IT'S decision time. How much do you want to pay for the new Radiohead album? You could have it for 1p, or even for free, next week (by downloading it from the band's website, for whatever fee you think is appropriate) or wait until December and pay £40 (for the deluxe CD set, with extra tracks, also from the band's website). Take your time, no rush.
It feels too cynical to brand Radiohead's surprise announcement this week as a marketing ploy, given the band's anti-corporate views, but they have certainly hit on an ingenious way of getting In Rainbows talked about. Deciding their album can be wor
th both £40 and nothing is a provocative way of showing how arbitrary it is to place monetary value on music. In theory, everybody wins: the loyal older fan who wants the lavishly designed box set and will pay for it; the younger generation who have been breaking the law by downloading free music for years now, to the anger of major labels; and Radiohead, who don't need the money anyway.
Whatever you might hear about how influential Radiohead's move will be, though, it's important to remember that it is, ultimately, a case of rich musicians indulging themselves. Radiohead have such a large, loyal fanbase that they don't need to market themselves - as they proved when so many fans pre-ordered the album that the website nearly crashed, without any help from radioplay, reviews or music magazine covers.
Other recent examples of this behaviour - Travis and Prince giving away albums with newspapers, and the Charlatans letting fans have their next single for free - feel like loss-cutting exercises by musicians past their peak. It is conspicuous how many bands are currently splitting up who you would think of as being successful - Scotland's own Aereogramme leap to mind, who broke up this year after rave reviews, but only moderate sales, for their third album. Free downloading can help generate an audience, but it can also rob you of your livelihood.
The counterargument, of course, is that pop music has always been about the survival of the fittest. There is so much mediocre music being made that if more bands go to the wall it may be no bad thing. But it can be brutal. As we went to press, the NME was asking readers what they would pay for In Rainbows - the average bid was £5. "Anyone who thinks £2.50 is a fair price is taking the mickey," wrote one. "You have to pay for the water that comes into your home, you have to pay to watch TV, so why do people think they should be given music free?" It's a question that deserves discussion.
The full article contains 458 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
