Bands offering free album downloads
 

The Downliners Sekt are a group on musicians from London who for the past 3 or 4 years have been offering their music free online with an option to donate money.

On the subject of Radiohead they say this...

Its quite frustrating when people tell us 'Cool! Like Radiohead!'. It seems those guys turned themselves into free music scene leaders within 3 months, making more money than any fuckwit on a major label.
Since our first release we offered the option to download the album for free or donate what one thought was worth paying. That was 3 years ago, and we weren't the first ones.
Mr Radiohead turns up with his cool new idea and his 160 fucking kbps and the world bows to his mediocrity. This is how they hijacked for their own sake a social phenomenon and turned it into a marketing tool to promote their physical release.
Because of the low quality of the files, the lack of artwork and credits, and huge difference between the free release mixes of the free release and the commercial ones, we quickly assumed they didn't take the radical path.
Radiohead becomes number one on the bestselling charts, and the industry wins another battle in its propaganda devaluing the quality of mp3 releases.

I thought it was an interesting point of view that in a way i've never really looked at it before. Without irate Radiohead fans who probably just think 'they're jealous of Radiohead success' does anyone think they have a point?

I kind of think they have a point but I get this bitter vibe from them. Personally I'd be happy Radiohead did it even if I was doing it first, because I've never heard of this band and they could do this their whole career and no one would've cared and it probably wouldn't have changed anything. Now if a big named band like Radiohead does it it could start a very positive trend. I can understand why they'd be frustrated and angry about it though if people are going "Like Radiohead!" to them.

Also I want to note Radiohead made it 160kbps so it was higher quality than itunes but not album quality. I think it's kind of petty to get pissy about how Radiohead went about it, it's not like they ran around saying they were the first ones doing and they were so invented look at them. I mean other people did it but it's perfectly plausible that Radiohead had never even heard of these guys before.

They do have a point, providing Radiohead layed claim to being the first.
Which I don't think is the case.
Also, just how bad are the quality of the mp3's provided for In Rainbows?

They're 160 kbps, which is better than itunes offers (128kbps) but it's not CD quality (which ranges from whatever you rip it too basically, I'm not sure what CD quality exactly is but the highest I can rip it to is 320kbps.) I mean I think it's pretty good quality, better than most free downloads. If you have a problem with the quality it's not like you had to pay for it. I think it's petty to bitch at Radiohead for their mp3 quality, lack of artwork and credits. I mean how much artwork do you include with a digital download? They had the main cover and as for credits I'm pretty sure Radiohead do everything themselves nowadays including production.

I'm also very sure Radiohead never claimed to be the first to do it. Now Pitchfork on the other hand hyped it ridiculously for months and we all know how their readers rehash every single thing they say.

I posted while you were posting and didn't get to read yours.

It seems like sour grapes to me.
Why complain about someone doing something that they have been doing for ages?

Precisely. Bruised egos, nout more.

Agreed...

"Its quite frustrating when people tell us 'Cool! Like Radiohead!'. It seems those guys turned themselves into free music scene leaders within 3 months, making more money than any ****wit on a major label."

...there's the give away.

I really hate to sound like one of those irate radiohead fans but they really are being ridiculous when I really think about it. The Pax Cecilia have been offering their CD for FREE and paying shipping themselves for long time and they've never said a word about Radiohead doing this. I mean recording something and putting it up on the net is a helluva alot cheaper than making a bunch of copies and paying postage to different copies and so on. That bands actually losing money in what they're doing (assuming they never got donations or anything for it.) They've given away about 10,000 CDs, all paid by themselves. She Died Real Pretty mailed me all their work for free just because I asked, I even offered to pay about 30-40 dollars first and they just told me no and asked for my address. The Kidcrash gave me their demo for free too as did the Lady is Not For Burning. Reuben have started giving away their old EPs at shows too.

What Radiohead did was take a very (very very very) small DIY very very underground and idea and throw it out to the rest of the world showing how unnecessary record labels are and what happened? Why a bunch of no one bands start coming out and complaining about Radiohead doing this and getting mad about them for claims they never made. Every one who downloaded the Radiohead album was fully aware of the quality and that a physical release would follow. I think people are bitching just because this is Radiohead and they're rich so it takes away the idea of it being "DIY" and "indie." As I said before, I think Radiohead deserve credit for bringing this form of releasing to the mainstream.

I do thing they have a point where they say they just used it as a marketing tool.

If it really was something Radiohead believed in sincerely then why can't you get the album from their site now?

I don't think Radiohead even pretended it wasn't anything more than a marketing tool. It's no coincidence that they took the download option off as soon as you could buy the album.

I think it had something to do with the fact that they were label-less and couldn't be bothered to fuck about with another one.

Even if it was a marketing ploy, so what? They made an excellent album and deservedly made a lot of money off it. If you didn't want to make them richer you didn't have to participate in this devious scheme...:\

I didn't think it was a devious scheme. I was just offering a different viewpoint that could be discussed.

I think in hindsight Radiohead could have made a huge statement with In Rainbows by just making it download only , maybe another big name band will take it a step further.

Trent Reznor supposedly is going to do something like it. NIN is no longer on a major label and he was talking about it in some article let me find it.

Here it is

160 kbps is so horrible. I mean what they should've done is mailed out 2 inch tape versions. Those stingy bastards.

What about all them people that still own CD players with uber powerful/sophisticated speakers systems or don't have access to the interwebz?http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/c...wer/kosa22.gif

Mail order or their own label

And they should have given them away for free? Doesn't having their own label make them even more money grubbing?

How does ordering from a presser directly qualify "money grubbing"? Labels don't have to be evil corporations.

I have no idea, I think Urbz had a point to make somewhere...I'm not accusing them of anything...

It's late...

My point has nothing to do with money. All i'm saying is I think it's a shame they didn't go the whole way with the self release thing. And that I think if they had shown it could be done like that more bands would have followed.

dora flood....they have all of their albums up on their website for no cost (except their latest one)

^The Swirlies have done the same thing

I'm not going to pretend I know a lot about Radiohead releasing In Rainbows for free off the net, but a lot of other bands have already done the same thing before. I think it's just due to their high profile that generated all this commotion and although I'm not really a fan of their music (bar The Bends), I broadly approve.

And the only reason all those other bands haven't made such a commotion is because they're not nearly as good. Case closed.

I wasn't aware you'd heard all of them

I agree with Urban to a certain extent. It would have been great to see Radiohead go the whole distance and release it themselves. They have the financial clout and it would hardly be a financial loss with their fan base.

I am hoping more bands will do this but make it more streamlined. The talk of being IP banned for illegally downloading music is a sore point. If bands offered a limited download at a low bit rate that was DRM protected, then maybe there would'nt be as much downloading. I download primarily to hear new music that I have never heard or to get rare back catalogue stuff. Many many times I have bought the album on hard copy if I like it and not downloaded to make money (which is what seems to be the gripe). If companies and bands gave the public a taster then maybe they could actually BOOST sales and not a loss.

If a record company had the foresight to stick all the stuff in their vaults online and charge a flat monthly fee to download as much as you want I would happily sign up for that.
I'm sure a company like Sony could find the resources & technical details to do such a thing , and it would make a lot better headlines than suing the shit out of people.

Something similar is happening with movies. You can now delve through back catalogues and order rare/deleted titles which they will press onto dvd for you and send for a small fee. I think warners are behind this. So a music venture could certainly be feasible.

Of course forget Sony.

What I really want is the BBC to do this with all their sessions & live recordings.

It's a safe assumption that, given the current insatiable hunger of the music industry for the next big thing and the accessibility of their music via the net, no one who has even a modicum of talent will be overlooked. And it would take a LOT of talent to even begin to compare to Radiohead. So yeah...I'm pretty sure my statement stands, even if I haven't and probably won't hear every band that offers their stuff for free...

That...is a great idea.

*drafts letter to the BBC.

The Inevitable Rise and Liberation of Niggy Tardust! - Saul Williams

Come again?

They have a huge point, in reference to op.

Hah! Agreed. 160 kbps is such a horrible quality. I think I am going to complain to someone that wants to listen...if I can find them.

An interesting article from producer Rick rubin, now co-head of Columbia Records.

Rick Rubin Music Guru