So last week’s little controversy over Robert Smith saying that In Rainbows‘ pay-what-you-want experiment was maybe not so good for art led to me getting annoyed with the term “The Radiohead Model,” and how it’s been misused for the purposes of arguing that art should be free, or at least pay-what-you-like. (Not to mention that it also pulls quotes out of irritable pop stars.) A reader asked me to define the term outright, instead of just ranting about its misuse—and I figured that my attempt to do so was worth a post of its own. Think of it as a public service, albeit one that’s about a year and a half after the fact!
THE RADIOHEAD MODEL (n.): In the weeks and months before a band’s album is going to come out, during the period when promos would normally be made available to the press and “tastemakers,” said band allows fans to acquire low-quality MP3s for whatever price they’d like to pay—or for no price at all. (Recall that In Rainbows’ VBR was just under the OiNK standard of 192Kbps.) This way, fans can tide themselves over as discussion of the record begins from critics who have access and blogs, thus stoking discussion from all sides. The aim, of course, is for fans to be so excited about this legitimized leak, they’ll buy a higher-quality, statically priced copy of the album (whether as a high-priced, fancy-packaged special edition or just a plain old CD) come release date.
That works, I think. Any tweaks—or, heck, other ideas for definitions!—are welcome, of course.
Earlier: Everybody Hates Radiohead
Is there any parti
Is there any particular band we can blame for the “releasing five different packages of an album – each with its own particular bonus tracks, booklets, dvd, special collector’s item breakfast cereal, etc” model of doing things?
@Jerkwheat: Smashing Pumpkins I think.
I agree with your definition — especially if we take as given the fact that Radiohead knew they’d do a regular retail release (by which I mean a $15ish CD, not the deluxe vinyl thing) within months. However, we need to be fair about why reporters missed that retail part.
I suspect part of the reason the “Radiohead Model” definition got hard-coded incorrectly was that RH didn’t talk about the regular release at all until (if I recall) the week of the download release or just thereafter. So journalists all took note of Stage I of the release, the pay-what-you-will/all-electronic bit, and they had tuned out when the normal CD was announced and released. Any reporter whose beat is business or technology and not arts is going to lose interest in this story after the unusual digital release, when they’re on to the next story and already have “Radiohead Model” etched in their heads.
@Chris Molanphy: but the thing is, the week of the download release was when the whole ‘btw the mp3s are low-quality’ thing came out, too. you’d think that would have been a bigger deal?
also i left the part about the model pretty much not being replicable because few bands have radiohead’s press muscle. oops. time for revision 1!
For the record, Maura, I still like it.
@Rock You Like An Iracane: :)
As to who started the multi-tiered album, you can look back to the former standard of Standard Release vs. Deluxe Edition (which usually featured a bonus DVD or bonus tracks for some extra change). The first album I can think of is Deftones’ White Pony from 2000. The limited red edition featured an extra track, “Boys Republic.” But my memory and knowledge are limited, so I’d expect there to be an earlier example of the limited/deluxe release.
But when it comes to the more recent trend, which features a digital release, vinyl, deluxe, CD, and other permutations, I give all credit to Trent Reznor, even though Radiohead technically beat him to the punch.
One tiny, technical thing: “In Rainbows’ VBR was just under the OiNK standard of 192Kbps…”
Substitute “bitrate” for “VBR.” VBR stands for “variable bitrate” while In Rainbows was encoded at a constant bitrate (CBR) of 160kbps.