No, Rachel.  We do not all illegally download music.  Some of us still pay the nice musicians who made the music and even, sure, the indie labels who in many cases helped fund the recording.  YOU illegally download music, Rachel.  YOU even download entire discographies.  I’m sure being a thief has many advantages, but making you an interesting or perceptive writer does not appear to be one of them.

best,
- Brian,
who paid 6.45 pounds (13 dollars) for <I>In Rainbows</i>, thinks it’s a huge letdown from <I>Amnesiac</I> and <I>Hail to the Thief</i>, and will probably buy Radiohead’s next album cheaply, if that’s still an option—but only because my choice next time, at full price, would be to not hear it at all.

Comment by voxpoptart — October 31, 2007 @ 1:14 pm

Nice puff piece, Rachel.

The mp3s made available are of low quality (160kBps). The CD will be released at full price with MORE tracks and SUPERIOR sound quality. Soooo, fans dumb enough to pay anything at all for the mp3s will have to buy (or steal) the album all over again if they want the real deal. Radiohead didn’t “stick it to the man.”  They stuck it to their fans.

Comment by paperface — October 31, 2007 @ 4:49 pm

As an independent musician, I’m alarmed to read an article published on a widely-read blog that so blatantly states that an illegal and basically wrong activity has become acceptable. 

If the author or any PM staff are paid anything for their articles, how would they feel if that payment was suddenly changed from whatever ad revenue or hit-generated system to a digital “tip jar”?  And then told that regardless of their hard work, the readers didn’t pony up enough money for them to pay the electric bill they spent writing.  Besides that, their articles have been copied and pasted, often without credit, on sites all over the world.

“As a society, we have become numb to download remorse”.  I think people who think they should get something for nothing never felt any remorse about it, they just didn’t talk about it, or pretended to act sheepishly about doing it.  And it should be clear to any adult that “everybody does it” is one of the sillier justifications for doing anything.

True, there are worse crimes, and bigger things to steal than digital files.  But the gordian knots of rationalization coming from music downloaders barely make any sense in their own context.  Try to apply them to anything else and they would sound preposterous.  Just replace “song” or “album” with anything else that someone spends time and money making, trying to make a living, and any rational person should see how wrong it sounds.

The story of this album’s release is being spun by writers as justification for that type of behavior, with supposed fair balance quotes tossed in rather than given equal time.  The oft-quoted Gigwise numbers and subsequent fuzzy math, and quotes from paying fans are pushed up front.  As though this negates all the illegal downloaders which it’s assumed Radiohead “didn’t really care” about.

And why not? “I’ve seen fans pay up to $300 for a single ticket, and that’s without the merch.”  Is that $300 going into the band’s pocket directly?  No.  Sounds like scalper prices (or a benefit auction at best). NYC is one of the more expensive places to do anything, and their MSG shows run around $85 a ticket before surcharges - and even that amount doesn’t all go to the band.  People are blissfully unaware of the enormous outlay of money to go on tour, as well as to record whatever gets turned into little downgraded digital files that supposedly “drive concert attendance”.

One thing the article does get right, though once again it’s tossed in where many casual readers might miss it:  “It goes without saying that not every band would or even could to do something this drastic; it takes a megaband and a whole lot of guts to break the rules”. 

Actually, no, it doesn’t go without saying - it’s not being said enough.  Radiohead had people lining up to get the album, whether they paid or not, because of their entire career up to this point.  For all the band’s iconoclastic, independent tendencies, this career was brought into being by a Major Label. I say this not to defend majors over indies, or even everything about the “old system”.  But in the rush of excitement about this “brave new business model”, that kind of support is being forgotten.  Any band starting out does not have the luxury of spending years and thousands of dollars crafting a work of art only to have it declared a “loss leader” so they can book a tour. 

Oh, and seeing a CD as merely “extra mp3 conversion time and a spare plastic box” is missing several points. 
1. You have higher quality to begin with than what’s sold on itunes *or* in the “In Rainbows” download (160-192kbps mp3’s).
2. Even if you prefer your mp3 player over a CD player, you have a pre-made backup copy, which you can go back to when your mp3 gets erased (by accident or by design).  Or to re-rip once you discover superior digital music formats (320kbps mp3, FLAC, OGG, heck even WAV).
3. You have lyrics and artwork in a format that doesn’t require staring at a backlit screen, the same thing many people do for 8 hours a day. 
4. In sequencing, and maybe even track crossfading, you have a complete listening experience determined by the artist.  Which you can already choose to rearrange at your whim, but also go back to.  Including songs you didn’t “get” the first time around, but might grow on you.

And more to the point, a physical object lets people know there is something of worth at stake, even if it’s not actually the object itself (except for collectors).  If more great musicians like Radiohead reminded people of that worth, they’d be willing to pay for it instead of devolving into a society of criminals in all but name.

Comment by Themis from NYC — October 31, 2007 @ 4:56 pm

Themis, this essay is simply this writer’s opinion and reflects her views, not necessary the views of the PopMatters editors.

Comment by SysAdmin — November 1, 2007 @ 10:06 am

I’m glad to see the comments taking the tone that they are.  I thought I was the only one left who doesn’t download music.

Comment by Tommy Atkins — November 1, 2007 @ 1:00 pm

I don’t download music either—except the few things labels ask us to download—both for the very problematic ethical issues of doing so and the somewhat unpleasing nature of the format.  I still proudly listen to music on CD and vinyl as well on a real stereo, instead of my computer.  The sound quality of mp3 simply isn’t as good and I can’t quite wean myself of the simple enjoyment of reading good liner notes and enjoying album art.

Comment by Sarah Zupko from Chicago — November 1, 2007 @ 1:21 pm

Actually I do sometimes download music.  But I will literally listen to it once and delete it. 

The cases I can think of that have involved full album rips were Placebo’s “Sleeping with Ghosts” and 6 Marilyn Manson albums.  as a result, i bought the Placebo and two of the MM CDs, then bought the latest one when it came out.

A free legal download of a great song can also drive sales.  In 2002, Kranky had “(That’s how You Sing) Amazing Grace” on their site, and The Walkmen had “Wake Up”. 

Immediately after listening I was online ordering their CDs.  In all cases, I threw out the downloaded files.

Comment by Themis from NYC — November 1, 2007 @ 1:22 pm

The argument over fidelity of mp3’s an CD’s is a moot point for most people that don’t have a top of the line soundcard in their computer and Bose headphones. For the average fan listening to an album through earbud headphones, or even most moderately priced over the ear sets, on an mp3 player or a CD player, there is little discernible difference between the quality of the In Rainbows download and the CD. (Don’t believe me? http://www.maximumpc.com/article/itunes_256_vs_128_bit?page=0,0)

While I certainly commend you fine, upstanding people for still purchasing CD’s, the fact of the matter is that illegal downloading has become the standard for many people. I’m not saying this is a good thing, or a trend that I hope continues by any means, just that due to inflationary pricing by some labels and the advent of technology, it is a fact in the current marketplace. While this kind of experiment would really only work with a band who has sustained commercial and critical success and can take risks like this, it is still an interesting marketing model, if only for public relations and not for records sales.

It is not as if they have deceitfully withheld the CD from shelves in the hopes that people would purchase an “inferior” product and then con them into buying it again. Anyone who bought the album could have clearly seen the boxed set and standard album advertised on the website as well. They are not screwing their fans, they are giving music fans who are not audiophiles a chance to get the music at whatever price their conscience dictates. While some of you might have your head lost in a euphoric cloud of morality, at least the writer was perceptive enough to grasp the present reality and how this method of sale could work with or against it.

Comment by Bill from Holborn — November 5, 2007 @ 10:08 am

Sorry, but I’m getting pretty sick of all the bloggers and commenters saying things like “this is the reality”. 

Downloading and keeping files from commercially available releases as though you own them is harmful to the livelihood of everyone involved in creating them.  It’s one thing if artists/labels *offer* free or pay-what-you-will downloads, or encourage filesharing.  But they should also be able to make something back for their expense and efforts in making those recordings. 

Inflated major-label pricing in mall and chain stores is not a blanket justification, especially when it also harms Indies and bands just trying to scrape by by selling their wares for 10 bucks. 

If people were really so anti-major label and pro-artist they’d seek out each band’s website and find a way to send them the appropriate money for their music.  But in most cases it’s really about convenience and getting something for nothing.  So downloading is easy?  Great.  So is ordering from Amazon, CDbaby or even iTunes once you realize what you downloaded has moved beyond a curiosity and into a permanent playlist.

I’m also sick of hearing the term “audiophiles”.  There are hardly any of those left.  Those are very well-off people who spend thousands on really good sound systems, have tuned listening rooms, and argue that pristine vinyl played on a direct drive turntable is superior to a CD.

Recorded music has always been knocked down to lowest-common-denominator quality.  This works fine for Pop due to the high notes and frequencies containing most of the song, but what about other forms of music? 

For example, I first heard Joy Division’s “Unknown Pleasures” on a normal-bias cassette made from vinyl.  It was murky and noisy and the singer sounded off key.  I thought it sucked.  Then I heard “Closer” on CD and thought it was was fucking amazing.  It took me years to pick up “Unknown” on CD because of my bad experience.  When I finally did, I loved it.  Not as some kind of picky audiophile, but because I was able to hear the emotion in the vocals and the sonic creativity of the players and the producer. 

Music is more than just a nice melody that can be boiled down to a tinny ringtone.  The big problem is not the existence of low-bitrate MP3’s, but of that becoming the standard or *only* choice.

To bring back the money issue, musicians need to spend lots of it in order to make high enough quality recordings that can survive being reduced to lower-quality playback formats.  Who is going to be able to invest in such a thing if it gets stolen out from under them before they can make any kind of return on it?

Comment by Themis — November 8, 2007 @ 12:58 pm