Radiohead is Not a Solution

Cayocosta

The more time passes the more it appears that nobody's going to be happy until the labels are bankrupt; even though nothing has emerged to fill the void.

Recently, the group Radiohead made their new album available for digital download; and rather than charge their fans a set fee, chose instead to accept (mandatory) donations. Although the only real novelty here is that the group allowed it’s fans to pay however much they deemed reasonable for the record; this simple act, however, subsequently setoff a firestorm of articles by authors whose extrapolations included: the fall of the labels was finally at hand; or, the long-awaited new music paradigm had finally manifested itself; or, that music was now on it’s way to becoming totally free; or finally (and ultimately) that music fans in the near future are actually going to be paid to download and share files.

Never mind that the group’s management later went on record and admitted the act was a PR stunt designed to drive traditional sales; or, that the group was later faced with outright condemnation for the low-quality of the encoding of the downloads: for here we see the true mania; how one artist’s promotional ploy morphed into the foundation of most every technology journalist’s brave new solution to the music industry’s problems.

Radiohead’s manager, Bryce Edge, even described their initiative as "a solution for Radiohead, not the industry;" yet, it was off to the races anyway for the media.

For example; Businessweek’s Justin Bachman penned the following in The Big Record Labels' Not-So-Big Future the day after Radiohead’s album download was made available:

"Now any 14-year-old can pick up a copy of Apple's (AAPL) Logic Studio for $499 and make respectable recordings. All that's needed are generous parents or a babysitting gig."

"Musicians can just set up a MySpace page and talk directly with their fans."

"Now you can zip MP3 copies of your first single via e-mail to anyone in the world."

Rather than regurgitate the same-old Napster-period wishful-thinking about what's going to happen; why aren’t journalists such as Mr. Bachman instead pointing to successful contemporary examples of the "reinvention" of the music industry?

Because there aren't any, of course; as these anachronistic projections (founded upon long-standing technological innovation) when once again posed as new industry paradigms, are time-proven to be wholly unrealistic - otherwise such things would be happening; moreover, they would have already happened.

As such, rehashed musings like those above persist only as testaments to the shoddiness of the authors and their editors; and to further exemplify the media’s widespread anti-industry bias, and its relentless pandering to the free-music constituency.

It’s clear these tattered arguments don't work anymore; for it's been several years that the quoted technological opportunities have existed (in one form or another) yet none of it has substantially changed the industry. Hence; going forward, we should know better than to continue accepting any such conjecture as a potentially viable alternative to the traditional music-industry model.

Therefore; when on the occasion a noteworthy artist chooses to make his or her recordings available free of charge, or via donation, that act does not establish that a new and viable paradigm for - or alternative to - the music-industry in general, has surfaced. Rather, it should be clear that such actions (while limited to only those fortunate enough to be in a position to leverage their prior major-label notoriety) are no more than public-relations initiatives implemented to support standard industry practices.