[Art] Radiohead Redefines the Industry

It is not a revelation that things in the music industry have changed. Even despite all the resistance from the record industry, it is a whether-you-like-it-or-not shift in the way we listen to, buy and distribute music. And it is, for now, an obvious shift, meaning that the various channels of access are all visible. So seemingly it is only a matter of adopting to the new channels for the industry to shift ptoperly...But there is one band out there that is not only challenging this notion, but is simultaneously challenging the entire economics of the arts itself. It is Radiohead.

Radiohead has already released its next record ("In Rainbows"), but you can't find it at Virgin Megastore, at the Apple iTunes store, and certainly not in the Billboard 100. This is not because Radiohead lacks a strong fan base. In fact, for the release of "Kid A," the band's fourth album which came after a four year hiatus from touring and recording, the band did not make a music video and did not release a radio single, and still the album went No. 1 in its first week of sales. Quite the opposite is the case: it is, in part, Radiohead's extremely devout fan base that has allowed them be so unconventional in their latest release...the other part is their sheer will to challenge every notion we have about pop music and our access to it.

To get Radiohead's "In Rainbows" could not be any simpler. Go to the band's (not the record company's) website and download the entire album for whatever price you think is necessary...for as little as $0.00 (the album will be released in hard editions later this year too). It is exceedingly obvious that this is a novel approach, but what isn't so obvious is the implication set forth by such a DIY-style of purchasing and distribution.

Following the obvious, Radiohead took advantage of the most blatant shift in the industry -- that with the internet I don't need a record company and a teamster to distibrute my music...I don't even need the iTunes music store. This is an industry killer even for those adopting to the new forms and channels by which we can access music. This is power to the artist and the consumer.

It is not shocking that the industry recoils in horror to this idea, but that artists have is. So many musicians want to resist these paradigm shifts, but why? Or maybe more importantly, why not Radiohead? It is to Radiohead's great advantage that they enjoy not only a large and loyal following, but also constant critical acclaim. But shouldn't this only entice them to maximize profits more? One would assume that, like other popular artists, anyone who stands to make windfall profits off their music would resist cheap and easy access to it...I mean, such is the nature of capitalism. However, such is not the nature of pop music, which for fifty years has, if nothing else, been a constant symbol of rebellion, from Bill Haley and the Comets to Ani DiFranco.

Which is why it is in disbelief that I recall an interview in which Lou Reed professed to be against downloading music. Lou Reed, the definitive iconclast of the 1970s counterculture, supports the status quo? And does so at a time when counterculture finds its greatest ever empowerment? There is only one reason for this: money. And what is sacrificed by that money? Art.

Lou Reed once said of music, "People should die for it." That is quite sensational, especially for a musician still living, but having said that, what is worth dying for that is not worth losing money for? Why should the industry thrive at the expense of keeping artists honest? The fact is, it simply won't. Not if Radiohead has anything to say about it.

Their may not be windfall profits in Radiohead's business model, but, in this green day-and-age, there is money (and most importantly artistic integrity). According to reports I've heard, the average price offered for a download of Radiohead's "In Rainbows" is $8. That is astounding, so much so that it defies every claim artists and labels make about their suffering in the age of digital music. It just proves one thing: people will pay for good honest artistry.

What can be wrong with this? Nothing. In fact, what Radiohead is doing is raising the bar for every artist (not just musicia) out there. If you love your art, you will give it away, and if it is good people will say let me invest in this. When you buy something, art or otherwise, it is an investment, not just an investment of money (especially as most such purchases do not provide any profit upon resale), but an investment of time, emotion, health etc. And the future, this says, will not allow a Britney Spears to sell 100,000 copies of her album, because it is a wasted investment. All lovers of art would tell you in a heartbeat that you cannot really put a price on the pleasure and comfort of the perfect song or a beautiful painting. And Radiohead has done just that: not put a price on it.

If making money is anywhere on your list of priorities, then you are not an artist. And if you are not willing to pay for it, you are not an art lover. The future, as Radiohead models it, is void of both types. That is raising the bar. That is saying, if you do not want to give away your music, then don't make it, and if you aren't willing to craft every song with the utmost dilligence and put every ounce of creativity you have behind it, no one will pay a dime for it. And Radiohead is taking that idea beyond the studio into the business room, being so creative with their method of distribution that people, at this stage, may simply be willing to pay in support of their method. That's the green revlution of music (and someday all art).