This is where you offer tracks or albums for a user-determined price. I hate this concept, and here’s why. Some have argued that giving music away free devalues music. I disagree. Asking people what they think music is worth devalues music. Don’t believe me? Write and record something you really believe is great and release it to the public as a “pay-what-you-think-it’s-worth” model and then let’s talk. Read a BB entry from a “fan” rationalizing why your whole album is worth 50 cents because he only likes 5 songs on it. Trust me on this one - you will be disappointed, disheartened and find yourself resenting a faction of your audience. This is your art! This is your life! It has a value and you the artist are not putting that power in the hands of the audience - doing so creates a dangerous perception issue. If the FEE you are charging is zero, you are not empowering the fan to say this is only worth an insultingly low monetary value. Don’t be misled by Radiohead’s In Rainbows stunt. That works one time for one band once - and you are not Radiohead.
source
In other news, Radiohead just emailed me today and you can buy disc 2 of In Rainbows on their new digital merchandise site here. Six pounds, please!
7 comments:
Jay, I posted this for you, so you don't get suckered into releasing your album in the pay-what-you-want model. Trent says, "Bad!"
I believe him.
I think I disagree with Trent.
Art has value, no doubt, but that doesn't mean that all of it's worth paying for, or that paying for it is the only way to recognize that value.
I can't see how a system in which a record company colludes with a giant retailer to arrive at a fee is any more valid.
Trent seems like a sad guy with thin skin if he thinks people not wanting to pay for his songs is a personal insult.
Sad guy with thin skin?
He's the saddest, darkest, twistedest soul to ever make music.
Duh.
Trent: Please feel free to respond to Ryan's comments.
Thank you good sir. I agree with TZ - in some respect. Leaving a decision to the public is mistako numero uno. I would think that as a consumer one would be skeptical of being treated somewhat like a lab rat.
"Now tell me, hmmmyea, how much would you pay for this...?"
"Gimme the fucking thing you greedy bastard!"
Placing a value on digital music is a sore subject. In this digital scenario, it should be free. I don't think the "value" of art needs to always be judged monetarily. Paintings hang in museums. Records sit in collections. To me, you're missing all of the elements that make music entertaining with a digital copy - the sound quality & the presentation. That being said, I download some music, but only because it's convenient.
And by the way, let's get some public statistical information about how much money Radiohead has made off of In Rainbows...now that my fellow intellectuals...would be interesting. How many times did YOU pay for it?
i also agree with trent, typically have. i must say though, his deliberation tends to curdle the very essence of his concern.
to j's question: i borrowed a burned copy, spun it multiple times, waited . . . waited, bought the wax, threw it on, tucked it away, haven't been back.
if i were to critique my own actions (ignoring any variant of personal taste), i would say first impressions were everything. i listened at work, on a computer, swamped with the dialogue of their "stunt." naturally the conversation is bound to the stamina of all things PopCult, i return the disc, fork up $20 in "collecting fees," and retreat to my own warmly lit, self-governed atmosphere. somewhere, just somewhere, there was music.
i think musicians get lost in concerning themselves with the industry — its not what they do.
Post a Comment