This was brought up by Radiohead themselves and is one of the main reasons they chose to self-release In Rainbows. The band and many others contend that the "pay what you want" was about taking power away from record companies and critics and giving it to artists and their fans. Opponents of this argument say that the majority of people torrented In Rainbows anyway and, unless bands work with their record labels, they will never have complete control over their music.
I'm sure anyone reading this blog knows that Radiohead is one of the most popular bands in the world today. This issue, which draws on the issue of the artist's control over his/her work, has to do with how well established the artist already is in the industry. Some say that the "pay what you want" model is good for artists who have not made it yet because it allows for people to hear their music, who ordinarily wouldn't. Others, like Will Hodgkinson, say that the "pay what you want" model ultimately hurts emerging musicians because the model devalues music and makes it nearly impossible for musicians to make a living.
Okay, opinion time. Personally, I feel that nothing will "devalue" music. It is too important to us as human beings. In fact, I find this whole idea of valuing music with money somewhat perverse. In that respect, I find Radiohead's attempt to democratize their music incredibly noble, while at the same time, I am uncomfortable with "name your own price as a means of determining the quality of music. Ultimately, I take Radiohead's side, who have said that they will probably not repeat this method of releasing music ever again.
I agree that, for emerging artists, the "pay what you want" option will not work, as does Radiohead. They have denied that this is a revolutionary move on their part to change the music industry forever. As I said in my first post, the band see the method of release as a part of creativity of the album. Radiohead have always released their albums in wacky ways (OK Computer was released to reviewers as a tape inside a glued shut tape player so that they couldn't skip any songs on the album. Kid A was released without any music videos (there were the blips, of course) or singles) and "pay what you want" should not be seen as a viable method for other musicians that are poles apart.
However, the issue still remains: was Radiohead's use of the "pay what you want" model successful? In my opinion, the answer is obviously yes. Radiohead profited greatly from this release model because they created a lot hype on the internet. Their dedicated fans supplied them with enough revenue to make the project financially viable and their new album was shared online (I swear I am not making this up) 2.3 million times.
Unfortunately, Radiohead is just too extraordinary an example to determine whether pay what you want is a viable option for the music industry in general. I still say no, as does Radiohead, Paul McGuinness, Robert Smith, and Trent Reznor. Nonetheless, no one can deny that Radiohead's gamble payed off in the end.
Thanks to anyone who took time to read my ramblings. Comments are open for anyone who'd like to continue the discussion. What are your thoughts on PWYW? Do you see Radiohead's In Rainbows experiment as a success?
Robert, I enjoyed reading your case study. I especially appreciated that you refined it to this one case so that you could examine it more in depth. I felt the blog format worked really well for this, as it allowed you to break up the structure of your discussion into readable chunks, and I also appreciated all of the links you offered. I think you present both sides well and have nuanced your read on it too. (Ie, you agree that the PWYC model is not the best solution but the campaign itself worked in that instance). So good critical thinking!
ReplyDelete