After making some disparaging comments about a misunderstood perception of “The Radiohead Model” (which Maura helpfully defined correctly) and kicking up a consequent shitstorm, Cure lead singer Robert Smith has, refreshingly, expanded on his ideas rather than backing away from them—though, regrettably, in all caps. I will retype it for you so it seems more credible.
In the way of our bright and brave new wired world, these idiot critics have tried very hard to turn my general point - a point I made using Radiohead’s ‘In Rainbows: pay what you want’ marketing ruse as it is the most widely known example - into a mock shockhorror “how dare anyone question the famously independent and anti-capitalist Radiohead, they sell more ‘product’ than The Cure so their strategy obviously ‘worked’ (huh?!!)…and anyway, Robert Smith is way too old to comment on contemporary culture” moment…
Any famous artist with a huge and devoted fan base (often arrived at with a little help from a wealthy and powerful ‘patron’ or two?) can afford to do what he, she, or it wants…
Including giving their art away as some kind of ‘loss leader’ to help ‘build the brand’…
PS I wonder how many of the professional apologists out there write their shit for free?
He has a point.
FREE MUSIC FOR ALL [The Cure]
Mr. Smith, for the win.
I actually know a number of bloggers that are happy to write their shit for free. Or ask only for voluntary donations. Many that are fairly well read, actually.
And his general point about record companies serving the role as the wealthy benefactor is utter nonsense. Record companies attempt to play the role of partner (you provide something and we’ll provide something and the two of us will split the profits) or boss (we will hire you to do some work at a set fee and we will keep all of the profits).
The wealthy benefactors recognized that there were a number of free-riders who would enjoy the art they sponsored. The benefactor still paid (where others did not) because they saw a value to the art and because of the personal prestige associated with sponsoring a popular artist. This model is a lot more similar to the Radiohead model, as it recognizes that some people will continue to pay when they don’t have to — and some will even pay more than necessary to cover the costs for those that can’t afford to pay anything.
@Rory B. Bellows: How nice to not have to live on your work…
@janine: Agreed if you consider it “work” — but for many its an enjoyable hobby.
@Rory B. Bellows: I am pretty sure Mr. Smith here considers his work a career, not a hobby, regardless of how much he enjoys it.
(Those folks with hobby blogs have day jobs, no?)
Any famous artist with a huge and devoted fan base can do what he wants, which apparently includes donning goth clown makeup and stringy spider web hair - well into the grampa years.
@cheesebubble: Not so much “can” do, but “must” do. Nobody is paying him to not remind them of their childhood.
Cheers, Uncle Bob!
Great. Another artist revealed to be a know-it-all cunt. File under ‘lars ulrich’