I initally agreed with Trent Reznor's argument that Radiohead's experiment with the internet release of In Rainbows for any price someone wanted to pay -- including zero-- didn't go far enough, but I was wrong. The more I've thought about it, the more I think the hypists were right for once, In Rainbows was the opening shot in a revolution that the hypists said it was. The best article on this (found on a blog of course) is Anti-Marketing In the Music Business. Amazing stuff, and well worth a read for anyone interested in music, distribution, online business, and the role of the internet in all of these. Regardless how you feel about Radiohead, this analysis by a student of political science and philosophy is as carefully researched and written as anything you'll read anywhere. Here are a couple of things to note. First, even though Radiohead offered the album for as little as ZERO...and the album's tracks were 100% DRM-free -- they made so much money from their brief experiment that Thom Yorke, the band's lead singer and primary writer, says that it was more money than they'd every made for the entire release of ANY of their albums before that. Second, In Rainbows is really, really, really good. "Brazen, bold, brilliant," and, as Rolling Stone says, "it delivers an emotional punch that proves all other rock stars owe us an apology." Here's a round-up of reviews to further underscore that Radiohead gave away something truly valuable...along their way to making more in a couple of months than they'd ever made before. And all the internet hub-bub notwithstanding, the physical disk entered the charts at #1 in the US, the UK, and the United World Chart. This mirrors their previous experiment with Kid A. They posted the entire album for free -- both free of cost and free of DRM -- two weeks before the physical release...which also entered the US charts at #1. What? They gave it away on the internet and still made big money with their physical release?! Yes. Before we get carried away with the whole internet distribution thing, it's worth noting that these albums -- Kid A for a major, In Rainbows for an indie -- were in fact released as albums. An internet-only release would have been "stark raving mad." Why? He observed that around 80% of music sales are still on disk. People like objects. "We didn't want it to be a big announcement about 'everything's over except the internet, the internet's the future', 'cause that's utter rubbish." Still, Radiohead left a giant conglomerate to make the In Rainbows experiment on their own dime. "We have a moral justification in what we did in the sense that the majors and the big infrastructure of the music business has not addressed the way artists communicate directly with their fans. "In fact, they seem to basically get in the way. Not only do they get in the way, but they take all the cash." (More about this in part 2 of this article.) Note also that Trent Reznor also left a major in favor of independent distribution (AFTER Radiohead). And while he still offers the first 9 songs of his 36-track album for free cost, DRM-free download, he also sells physical disks to those who want them. The package that includes CDs, 180 gram vinyl, hardbound art books, prints suitable for framing and much more has sold out its limited edition of 2500...lots and LOTS of physical objects...at $300 each, for a total take of $750,000. All part of the reason why, even with GIVING AWAY DRM-FREE files, or selling the same ridiculously high-quality DRM-free files -- all 36 of 'em, plus artwork -- for only $5, he still pulled in $1.3 million in ONE WEEK. Sorry, got distracted for a minute. What were we talking about? Oh yeah, the colossal damage to the record companies caused by free downloads. Maybe to THEM...even if experiments by Radiohead while on EMI proves the EXACT OPPOSITE. But the artists are making MORE with free downloads, and physical disks distributed themselves, than they EVER did behind the iron gates of the majors and their multimillion dollar fight against downloads. And, for that matter, the majors' fight against artist's rights. That's the subject for another conversation for another day. And so I shall soon. Stay tuned for part 2. | 
