefficient solar panels to help change the world is supposedly doing something that would be risky and revolutionary for the people? This is a challenge to the industry?

Or did the industry and market simply demand it of him?

( graphic taken from Sydney Morning Herald ; PS - I actually like Radiohead’s music and just like to egg on the Radiohead lovers who read this blog )