Release Methods - Radiohead v. U2

[ahittle]

Check out the radiohead site.

www.radiohead.com

We've mentioned before how U2's release schedule/business decisions, etc. are a bit maddening and that there are maybe more novel ways to release your music. It appears that radiohead are putting out their new record in 10 days (!) through their site.

It will be interesting to see how this pans out. No record company. No record stores. Hmmm.

 

[dr. zooeuss]

very interesting indeed; hope they designed it with high volume in mind.. seems to be running a bit slow.. tons of traffic no doubt, when was this announced?

 

[ahittle]

I think just earlier this evening.

I know that these two bands are completely different in terms of sales, expectations, etc.

I just think finding different routes is interesting, that's all. It will be interesting to see how this does without the usual record label fanfare, promotion, etc.

 

[dr. zooeuss]

i bet more and more bands will do this in future. it makes lots of sense with live albums and eps especially.

 

[powerhour24]

U2 could easily release their albums on their own label, they'd never do something like this at this stage of their career. I'm not looking for spontaniety in the way they release albums, but in the material. Like release all the songs from Fez, and maybe a more studio polished album next year, give us something new.

It's cool, but it's also only a matter of time before In Rainbows comes out in record stores.

 

[edurban]

What Radiohead are doing is great IMO, and I am sure U2 will do it eventually in their career also.
I have to say though....the pleasure of cueing in front of the record shop and get your copy on the day of release, open the cd sleeve, read the enclosed booklet, the aknowledgements.... makes me feel more part of it. I might be old fashioned, but..

 

[intedomine]

Pretty pathetic.....

I'd rather rock up to my local record store rather then be some useless misanthropic computer nerd who jacks off at the mention of an exclusive download.

Release it normally please Radiohead. What you're doing isn't clever or so audaciously left-field, it's just silly.

There's a reason albums have been packaged in a traditional format and released in a traditional strategy, because it made common sense.

 

[The Sad Punk]

Pretty pathetic.....

I'd rather rock up to my local record store rather then be some useless misanthropic computer nerd who jacks off at the mention of an exclusive download.

Release it normally please Radiohead. What you're doing isn't clever or so audaciously left-field, it's just silly.

There's a reason albums have been packaged in a traditional format and released in a traditional strategy, because it made common sense.

 

[DevilsShoes]

What Radiohead are doing is great IMO, and I am sure U2 will do it eventually in their career also.
I have to say though....the pleasure of cueing in front of the record shop and get your copy on the day of release, open the cd sleeve, read the enclosed booklet, the aknowledgements.... makes me feel more part of it. I might be old fashioned, but..

Yeah, I agree, I really enjoy all the anticipation of a new album coming out, and then going to the store, picking the album off the shelf, actually being able to hold it, then read through the booklet, reading the lyrics and looking at the photo's is all part of the fun IMO. Maybe I'm set in my ways but it just feels more satisfying. The band seem to think so too, especially with the last two albums, both with sliding cardboard sleeve designs and the DVD and booklet with HTDAAB, it makes the whole experience more satisfying.

 

[ahittle]

Again, not trying to start a fight here.

Obviously the Radiohead album will come out in physical form at some point. The entire world is not online with connnections fast enough to download this stuff.

But as physical CD sales slump, it is interesting to see how bands interface with their fans. I used to love holding the CDs in my hand as well, but I'm completely off it now.

I like the idea of a band putting lots of stuff up. A subscription to live shows would be pretty sweet.

Like it or not, getting your entertainment through bits and bytes steaming through the air is the future. Record stores will not rebound. And we'll all be useless misanthropic computer nerds.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

look... i love pearl jam, almost as much as i love u2. they release music anytime they want, when ever they want, through whatever means they want... fan club only releases, internet releases, limited time only releases, blah blu blah blah blah.

it's fantastic... it's great... it's something u2 can't do.

u2 is one of the biggest names in global entertainment. all of these things that bands that may have rabid followings but simply are not as big as they once were (or once could have been), i.e. pearl jam, radiohead, r.e.m., are things that would not make good business sense to u2.

u2 wants to stay on the forefront... these other acts are happy sitting in the back of the room. the last thing bono wants to become is bob geldof... i.e. a social icon of whom the average person can't even name one of his songs. he needs to stay at least on the edge of relevance.

 

[powerhour24]

look... i love pearl jam, almost as much as i love u2. they release music anytime they want, when ever they want, through whatever means they want... fan club only releases, internet releases, limited time only releases, blah blu blah blah blah.

it's fantastic... it's great... it's something u2 can't do.

u2 is one of the biggest names in global entertainment. all of these things that bands that may have rabid followins but simply are not as big as they once were (or once could have been), i.e. pearl jam, radiohead, r.e.m., are things that would not make good business sense to u2.

u2 wants to stay on the forefront... these other acts are happy sitting in the back of the room. the last thing bono wants to become is bob geldof... i.e. a social icon of whom the average person can't even name one of his songs. he needs to stay at least on the edge of relevance.

Nicely put.

 

[edurban]

But as physical CD sales slump, it is interesting to see how bands interface with their fans. I used to love holding the CDs in my hand as well, but I'm completely off it now.

Do we actually know how much this Radiohead download costs?
I agree in general with new methods (any methods) of album publication, and I am always happy when bands try to reach out to their fans in different ways. I would probably donwload the Radiohead album (and I'll probably will because I love them...and I love Pearl Jam too - Milan 2000 one of the best gigs of my life). U2 do sell their albums on iTunes (although it's not the same as seelling via official site), but all I am saying is that I do enjoy owning their cds, and yes, the way they are made is indeed a way of reaching out to us, because they know we like this.

(whoops, was that a convoluted argument? sorry!)
E.

 

[djerdap]

Pretty pathetic.....

I'd rather rock up to my local record store rather then be some useless misanthropic computer nerd who jacks off at the mention of an exclusive download.

Release it normally please Radiohead. What you're doing isn't clever or so audaciously left-field, it's just silly.

There's a reason albums have been packaged in a traditional format and released in a traditional strategy, because it made common sense.

The CD will be available in stores (Uncut says early 2008).

Silly and pathetic? Hardly. Incredibly brave, innovative and smart is more like it.

 

[intedomine]

The CD will be available in stores (Uncut says early 2008).

Silly and pathetic? Hardly. Incredibly brave, innovative and smart is more like it.

So us folk who like to obtain our music the normal, reasonable and traditional way have to wait potentially 4 months to own the bloody thing, just 'cause we like to hand our money to a human being over the counter rather than sign up for a credit card and lose our hard earned in cyberspace.

It's just completely uneccessary.

More pretentious than innovative or brave...

 

[martha]

Do we actually know how much this Radiohead download costs?

Whatever you want to pay.

Truly. You get to decide how much you want to pay for it when you order it.

 

[U2girl]

look... i love pearl jam, almost as much as i love u2. they release music anytime they want, when ever they want, through whatever means they want... fan club only releases, internet releases, limited time only releases, blah blu blah blah blah.

it's fantastic... it's great... it's something u2 can't do.

u2 is one of the biggest names in global entertainment. all of these things that bands that may have rabid followings but simply are not as big as they once were (or once could have been), i.e. pearl jam, radiohead, r.e.m., are things that would not make good business sense to u2.

u2 wants to stay on the forefront... these other acts are happy sitting in the back of the room. the last thing bono wants to become is bob geldof... i.e. a social icon of whom the average person can't even name one of his songs. he needs to stay at least on the edge of relevance.

U2 did put their entire catalogue on the internet (on a U2 Ipod no less) not that long ago. They do fan club releases too. Anyway Pearl Jam/Radiohead and U2 is like comparing apples and oranges be it releases, live shows etc.

Call me oldfashioned but I like the CD, the covers, the lyrics printed, the picture, the booklet ... but if someone wants to download instead, they're free to do so, even if it's piracy.

 

[djerdap]

So us folk who like to obtain our music the normal, reasonable and traditional way have to wait potentially 4 months to own the bloody thing, just 'cause we like to hand our money to a human being over the counter rather than sign up for a credit card and lose our hard earned in cyberspace.

It's just completely uneccessary.

More pretentious than innovative or brave...

In a world where records leak on the Net a couple of weeks or months earlier than the record comes to the shop, I think this is the perfectly logical step.

Do you know you choose the price for the tracks?

Great article about this:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/technology/shanerichmond/sept07/radiohead.htm

To me that's just brilliant.

 

[BVS]

Hardly. Incredibly brave, innovative and smart is more like it.

How is it innovative, bands have been releasing work on the internet for a long time?

How is it brave and smart? I may agree with bold(sometimes the line between bold and stupid is thin), but I don't see how at all this is smart.

 

[gareth brown]

So us folk who like to obtain our music the normal, reasonable and traditional way have to wait potentially 4 months to own the bloody thing, just 'cause we like to hand our money to a human being over the counter rather than sign up for a credit card and lose our hard earned in cyberspace.

It's just completely uneccessary.

More pretentious than innovative or brave...

the actual CDs/LPs are being made to order in the discbox and anyone who pre-orders them gets them in December and downloads it with everyone else.

It's not really pathetic, it's been four years since Radiohead put out their last record and maybe they just want everyone to hear it sooner rather than wait potentially months to sort out stuff with a new record label and promoting it etc etc.

Essentially they just want their fans to hear this new music, bypassing leaks and so on and pretty much offering it for FREE if people are that scabby...

I myself would take a physical album in the form of the LPs/CDs hands-down but there's no need to get so worked up over it...you just wait about two months as they're made to order and so on and it's a pretty snap announcement! Stop going on like you're part of a dying breed of people who see sense and are NORMAL and "traditional" as it's just going to end up sounding elitist!! [edit - haha, oh wait...i've just seen your post in the other thread...] Like it or not [i personally hate it] CD sales are dropping and a huge amount of people are downloading music instead simply for convenience's sake!

At the end of the day Radiohead's new album is coming out in TEN DAYS. We're finally getting to hear the music and if that means downloading it while we wait for boxsets to arrive two months later then I am more than happy to wait!
It's just experimenting with new methods of releasing music and since they're not on a label, who cares? I'm not saying it's smart and innovative and so on since tons of bands have done stuff like this but you know, as long as we don't have to wait til March to get our hands on it when the album's already totally done and dusted then fine...

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

U2 did put their entire catalogue on the internet (on a U2 Ipod no less) not that long ago. They do fan club releases too. Anyway Pearl Jam/Radiohead and U2 is like comparing apples and oranges be it releases, live shows etc.

yes you're right... pearl jam is like apples... there are many varities of setlists to download. u2 is like oranges... there's one fucking orange and that's what you're getting.

 

[ahittle]

yes you're right... pearl jam is like apples... there are many varities of setlists to download. u2 is like oranges... there's one fucking orange and that's what you're getting.

A lemon, actually.

 

[ahittle]

Like it or not [i personally hate it] CD sales are dropping and a huge amount of people are downloading music instead simply for convenience's sake!

Good points. But we owe nothing to the CD. Music is as popular as ever, but the CD is almost over.

And what's wrong with convenience? Illegal downloading is one thing, but the consumers want a safe, affordable, fair, legal, expeditious way of getting music. If it means dismantling the traditionally corrupt, artist-screwing major labels, so be it.

If Radiohead makes even a buck off each download, it's probably right in line with whatever EMI was paying them.

I guess the only drawback is that there won't be some huge promotional machine shoving this thing down our throats. The blogs are taking care of that!

 

[U2girl]

yes you're right... pearl jam is like apples... there are many varities of setlists to download. u2 is like oranges... there's one fucking orange and that's what you're getting.

It's funny getting the setlist complaints after U2's most varied tour setlistwise. Where were you in 92 or 97 ? Oh wait, it's a big bright orange and that makes it okay.

There is nothing better per se with the "show" or the "jam session" approach to the live show. Just don't expect the latter from someone who is known for the former.

This is not taking into account how well U2 sounds when they improvise and pull out a song out of nowhere (A sort of homecomnig last tour, Party girl this tour). Doing this every night just screams disaster that would make Popmart opening look good.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

It's funny getting the setlist complaints after U2's most varied tour setlistwise. Where were you in 92 or 97 ? Oh wait, it's a big bright orange and that makes it okay.

There is nothing better per se with the "show" or the "jam session" approach to the live show. Just don't expect the latter from someone who is known for the former.

in 92 i was 12 and al gore had yet to give me the internet. in 97, sorry... i hadn't yet discovered interference.

vertigo may have been "varied" for u2, but when a few changes to the encore = varied setlists, that only goes to show how static their previous setlists had been.

but yes... the big bright orange would be nice. if they're going to play, more or less, the same setlist with only 3 or 4 rotationg songs tossed in to "mix it up," then at the very least it would be nice if they had a multimedia clusterfuck-o-rama spectacular to go along with it. the excuse for static setlists was always the multimedia light show was too choreographed for an ever changing set. it's certainly fair to wonder why, as the multimedia spectacular becomes less spectacular, why the setlists remain largely unchanging.

ya know... it's okay to question u2's all high and mighty greatness every now and then. they'll still let ya into the fan club.

 

[elevated_u2_fan]

ya know... it's okay to question u2's all high and mighty greatness every now and then. they'll still let ya into the fan club.

This raises the most important point IMO, if U2 can barely get their web site to work and their Members Only portion, how on earth can they be expected to release an actual album this way?

I'm sorry but considering how much of a clusterfuck the pre-sales were for members I have no wish for them to try releasing an album through their web site...

 

[U2girl]

You don't need the internet to know the setlist isn't varied when you see 10 + shows each night. If that aspect bothers you, why go to more than 1 show ?
Having the luxury of seeing the setlist now, leaving aside the DVDs (this is about songs), how do you feel about the 92 or 97 setlists ?

It's not just the encore, but anyway.

Pass. They already did the "big bright orange" (we don't need the bigger is better shtick a la Stones live show). A bit of the excuse, yes is the multimedia, mostly it's probably the show aspect - certain songs in the main set, certain in the encore, certain in the acoustic set. And as far as I can tell, the setlist did change as the spectacle went down, ie last two tours.

I think the "I wouldn't mind the setlist if they had a big show" excuse is weak. The setlist will be still static, multimedia or not. If the multimedia makes it, somehow, magically better, then maybe the songs themselves aren't the issue and you probably just want the BIG show. The other alternative may be, of course, resenting the band didn't play your fave album/s on this past tour, which still doesn't negate all the changes in the setlist that did happen. (aside of the musical skills/lyrics memory issue above, there is also the issue of the voice. War, UF, JT, Rattle and Hum - let's assume October and Zooropa are buried live - were recorded with a younger vocal. How much of that stuff can Bono still do now that he's approaching 50?)

I doubt interference has a lack of questioning U2. I just think it should be used where it applies. Picking on Vertigo, of all of U2's tours, regarding the setlists, is bizzare.

 

[ahittle]

Good point about the U2 site. When you're apologizing at a national awards show, then somebody has done something wrong!

I have the feeling that U2 are at least contemplating a better connection online. They have made such a point of riding current technology that I wouldn't put it past them to at least wade in a little deeper. They are too big to pull a Radiohead guerrilla tactic, but I expect a little more online presence. I'm sure they've considered it already. Fan club memberships are fine, but I would never join just for the audio tracks from a DVD.

Remember when McGuiness mulled around the idea of having shows available for download almost immediately? So the technology wasn't there completely. Maybe they can hit it next time around.

Don't some large bands already do this? Seems to me someone mentioned Metallica having shows available on their site. (I just don't want to go to metallica.com to poke around).

So the setlists are static. I'd still pay for some officially sanctioned, well-mixed shows. I've got a billion boots, but there are only a few that I listen to regularly because of picky sound issues.

I don't know. People get rankled, but it sure is an interesting time to be a music fan, that's for sure.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

You don't need the internet to know the setlist isn't varied when you see 10 + shows each night. If that aspect bothers you, why go to more than 1 show ?
Having the luxury of seeing the setlist now, leaving aside the DVDs (this is about songs), how do you feel about the 92 or 97 setlists ?

It's not just the encore, but anyway.

Pass. They already did the "big bright orange" (we don't need the bigger is better shtick a la Stones live show). A bit of the excuse, yes is the multimedia, mostly it's probably the show aspect - certain songs in the main set, certain in the encore, certain in the acoustic set. And as far as I can tell, the setlist did change as the spectacle went down, ie last two tours.

I think the "I wouldn't mind the setlist if they had a big show" excuse is weak. The setlist will be still static, multimedia or not. If the multimedia makes it, somehow, magically better, then maybe the songs themselves aren't the issue and you probably just want the BIG show. The other alternative may be, of course, resenting the band didn't play your fave album/s on this past tour, which still doesn't negate all the changes in the setlist that did happen. (aside of the musical skills/lyrics memory issue above, there is also the issue of the voice. War, UF, JT, Rattle and Hum - let's assume October and Zooropa are buried live - were recorded with a younger vocal. How much of that stuff can Bono still do now that he's approaching 50?)

I doubt interference has a lack of questioning U2. I just think it should be used where it applies. Picking on Vertigo, of all of U2's tours, regarding the setlists, is bizzare.

why go see more that one show? easy... i love the band. i see them multiple times despite the static setlist. but shit, just because one loves something doesn't mean the thing they love is above criticism.

 

[djerdap]

How is it innovative, bands have been releasing work on the internet for a long time?

How is it brave and smart? I may agree with bold(sometimes the line between bold and stupid is thin), but I don't see how at all this is smart.

Not bands this big.

Even for those who get the album for free, some of their online details will be known to the band - that's a road to a marketing campaign, especially involving the concerts. Prince gave his album for free in the UK with a magazine in July... and sold out 21 consecutive shows in London afterwards. Not to mention the chance to seriously jeopardize the greedy system of record labels that exists today. So I would say it is quite smart.