WWW.RIDESIDE.NET

Posted by MF DU on 2007-10-01 03:21:38 +0000

looks pretty handsome. Did anyone see that "countdown" page they had until this week? Epoisses' news must have been what they were counting down to. Also Radiohead related: Johnny Greenwood has done the entire score for the new P.T. Anderson film to be released around Christmastime. I think it's based on an Upton Sinclair story focusing on oil.

Posted by mahatma chani on 2007-10-01 02:11:51 +0000

Good for Radiohead. They're at least realistic about consumers. Nobody buys music today anyway, so why not just give their new record away for free? And then, they have the $82 artifact option for people like MF DU. It's a brave new world, hurrah! Let's hear it for open source entertainment.

Posted by MF DU on 2007-10-01 02:18:58 +0000

"people like MF DU" hah. I love it.

Posted by ConorClockwise on 2007-10-01 03:18:38 +0000

'Jigsaw falling into Place" = excellent tune name

Posted by mahatma chani on 2007-10-01 13:15:07 +0000

This is a completely brilliant business move for these guys. Assuming they signed a fairly standard recording contract, for every album sold, the band recieves maybe $0.75 that is used to recoup any advance they might have recieved for recording the album. So with these guys, it's probably a safe asumption that they'd have to move 1.5 million units to "break even" with their label(s) before they'd see any record sales monies. Yeah, they might be the "biggest/most important" rock band on the planet, but they only sell like 1-2 million units per title ("OK Computer" being the lone exception). So fuck it, just give the record away for free. (I can confirm you don't have to give them anything for the download. I "donated" nothing). They were (practically) giving it away for free for the last 7 albums. No harm no foul there. There still going to print money with their multiple world-wide arena tours/radio play/merchandising/licensing. But let's say they manage to get only 1/10th of the aforementioned 1 million album sales . They'd be making £4,000,000. ($8.2M USD). And that's before anybody's "donations." Wow!

Posted by MF DU on 2007-10-01 13:23:43 +0000

So is anyone besides me going to get the artifact?

Posted by MF DU on 2007-10-01 13:51:19 +0000

Prince did essentially the same thing on a smaller scale - giving free copies of his newest album away in each and every copy of a daily London newspaper this summer. Following this move, Prince went on to sell out something like 21 seperate concert days in the UK. It is very interesting to be a bystander in how the world of music / music business is starting to change. The 'bands with corporate benefactors' strategy is sort of interesting, too - think Wilco and VW, or Thurston Moore / Paul McCartney and Starbucks. I know it is stomach churning to some - but if the editorial content isnt changing, but where folks get music is changing - I dont think it is necessarily a bad thing to try and reach people by any means necessary.

Posted by respectless on 2007-10-01 13:56:04 +0000

i can't even get into the website yet. aaarrrrgggghhh. MF'ers. sometimes the interweb is a fucking drag. and I will also be getting the box-o-goodies, as long as it ain't $30.

Posted by respectless on 2007-10-01 13:57:01 +0000

well, it's 40 pounds, so that means like $65. so, bring on the download version.

Posted by MF DU on 2007-10-01 14:03:08 +0000

That website totally sucks bandwidth wise right now - a bajillion hits at once probably - I suspect after a few months of "newness and exclusivity" a more reasonable artifiact will be available anyhoo...

Posted by ConorClockwise on 2007-10-01 14:05:14 +0000

They may have signed a contract, but Radiohead owns the "RR" label.

Posted by respectless on 2007-10-01 14:27:54 +0000

and the "print this page for your records" page comes out of the printer as just a buncha swirly colors. fucking radiohead, have to make it as difficult as possible to be a fan of theirs.

Posted by respectless on 2007-10-01 14:28:41 +0000

and i threw them 5 bucks, does that make me a chump?

Posted by MF DU on 2007-10-01 14:35:03 +0000

I agree - the website customer experience presented so far is a bad one. The idea itself of getting it out for free is great, but the sneaking around, the cryptic nature of all the "artistry" on this front loses its luster pretty quick. It reminded me of this magazine in the mid to late 90's that used every obtuse / obscure font and bizarre color schemes / diagonal / upside-down / mirrorimage / right to left instead of left to right text schemes imaginable. to some extent it might have looked cool, but as a tool to disseminate information it has to be considered a failure. They must have known that more than a few folks would hoarde the website to give them money and sign up (or at least beef up their marketing database with e-mails if the person had decided on no forthcoming $) Might as well make the data entry experience a little easier...

Posted by pamsterdam on 2007-10-01 14:49:58 +0000

40 GBP = 80 USD Sorry.

Posted by tgl on 2007-10-01 14:56:17 +0000

POTD

Posted by respectless on 2007-10-01 15:07:59 +0000

yeah, but wikipedia implies you'll get 8 more tracks for your $80. only $10 a song, what a bargain.

Posted by MF DU on 2007-10-01 18:37:56 +0000

Option 3

Posted by MF DU on 2007-10-02 14:19:45 +0000

Excellent quote from the Lefsetz Letter via the NYT 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.

Posted by pamsterdam on 2007-10-02 14:44:32 +0000

I remember that magazine. Loved it, but it's a wonder it didn't make me myopic.

Posted by mahatma chani on 2007-10-02 16:45:48 +0000

Reading these articles makes me wonder what's the point of us (C4RT) even trying to whore ourselves to a label of any size.

Posted by pamsterdam on 2007-10-02 17:08:17 +0000

That is a point.

Posted by MF DU on 2007-10-02 17:14:23 +0000

Another interesting question from a business perspective. 'Radiohead' as an entity is a private business, right? They won't have any obligations to shareholders/press/nosy folks outside the gates of the Wonka chocolate factory to report their earnings or activity from this website right? How will business folk and record execs objectively measure whether it is a success or not? Clearly Soundscan has been told to fuck off in all of this...

Posted by mahatma chani on 2007-10-02 17:48:42 +0000

Soundscan was an iffy-at-best measuring stick for an album's success. Up until the mid 90s the records were "weighted" based on geography. That is to say, one purchase of "Nevermind" in Boston, being that it is on the densely populated Eastern Seaboard Corridor, might register as one unit moved. Yet, one purchase of "Nevermind" in the sticks of say greater Omaha that same week might register to Soundscan as two or three units moved. There was some underground metal band in the late 90s, and I want to say it was Hatebreed or somebody like that, that had managed to register 500,000 units "sold" through Soundscan abusing this weighted scale. They got busted, obviously, because only 100,000 copies of their record were pressed (whoops). Plus, a lot of Mom and Pop places don't/didn't report their sales figures to Soundscan. (Newbury Comics comes to mind as they didn't want Tower/Virgin/etc. to know their figures, and reporting to Soundscan made the numbers public). So who's to say anyway. Bands are going to continue to write songs, record them, perform, etc. Buying recorded music at this point has become the novelty equivalent of buying The Books oven mitts. You might dupe up a few copies and hope people buy it. The best a band can do is hope for Apple to use their song in the next advertisment. Or have "Grey's Anatomy" use a song in a scene.

Posted by MF DU on 2007-10-02 17:58:52 +0000

Long before Hunter S Thompson told Conor to get the f*** off his property, there was this oft-quoted observation: "The music business is a cruel and shallow money trench. A long plastic hallway where pimps and thieves run free and good men die like dogs. There is also a negative side."

Posted by MF DU on 2007-10-02 18:12:23 +0000

a lot of this thread reminds me of this book I came across awhile ago. Looks like a good read, although miles and miles of unread books at home already...

Posted by tgl on 2007-10-09 01:13:21 +0000

Hammer, meet nail. Where is the record industry? Record companies are still key to promotion, I don't think music on the web changes that.

Posted by MF DU on 2007-10-09 01:44:39 +0000

Here comes Trent

Posted by tgl on 2007-10-09 02:17:00 +0000

I think I caught this from "On the Media" over the weekend, the commentary went something like this: With established acts opting out of the system, that will free up promotional money for emerging acts, however, labels will not promote emerging acts as heavily as they have in the past. So, we see might more acts being signed to labels, but less of a promotional campaign for each new act.

Posted by MF DU on 2007-10-09 17:36:17 +0000

Im sure many other media places are doing this as well, but NME is streaming the album tommorow for free...

Posted by MF DU on 2007-10-10 11:45:36 +0000

c'mon guys: no .FLAC? dude WTF? At least it's not .WMV...

Posted by Epoisses on 2007-10-10 17:42:43 +0000

We're a media place.

Posted by MF DU on 2007-10-10 17:46:54 +0000

early fave is 'Faust ARP' - I like the orchestration.

Posted by Epoisses on 2007-10-10 17:59:27 +0000

'Bodysnatchers' is rad.

Posted by MF DU on 2007-10-10 18:02:24 +0000

fuzz bass gets the job done - I concur.

Posted by ConorClockwise on 2007-10-11 05:11:26 +0000

Agreed. Fuzz on the bass of the guitars (esp. during the jam at the end) = rules. Though the bass itself is quite clean. First listen was in the last 14 hours. Awe struck. Would someone please stop these guys before they become better than the Beatles. Seriously.

Posted by ConorClockwise on 2007-10-11 05:15:35 +0000

L: I pretty sure that's O'Brien.

Posted by MF DU on 2007-10-11 11:46:21 +0000

On second and third listen I certainly stand corrected. The low end of the guitars is what I was getting at. For whatever reason, the first listen made me think of that texture used at the beginning of 'Sabotage' by the B. Boys.

Posted by MF DU on 2007-10-11 11:47:39 +0000

FAUST ARP strikes me as something in the vein of Beck's 'Sea Change' which is totally underrated. I love that album.

Posted by ConorClockwise on 2007-10-11 15:35:48 +0000

Posted by mahatma chani on 2007-10-11 18:13:20 +0000

I remember a review of some Sebadoh record that Jim Greer wrote, and I'm going to paraphrase it like so: "The typical Sebadoh has a couple oustanding songs, a couple good songs, and a couple of bad songs. This album has no outstanding songs and no bad songs, so it must be good, right?" That's kind of how I feel about "In Rainbows."

Posted by mahatma chani on 2007-10-18 00:39:29 +0000

So... after a whole mess of listens, I stand by the no outstanding/bad songs just good ones analysis (with the possible exceptions being "All I Need" and "Reckoner" as the ones closest to outstanding without really getting there). But hey, for a free record, they coulda mailed it in and 1.2 million people still woulda downloaded it. They didn't, and kudos for them for making a really pleasant record, and one that harkened back to the era that the majority of Radiohead fans wanted them to revisit. I think that since any record you could possibly want is available to you on the internet (free or otherwise), music has lost a large part of it's charm/mystery. Do I love music? Hell yeah, I listen to it all the time. But I think we lost a lot once you no longer had to go to a store and physically pick up and purchase an object (and in turn, interact with a totally different object in order to hear the music). Artwork seems irrelevant, which is a shame, because in a way, if I had artwork for "In Rainbows" I think might have bumped it up a couple of grades overall. (That thing happened when I purchased the following records I had downloaded first: Thom Yorke's "The Eraser," Tapes 'N Tapes's "The Loon," Blitzen Trapper's "Wild Mountain Nation," and Sufjan Stevens's "Illinois"). And no, an $82 artifact option isn't acceptable when the cost per item of that "discbox" is at most $12. That's a price gouging even worse than major labels companies. While walking around Hollywood today, I stopped into Ameoba Music, and all I kept thinking it was so quaint that things like Mom and Pop record stores that sell nothing but music still exist. I wasn't tempted to buy anything, though. And there's the problem. Brendan from two years ago most definitely woulda walked away with at least one CD. Now, I just have a list of stuff that I plan to either download off some P2P site or listen to first on myspace. The music industry is dead, long live the music industry. How soon till the Capitol Records building gets converted into condominiums?

Posted by ConorClockwise on 2007-10-18 04:15:32 +0000

Thank you MC. Is the 'rock concert' now more important? Is music now made by and made for more of the people? "All I need' is superb. I like most of the album.

Posted by Epoisses on 2007-10-18 06:04:19 +0000

Note the date stamp.

Posted by Epoisses on 2007-10-18 06:06:57 +0000

Bands will go back to playing 2-3 sets a night.

Posted by G lib on 2007-10-18 11:18:32 +0000

What's the over/under on "All I Need" being MC and the Gecko's wedding song?

Posted by G lib on 2007-10-18 11:27:04 +0000

You are awesome, MC-- thanks for this.

Posted by mahatma chani on 2007-10-19 00:55:33 +0000

Highly unlikely, methinks, though suggestions are always welcome. (Let me propose to her first)

Posted by mahatma chani on 2007-10-19 00:58:44 +0000

If I knew the answers to either of these questions, I'd be a very rich man.

Posted by MF DU on 2007-10-19 21:30:51 +0000

Release of the Year belongs elsewhere methinks.

Posted by MF DU on 2007-10-21 20:35:22 +0000

P fork says 9.3 for Yorke et. al. - (if you can stomach their cutesy ratings gimmick) No really. I wouldn't go beyond 7.8 We rocked the Miles Davis 'OTC sessions' again at a WMUA listening party held by some senior staff members this weekend in Northampton, MA. I haven't really moved beyond the first three discs, but I'm gaining a new appreciation for the BUMP of Michael Henderson bass and the Wakka Chikka Wakka of Pete Cosey (the photos of him in mumus always sitting down kinda crack me up - but he is a fierce motherfucker on these sessions)

Posted by deejayhubris on 2007-10-24 13:51:31 +0000

http://www.longtail.com/the_long_tail/ more perspective...music sales up, CD sales down...vinyl up (but for how long)

Posted by MF DU on 2007-10-31 19:51:28 +0000

The Brits are putting out the tangible version on XL. Nice. Radiohead joining Dizzee Rascall in the XL club of 'shit we crazed American listeners can't get'.

Posted by mahatma chani on 2007-11-07 02:27:46 +0000

Only 38% of people who downloaded "In Rainbows paid. A measly $6 at that. So if the 1.2 million downloads is to be believed, that's a modest $273,600. Although I'm not worried about Radiohead and their families having a nice breakfast tomorrow, it really drives the point home how many people just assume that music is free.

Posted by Epoisses on 2007-11-07 04:39:00 +0000

I'm having trouble with yr. math here. Flesh it out.

Posted by pamsterdam on 2007-11-07 05:49:28 +0000

1.2 million = 1,200,000 = total downloads 38% of 1,200,000 = 1,200,000 x 0.38 = 456,000 = 38% of total downloads 456,000 x 6 dollars (average) = roughly 2,736,000 dollars paid for downloads So, the total income is around 2.7 million dollars. Aw, yeah. Who's in bookkeeping class? That'd be me. Woo!

Posted by mahatma chani on 2007-11-07 13:15:33 +0000

Nice catch... I missed a zero.

Posted by pamsterdam on 2007-11-07 13:38:48 +0000

I'm 100% nerd, baby. So that works out to around 2 dollars per download on total average (including the feebies). How much would a big artist like Radiohead expect to see on each album purchase, if they were signed to a major label?

Posted by mahatma chani on 2007-11-07 14:28:26 +0000

Good question... they're probably at the point where they could stump for a higher percentage. I have no idea. The point was more about the overwhelming amount of people who think music is free. And I guess I have to put myself in that category.

Posted by pamsterdam on 2007-11-07 15:22:08 +0000

I hear you. The only music I've purchased in the past 5 years was made by friends. That being said, now that I've decided to switch over to iTunes, I can't. My iPod was made in the US so the applicable iTunes website will only accept US credit card payments. I can't get onto the Dutch site. Buggar. So I might actually start buying CDs again.

Posted by MF DU on 2007-11-08 01:35:31 +0000

200K or 2 Mil - Apparently, to a lot of folks, music is worth less than the cds they are printed on. Beyond sad. Did anyone see the following soap opera on Pitchfork? Not even I would consider taking home that artifact. Didn't Stephen King once start an online book chapter by chapter that would ultimately be contingent on readers' donations that he prematurely pulled the plug on after being met with stunning reader financial generosity? I probably have some of the facts wrong there.

Posted by tgl on 2007-11-08 02:38:33 +0000

CDs aren't worth the music printed on them. Cheap plastic junk. Pay for vinyl.

Posted by Epoisses on 2007-11-08 07:18:49 +0000

I agree with the sentiment, but the fact remains that you can't play vinyl cheaply and easily in yr. car.

Posted by pamsterdam on 2007-11-08 08:49:15 +0000

I'm coming out of the closet... I HATE vinyl. Two of the most important things to me, when listening to music, are "can I listen to it on headphones while jumping around all over the place?" and "is it portable enough to take with me everywhere?" I love my iPod and can upload CDs easily onto my computer for use on my iPod. Record player needles jump, bounce, skip, scratch, etc. And record players are not portable as far as I'm concerned.

Posted by ConorClockwise on 2007-11-09 05:02:11 +0000

Understood, but odd. Not to be snooty, but for me the most important thing when listening to music is how it sounds.

Posted by pamsterdam on 2007-11-09 08:18:42 +0000

Not snooty at all. I don't have a very refined ear for music (or eye for art, come to that). I like loud music and I like jumping up and down. Kind of like a monkey. I feel a huge weight has been lifted off my shoulders, having admitted that...

Posted by tgl on 2007-11-09 18:14:44 +0000

If there is no vinyl version of the album, you are morally obligated to not pay for it.

Posted by MF DU on 2007-11-09 23:41:18 +0000

You're talking semantics, though, TGL. An overwhelming majority of music lovers are beginning to make economic moves that prove recorded music isn't worth that much to them.

Posted by MF DU on 2007-11-12 22:52:21 +0000

So - I know this has been beaten to death, but the new development that is kinda cool with Radiohead is that they are also bucking the 'new music Tueday' paradigm with a US stores Wednesday January 1st release date. On Dave Matthews's record label (?)

Posted by ConorClockwise on 2007-12-03 15:14:01 +0000

Yippee!!! "Hello, Just to let you know… Your “In Rainbows” discbox has now left w.a.s.t.e. in the UK You can expect delivery of your discbox in the following estimated times. UK 1-8 days Europe 1-14 days Rest of World 5-18 days"

Posted by Epoisses on 2007-12-03 21:43:19 +0000

Disc two.

Posted by MF DU on 2007-12-04 10:01:36 +0000

Interesting - I read on Pitchfork people were starting to get confirms - I still haven't gotten one. I'm sure it will be coming soon. Thanks for the update and the link for disc 2, Epoisses (are you Epoisses again?)...

Posted by ConorClockwise on 2007-12-12 14:30:44 +0000

It's awesome. Not sure the photos do it justice. An amazing play overall: release the album for free, but then put out one of the best packaged/most artistic albums ever. They get it both ways. Stunning work.

Posted by dyedon8 on 2007-12-12 16:31:18 +0000

Theduane got his yesterday, too -- gorgeous.

Posted by MF DU on 2007-12-13 00:26:19 +0000

I opened my birthday stuff a day early because of my radio show tommorow - Jackie confiscated mine and wrapped it up ;) I was worried I wasn't getting it b/c I had no confirm email like Conor reposted. Very nice indeed. I'm glad they got a little extra $$$ - Bangers + Mash is awesome. Not sure about the artwork yet, but the pkg feels good to hold while listening to the black crack.

Posted by MF DU on 2007-12-13 00:27:16 +0000

'Weird Fishes' is really starting to grow on me as well...

Posted by MF DU on 2008-02-03 03:25:45 +0000

I just put the second disc in the computer for the first time and there are two data folders full of extra photos and those Stanley Donwood / Tchock picture thingies. Oh yeah and a .txt readme file which reads: this CD contains some photos and some pictures. the photos are by jonny & colin. the ones with an SK in the filename are by steve keros. the pictures are by donwood & tchock. all of them were taken/made during the making of this record. here are a few suggestions of what to do with them: 1. use them as a screensaver. 2. make a slideshow of the photos or pictures. play the record at the same time. ?. 3. print them out massive, frame them and hang them above your bed. 4. admire the dynamic artistes at work, as they plunge flailing into middle age. 5. attempt to trace the arguably bizarre trajectory of donwood and tchock as they begin by doing urban landscapes and end up with work that even they cannot describe. 6. adapt or alter to your liking. it's extraordinary what you can do with photoshop. or even scissors and glue. 7. turn an old tshirt inside-out. print something out on that iron-on transfer stuff and stick it on the tshirt. 8. actually thinking about it, just type 'inkjet media' into a search engine and see what the possibilities are. 9. for instance, you can print onto thin magnetic sheet and then stick it onto a vehicle or a fridge or something. 10. try to work out which photos we edited out, and why. bye Cool stuff. I posted my two faves. The 'Unknown Pleasures'-esque line mountain drawing and the obligatory 'on the beach' shot. (Even The Oscillators had a photo shoot @ Wallis Sands beach for chrissakes) for the record - I'm not really complaining - I like beach pics of bands, especially this radiohead one.

Posted by dyedon8 on 2008-05-12 12:23:23 +0000

Ones and zeroes.

Posted by MF DU on 2008-05-12 15:18:57 +0000

wow. a new tracklist to try. thanks dyedon8. I like how the readers posts below mention also that INRAINBOWS and OKCOMPUTER are both exactly 10 characters long. Be it The Beatles (all the 'Paul is dead' stuff), Pink Floyd (Backward Masking, The Wizard of Oz synced with Dark Side of the Moon) or Radiohead or whatever, there are certain bands that make this kind of speculation super fun.

Posted by mahatma chani on 2008-05-12 17:15:41 +0000

Just listened to it and it's dubious at best. Haven't really listened to "OK Computer" in years, so at least I got that out of this experiment.

Posted by ConorClockwise on 2008-05-13 05:18:05 +0000

I'm about to try this sequence... I heard the Dub/reggae version of OK Computer at ES 2 nights ago. Fun stuff.

Posted by MF DU on 2009-01-26 00:27:49 +0000

Who Gives a Fuck About A Goddam Grammy?