this is a big deal
Apologies for the dearth of posts lately. I have been a busy particle. But before I write my post on the Interpol and Bad Religion shows (yes, I saw Bad Religion. I can die happy now), I need to tell you about this: Radiohead is giving away their new album. They are letting the buyer decide how much to pay. I think all you have to pay is the credit card processing fee of 90 cents.
Yes, other bands have done this kind of thing before, but never a band as popular as Radiohead. And that part is important. Their popularity means they have a lot to lose. A band that is not so popular has less to lose since the fan base is smaller and fewer people would be buying the album and the forgone revenue would not exist. For Radiohead, they stand to lose, or gain, a lot. If it works, they will have proved a point that has been a long time in the making: music does not need record labels. The record label is no longer a necessary part of the music distribution and marketing process. They weren't necessary to begin with. After all, they didn't always exist. The only purpose I see labels serving now is as more of a "music club." Bands can join together and help fans find new bands, thus helping to give smaller bands more exposure by associating with similar bands.
Bands can rent their own studio time, hire their own engineers, pay for their own mixing and disc pressing, do their own marketing via a website, and open an online shop. No need for the label. All you need is money and some organizational skills. If a band has those two things, there is no need for a record contract. The label is an unnecessary middle man.
What's also interesting about the Radiohead deal is the lack of an iTunes affiliation. None of the articles I've read mention iTunes. Did Radiohead ignore iTunes altogether? If so, it could be proof that even iTunes should examine its role in music distribution, or perhaps lower its prices.
Either way, I'm very happy Radiohead took this risk. It's one step towards taking music out of the hands of record labels and putting it back into the hands of artists. Record contracts and record company desires are not conducive to the creation of good music. Good music is what we want. Musicians who own the rights to their art is what we want. Contractual obligations and creative restrictions do not help either of those goals. The issue is that record companies, unlike bands, are not artistic endeavors. They are business enterprises. Art and business, by their nature, do not always mix well. Free one from the other and both would probably prosper more.
For reference, you can check out this guide to recording contracts. It makes me want to buy an Entertainment Law textbook and read up on music industry contract basics.

