Filed under: Analysis / Opinion, iTS, iTunes
Radiohead ditches iTunes to keep album complete
Here's an interesting twist on the iTunes vs. record companies situation. Radiohead (disclaimer: I'm a Radiohead fan) is choosing not to sell their latest album on iTunes not because their record company is pressuring them out of the deal-- their record company is EMI, and they're more than willing to sell the record DRM free-- but because iTunes is forcing them to break up their album into songs that can be sold separately.Usually, I'm all for selling separate songs-- why should I pay for a whole album when I'm only going to listen to three or four songs? But when a request comes from the artist like this, it seems like a different ballgame. I'd like to buy Radiohead's album on iTunes, and if they want it complete, then that's the way I'd want to buy it. But because Apple has fought to keep songs separate, Radiohead isn't selling it with them at all. You might say that I wouldn't feel the same way about other artists, and you'd be right-- if Vanilla Ice required me to buy the entire To the Extreme just to listen to "Ice, Ice Baby," I'd decide it wasn't really worth it.
But my personal tastes aside, the whole thing actually reminds me of Ed Burns talking about watching Godfather on the iPod-- the iTMS has fundamentally changed the way we purchase and consume media. The concept of "album" is losing meaning. For most iTunes purchasers, I'd imagine that's not a bad thing. But artists like Thom Yorke and Radiohead clearly aren't ready to see the album experience disappear, and they're willing to keep their music off of iTunes to fight it.
[via MacBytes]
![TUAW [Cafepress]](http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.tuaw.com/media/tuaw-cafepress-promo.png)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 6)
Alias said 7:11AM on 9-21-2007
As a fan of prog-rock (a genre with a very long history of concept albums), I cannot but agree with Radiohead on this point.
Reply
Riley said 7:29AM on 9-21-2007
maye the album sucks and radiohead is worried no one will buy the filler tracks
Reply
Joe said 7:36AM on 9-21-2007
Will the CD version be one long continuous track too, so that if we rip it ourselves we get only one track?
There seems to room for compromise here - for instance Radiohead could have demanded one or two "album only" downloads, and if they chose those tracks judiciously it would have encouraged most purchasers to download the whole album. And a note in the album description that it's meant to be listened to as a whole would help too.
I can see Radiohead's point as artists trying to maintain the integrity of their work, but I don't think any of us want Apple making artistic distinctions between the ones who "deserve" the whole-album treatment and those who don't.
Reply
Matteo said 7:35AM on 9-21-2007
I, instead, completely disagree. If the album is good from top to bottom then people will buy it all. If not, they'll just buy one song. Maybe, as I often do, they purchase the first song aired on the radio and discover they like the music and then download the whole album (Mark Knofpler, Linkin Park, Katie Melua, Pink Martini just to name a few that got my money for their whole album).
Come on, as a fan I agree that you will buy the whole album anyway, maybe even on pre-order, but to say you agree with Radiohead because they want to sell the whole album to you seems so blind!
1. you can purchase their singles in any store, not different from iTunes
2. buying the album on a song per song basis will cost you more
3. you can get the single tracks "elsewhere" at a fraction of the cost (the fraction being: cost/zero)
I'm sick of the whole industry having been blind about iTunes Store for years and now, with the money it might generate, suddenly "take notice" and "feel ripped of by Apple".
Reply
nowhere said 7:38AM on 9-21-2007
Kids these days don't care about the story that can be played through a complete album anymore and artists are creating albums that have songs that have nothing to do with each other to suit that. That's why iTunes works for most albums.
If the Beatles music starts getting sold on iTunes and SGT. Peppers is being sold song by song then you're completely destroying the whole album for yourself if you buy 2 songs out of it.
Reply
Old Joe said 8:59AM on 9-21-2007
So they don't like their album broken into individual songs? Makes you wonder why they continue to release singles if a track is unable to stand alone. What's even more hypocritical is that they generally release two CD singles with the same track but different b-sides which, naturally, all the completists are going to buy.
Also, for a band which is trying to push a green agenda they seem happy to use plastic to allow their music to be distributed rather than the far more eco-friendly internet.
Reply
Andrew Harrison said 7:58AM on 9-21-2007
i definitely respect their right to make that decision, and if they feel the album can't be split up, then fair enough, don't split it up.
I would like to know, however, if they will be releasing any singles from the album, and if so, how they can justify it being ok to play individual songs on the radio but not sell the same songs individually
Reply
czantra said 7:58AM on 9-21-2007
This isn't news though, is it. Radiohead haven't 'ditched' iTunes, they've never made their albums available on it. The only Radiohead tracks available are those on other compilations.
If Radiohead cared so much about the 'integrity' of their albums, they would never allow any of their tracks to be available outside of the original album, so no appearing on compilations and perhaps even no singles.
Reply
不用谢谢 said 8:02AM on 9-21-2007
What if I just don't like the other tracks on the album, be it Radiohead, or the music of Jesus himself. I should then be forced to listen to them and then like them?
Sorry music snobs and elitists, but if I want to download just two tracks of Radiohead or the Beatles I damn well will do just that. And guess what, if artists want to go back in time to full album days ($20), I will go back in time to the p2p (free) days.
Reply
Alan Hamilton said 8:02AM on 9-21-2007
I think people are forgetting that in the Classical genre on iTMS some albums are split into two - with say 3 tracks per "work" They could have done it this way.
I was looking at one the other day which cost £7.99 for the album or £3.48 and £7.00 for the two works on the album. Surely this would have been a compromise?
Reply
Victor Agreda Jr said 8:08AM on 9-21-2007
I'm just glad I didn't have to sit through all of 'Tommy' again to get to 'Pinball Wizard'... Oh wait, different era. How I wish, how I wish I were there....
Reply
theodorelee said 8:16AM on 9-21-2007
I call bullshit. I've seen other albums on iTunes that aren't broken up in to singles. The album isn't some sort of artistic medium that must be upheld. It's a marketing/production vehicle, created by the record industry. Nothing but a collection of songs. Radiohead are songwriters. So why should we be forced to buy their crap in total? If the album is that good, people will buy the entire thing.
Radiohead are really nothing more than self righteous musicians who can't craft an entire album worth of songs that the public would buy without being forced to buy the entire kit/caboodle.
Wake up guys, it's 2007.
Reply
nick said 8:18AM on 9-21-2007
I think there was more going on here. I remember when Dave Matthews Band came to iTunes, they only allowed the sale of album and not just its songs,
Reply
milosh said 8:26AM on 9-21-2007
They may do as Explosions in the Sky or Godspeed! You Black Emperor that do albums containing 3 or 5 songs (and for which buying the tracks can be far less expensive than buying the album as a whole), or as noted as for classical music (but the problem is different since there is no more author copyright to be paid...). If they want, radiohead could propose one single track if they believe their work cannot be heard separately, and if they sell it for 0.99 €/$ few purchasers would complain.
However, their first album contained only one trck (Creep), the bends contained a lot of good tracks but my favorites were only present on the japanese version, amnesiac or kid A had clearly separate tracks, so I would not say radiohead is the most legitimate artist to ask for their albums not to be dismantled.
Reply
Adam Wilde said 8:21AM on 9-21-2007
If Thom Yorke comes around to our house ONE more time to bleetingly complain when I listen to No Surprises on my iPod mini without playing the rest of OK Computer, I'll flip. So help me, God, I will.
Sure, in his artist's garret, this must make perfect sense, but in my modest contemporary experience, it is highly delusional to think that much/all of the listening populace will listen to an album all the way through, in order, in one sitting. These days I rarely listen to a complete album, let alone in the correct running order. There are some albums that I've bought in the last couple of years (on CD, as I rarely/never buy entire albums as downloads) that I have never listened to as a whole, in order. Even the good ones.
Reply
jordan Merrick said 8:21AM on 9-21-2007
as #7 has said, Radiohead never made their albums onto itunes.
I think this is a huge shame - as it's been said before, most albums people buy are for only 2 or 3 songs. Radiohead is a great band, but they have put out albums that have some mediocre tracks.
I think this is nothing more than hubris and Radiohead are trying to maintain the alternative label until the very end. Like the article said - Thom Yorke is still on iTunes. Hypocritical?
Reply
pixelslut said 8:37AM on 9-21-2007
Good for Thom and the boys. I totally support them. Not jsut because im a fan but because i beleive in what thier saying. While im no fan of the demise of the album i think it can make sense for the most part to release single tracks. I think this would work fine with Pablo Honey, The Bendz, or Yorke's The Eraser. These albums like most modern albums are more a collection of works produced in a given time period. But from OK Computer forward, the album is the work. The fact that there are track breaks is jsut a minor convenience, but really they are ment to be listened to in a continuous fashion as one peice like a symphony or a movie. I think they woul dbe doing themselves an injustice as artists if they helped support this random downloading of tracks. Im sure people will get what they want off the networks anyhow and im fine with that as well. But i dont think the band should necessarily support it if thats not the artistic vision.
In the sake of full discolsure i also have to say i dont generally listen to "songs". I listen to albums. I hate playlists and singles. The few playlists i have are simply multiple albums back to back (for instance i have a playlist called Bristol which has every Tricky and Massive Attack album on it). I cant tell you the name of nearly any song, but i can tell you the artist, album, and track number. :-)
Reply
Stuart said 10:21AM on 9-21-2007
If they didn't want tracks that could be skipped, why didn't they make the album one single track? I've some old JMJ with songs which go on and on. Oh for heavens don't tell Thom I might skip a track and somehow miss the meaning of the album.
Radiohead and Thom Yorke aren't so perfect ideal of human beings, they're just a bloody band. I've got their albums, I've gone to their concerts, but let's not dress up something that is clearly about money and not 'oh ladibloodydah art".
Reply
Mitch said 8:42AM on 9-21-2007
oh gimme a break, anyone who agrees with them is mistaken and might as well dig a hole in the ground. If you want to listen to an album as an album, then fine - do it.. but now that the individual song purchase has become the norm, anyone who still believes they can force the buying public to only buy in an 'album' is just crazy.
Even in the old days of vinyl, i often skipped songs i didn't care for... did the artist come to my home and tell me i had to listen to the whole thing?
Reply
Mo said 8:51AM on 9-21-2007
This isn't artists vs. record companies, or artists vs. Apple, this is a rare case of the artist believing they have the right to override a consumer's choices (normally it's the record companies who want to do that).
So MAYBE I might opt to only buy a portion of the album. Guess what? I lose out. The only thing of Radiohead's that it would harm would be their bottom line (shocker).
All of the people who actually care about it would buy the whole album anyway. The remainder will either pirate it, or buy the whole album and only listen to certain tracks. From a non-monetary perspective, this achieves nothing for Radiohead.
Reply