Lily Allen, Oasis, Gene Simmons Blast "Radiohead Model"
As we already knew, not everyone's into Radiohead's it's-really-up-to-you approach to In Rainbows. But now Lily Allen's got something to say about it. Via Channel 4:
Lily Allen has branded Radiohead "arrogant" for giving fans the chance to download their new album, 'In Rainbows', for free. The singer reportedly said that she thinks it is unfair for the millionaires to devalue recorded music and survive on touring money when new artists can't. "It's arrogant for them to give their music away for free - they've got millions of pounds. It sends a weird message to younger bands who haven't done as well," WENN reports Lily as saying. "You don't choose how to pay for eggs. Why should it be different for music?"Interesting MySpace's biggest phenom would disagree with the download approach. (Ah, we don't mean to be contrary, Lily -- maybe we're just bummed that those Agent Provocateur rumors end up being just that, rumors. Ahem.)
Actually, we do see her point -- and have had similar discussions with various working musicians we know -- but it's sillier and more sour fun when dorks like Liam Gallagher and Gene "I Will Market My Shit" Simmons step into the dialog box, too.
Via NME:
Oasis have quashed rumours that they were planning to release their next album with Radiohead-style pricing, with fans choosing how much to pay for the release. Frontman Liam Gallagher said he would never let an Oasis album be given away for free. Specifically, he said he would allow it to happen "over my dead body".Wouldn't that dead body be better fed if they just gave the shit away at this point? Finally, Mr. Simmons's Albini-style take on the issue. Via Billboard:
There is nothing in me that wants to go in there and do new music. How are you going to deliver it? How are you going to get paid for it if people can just get it for free? I will be putting out a Gene Simmons box set called "Monster" -- a collection of 150 unreleased songs. KISS will have another box set of unreleased music in the next year. The record industry doesn't have a fucking clue how to make money. It's only their fault for letting foxes get into the henhouse and then wondering why there's no eggs or chickens. Every little college kid, every freshly-scrubbed little kid's face should have been sued off the face of the earth. They should have taken their houses and cars and nipped it right there in the beginning. Those kids are putting 100,000 to a million people out of work. How can you pick on them? They've got freckles. That's a crook. He may as well be wearing a bandit's mask.Billboard then points out that Radiohead and Trent Reznor are finding a "new business model":
That doesn't count. You can't pick on one person as an exception. And that's not a business model that works. I open a store and say "Come on in and pay whatever you want." Are you on fucking crack?Not yet, Gene. Waiting for the official KISS-licensed crack...
Posted at 11:19 AM in Where's The Beef?
Tags: Gene Simmons | KISS | Lily Allen | Oasis | Radiohead
I don't think it counts as an Albini style take when it is 1) in fucking "Billboard" and 2)Inarticulate and predicated on a world where Kiss has a litigation militia.
The ACTUAL Steve Albini take on piracy follows:
"Almost universally, bands and musicians are happy anyone is interested in their music enough to become a fan, and they know there are many opportunities to do some business with such a person that may or may not involve selling him a particular record. They also recognize that a download by someone unwilling to buy a record is not a "lost sale," because that person has made it clear that he is unwilling to buy a record. You haven't lost a sale, you've made a fan for free. Fans eventually want to buy records, concert tickets and other things."
And this appeared on a poker forum, not between graphs of how many people are suffering through Soulja Boy every time they pull up to a stoplight or whatever it is Billboard cares about.
Score = 0
For my part, Gene Simmons can continue to market his sophmoric displays of genital prowess to whatever meathead cross section of the public will give him their money. He (and KISS for that matter) have been artistically irrelevant since... Well, they were never really artistically relevant anyway.
He can sell all the cars, toys and toilet paper he wants but as far as music?
I wouldn't take it if it were free.
(Sorry all... I just have a serious dislike of KISS and their egomaniacal frontmen.)
Score = 1
Nate from My Brightest Diamond just posted some of the same frustrations: http://shambamontour.blogspot.com/ -- that there's a new sense of entitlement to music nowadays, and that Radiohead's decision to make their music potentially free only feeds that sense.
Score = 0
Gene's just bitter he can't sell toilet paper with his face on it anymore.
Score = 1
i like it when Lilly Allen opens her mouth to sing. she has a great singing voice, and cool songs. but when any words come out of that mouth. i kind of want to strangle her pretty little throat.
good god people are stupid. radiohead has a lot of money im sure. which is why the in rainbows download situation is so cool.
Score = 0
hey lilly -
nice try with the analogy, but eggs and art are two completely different things. when a piece of art is created the (unsigned) artist is entitled do whatever the fuck he/she wants to with it.
Score = 1
in that first rant, simmons as "the problem with music" albini via maximum rocknroll:
http://www.ram.org/ramblings/philosophy/fmp/albini.html
albeit with a KISS lunchbox on his lap
Score = 0
I think that dude from the Smiths said it best when he said:
"Don't you hate it when your friends become successful."
Score = 0
hey lilly -
nice try with the analogy, but eggs and art are two completely different things. when a piece of art is created the (unsigned) artist is entitled do whatever the fuck he/she wants to with it.
Score = 0
What do these idiots not get? Liam Gallagher would allow an Oasis album to be given away free "over his dead body"? Guess what Liam, I didn't pay shit for "Don't Believe the Truth." And Radiohead IS releasing the album through traditional means. No matter what people claim, Radiohead is not revolutionizing or dealing a death blow to the record industry. What Radiohead has done is found a way to monetize internet piracy. The album was done but was not going to be properly released for close to two months. Guess what that means? Some "freckle faced kid" was going to get his hands on it and upload it to the internet at some point. Just like they do with every other album. What Radiohead did was beat them to the punch, leak the album themselves and put a tip jar on the counter. No, you don't HAVE to pay, but it would be appreciated. And guess what, that shit worked! Did everyone pay? Of course not. But some people did. It's better than nothing. These idiots should be excited! Radiohead just made money off their album being leaked to the internet two months early. The exact thing that people say is killing profits, Radiohead has found a way to profit from. And these dopes are too slow to understand that this is a good thing. What a surprise.
Score = 1
hilarious that artists who aren't commercially successful will call Radiohead "arrogant" or bemoan their "sense of entitlement" when its obvious that they are just jealous and feeling quite "entitled" themselves. look, I even like my brightest diamond, but if they think they'd be rich without internet downloading they are willfully fooling themselves. nobody knows who the fuck they are, that's why they're not selling! everyone knows who Radiohead are, and they still did pull in a lot of money for the album, considering they didn't have to pay some worthless executives moochers half the money that would have been made in the first place.
why have people been able to copy cassettes, tape radio playings of songs, and record tv programs for decades no, but as soon as this SAME EXACT THING is done digitally, its a crime? fuck y'all! and fuck gene simmons, jesus christ on a stick who is looking to that guy for advice about artistic integrity or how to make yourself well-known without coming off as a complete neanderthal? um, nobody? great, ok. the whole fucking point of all of this is that record companies are useless. that's it. artists don't need them anymore. given that new reality, if Oasis wants to make a record and charge $300 per copy, they should feel absolutely free to do so. if lily allen wants to keep charging...oh wait, lily allen is just the kind of artist who would still need a record company in order to exist. never mind. are you sure the agent provocateur thing isn't happening? oh well. if Radiohead wants to release an album for free, of fucking hell, even pay people to listen to it, they should feel free as well. why the fuck does one artist think its their place to tell any other artist how to go about doing their own business? ego fucking maniacs.
Score = 0
I can pay more for some eggs (organic, free-range) or less (Brand X); I can buy them in packs of twelve or six or as individual hardboiled eggs.
Farmers could give away eggs if they wanted to. Or, more commonly, people could barter for them. Different stores have different prices. I could buy them with cash or credit, in a box or with a fox.
So yeah, music is totally like that. Also, surprise, new artists can't survive on touring money if they don't play the shows.
Score = 0
(From the her own logic) Lilly Allen's music is equal to eggs: the kind you throw at people you don't like.
Score = 0
I agree with everything that's been said, except for the comments and the article.
Score = 1
The interesting issue is
I want my money going to the artist
not the fat cat suit boys of the big 4
Mega huge bands like RadioHead still only make what? 20% of album sales into their pocket the rest goes to the industry. (not to mention the smaller percentage that goes to bands that sell not even 1/10 of the albums raiodhead sell... how are these artists supposed to survive?... they dont)
I want to see that money going to the actual artist who then can pay the mixers and producers and everyone else in line who helped put the album together.
The "RadioHead Model" is a new way of thinking.. a new way to start ensuring that the people getting richest is the artist... not the big time label execs.
Score = 0
when did being a musician have anything to do about making money?
Score = 0
a dead Liam and a Free Oasis album? That sounds too good to be true
Score = 0
I definetly get the point, but in all seriousness, I have a subconscious spending limit when it comes to music. I will spend that same amount no matter how many CDs it gets me. Now, I'm one of the guys who payed $10 for in rainbows, but getting an album from a big band for free just makes me more willing to buy a smaller bands CD for full price. I'm not saying the point doesn't make sense, I'm sayng it's irrelevent.
Score = 0
Wait, Gene Simmons is releasing 150 new songs? *shudders in fear*
Score = 0
I'd pay whatever the market demanded for front row seats to a Liam-Gene death match.
Score = 0
"why have people been able to copy cassettes, tape radio playings of songs, and record tv programs for decades no, but as soon as this SAME EXACT THING is done digitally, its a crime? "
Such an incredibly weak argument. Copying cassettes from your neighbor is completely different in that the scope of your choices is somewhat limited. You had 25 or however many neighbors to share with back in 1995. With the internet, there is no limit. You can get it all for free from millions and millions of people.
I wish people would pay for music, but everyone wants shit for free. I hope people continue to binge on all this “free” music until the music loses all meaning. No one of you deserve anything.
Score = 0
"music is not something that should be judged in merits of itself, doing handstands on a pedestal as if it were only "created" to be bought, sold, and subsequently admired."
this is from a review of mount eerie's "no flashlight" on tinymixtapes.com and it sums up everything.
Score = 0
hey lily, maybe someone should ask the chickens how much they would like charge for their eggs then?
Score = 1
Anyone who starts a band in hopes of making a living at it should have their head examined. Financial success is often a latent effect of making accessible or catchy or sometimes even good music and working to find your audience. But if you're making music and forcing it into an already over saturated market for any reason other than you have to make music, I mean you would wither and die if you couldn't write and record and perform, you should really reconsider doing it. I have more respect for weekend warriors playing Deep Purple covers at a dive bar than someone wearing the "right" clothes and having the "right" haircut so they can "make it".
And by the way, Gene, I bought all your records at a great used record store in my hometown. You didn't make a cent off those sales either.
Score = 0
I feel so much better about that KISS album I downloaded, now.
Score = 0
well..I guess we'll just have to continue downloading for free without the option.
Score = 0
It's obviously taking some people awhile to figure out that it's not just the "old way" vs. the "new way" in the music business anymore, it's that the "old way" is almost COMPLETELY irrelevant already, like it or not.
Musicians are going to have to find new ways to generate revenue from their art - as simple as that. Suddenly, licensing a song to a TV commercial for $50,000 in order to continue making uncompromised music you can get directly to your fans without a record label middleman doesn't seem like such a "sell out move" anymore; in fact, it makes total sense.
In 20/20 hindsight, the REAL "sell-out move" has ALWAYS been signing to a major label - they ultimately own and control an artist's entire career and music. Thank God that's not the only way to reach people anymore; in fact, it's starting to look like the least promising method to do so more and more each day!
Check out my band PISTOL OPERA - we RULE BENEVOLENTLY.
Score = 0
I understand the desire to only pay to the artist and not the record industry, but I need to point out that the extra revenue from the big artists, the radioheads, madonnas and 1994 oasis, are what support the hundred of little bands that the labels sign, pay, and watch flounder. Its too bad the industry has shot its credibility because its not the system thats wrong, its the way its been abused by them.
Support the WGA!
Score = 0
Everyone seems to have forgotten about the Radiohead discbox that was made available at the same time as the album that has exclusive B-sides, artwork and the album in every damn format. Tons of people paid for that.
The whole notion that Radiohead is simply "giving away" their music isn't entirely accurate.
Score = 0
In most non-Western countries if you want to be a successful musician you have to accept that your music is going to be bought at very low prices (a little more than the cost of a CD-r to make it) and that money won't go to you. So these artists rely on merchandising and intense touring to make a buck. It's not great when compared to the model that Western musicians are comfortable with dealing with, but hey...that's how it was back in the day as well.
If anything all this artist suffering with poor record sales and whatnot should be producing some great brooding music but it hasn't seemed to do that trick yet.
Score = 0
since when did art follow the rules?
Score = 0
since when did art follow the rules?
Score = 0
something to remember:
the great Radiohead experiment is only half finished. most everyone (outside of this forum) fails to note that they ARE in fact releasing a tangible, 'go-to-your-local-whatever-store-and-buy' CD version to purchase. They haven't abandoned the model that Lily/Oasis/Gene hold so precious.
Should said album sell 100K units it's first week, it only complicates the notion of "people are willing to buy" vs. "people only want it for free". And how many people would rather buy via their own price vs. a set price?
The end result could prove to be a very interesting blog for this site
Score = 0
not a big lily fan, but i totally agree with her here.
Score = -1
"when did being a musician have anything to do about making money?"
ahhh, how idealistic. you must be young....
"hey lilly -
nice try with the analogy, but eggs and art are two completely different things. when a piece of art is created the (unsigned) artist is entitled do whatever the fuck he/she wants to with it."
true...they can do whatever they want with it, and radiohead did. but that;s not what lily is complaining about...go to a gallery opening, cause ART is not FREE. what lily is saying is that it sucks when people with tons of money do that because then the public gets the impression that every artist should be forking up their music when they haven;t made any money yet. if people are going to put the time and effort into art, why not charge a bit for it so that the person who created it can someday have the resources to make more
Score = 0
I can't believe how gullible people are. If this is really the 'new model' why is Radiohead still shopping 'In Rainbows' to the labels? It was just a publicity stunt. A wildly successful one it would appear. The model is being realized by Saul Williams(w/ Reznor's help).
Score = 0
I can't believe how gullible people are. If this is really the 'new model' why is Radiohead still shopping 'In Rainbows' to the labels? It was just a publicity stunt. A wildly successful one it would appear. The model is being realized by Saul Williams(w/ Reznor's help).
Score = 0
ARRGG! Radiohead are NOT "giving their music away for free"!
They are just, in effect, admitting that anyone can get it for free if they want, through bittorrent or other, and are allowing people to give them a bit more money for it if they want.
It's annoying to see that misunderstanding everywhere, most people just can't admit that pirated music is easily available despite all the efforts of the industry. That can be good or bad but it's a fact and RH know it.
Score = 0
Would all the musicians with a degree in economics please raise their hand?
Would all those who have not raise their hand please shut the hell up?
Score = 0
Never heard any of Lily Allen's material. Any of it good?
Score = 0
Basically, whether you agree with it or not, Radiohead are just the first to do what may well be commonplace for all bands in a few years. Downloading is simply the consequence of the information age we live in, just as bootlegging was the consequence of prohibition. This may be a facile analogy but the point is that humans will do what they can get away with -- that is an inevitiblity. We can debate the ethics of it endlessly, but that doesn't change the reality.
The point is to adapt to the changing climate of your chosen profession. If everyone's going to download your album for free before its released, why not just give it to them and let them decide what its worth. You'll find that a lot of people prefer doing the "right thing" because its the right thing, not because they're forced to.
Gene Simmons, unsurprisingly, is stuck in the old way of thinking, which may be OK in theory but simply cannot coexist with something like the internet. But that's not necessarily a bad thing. The internet has changed industry in countless positive ways, including creating a market for smaller bands that may otherwise have no chance to obtain a worldwide fanbase. Ever wonder why you dont hear about "indie" bands from the '60s and '70s? I think its becuase bands in those days stood no chance without a mega-corporation behind them. Without supreme talent or amazingly good luck they just faded into obscurity.
The good news is that in the "Radiohead" model, the mega-corporation is no longer a necessity. An artist can maintain full artistic control (working outside the confined of a label) and pick and choose their corporate ties (via commercials, etc.) Artists no longer have to sell their souls to a sole entity achieve popularity -- they can do it on their own terms. So in actuality, this new model may turn out to be the realization of every artists' dream to make meaningful art and profit from it simultaneously. Wouldn't that be something?
Score = 0
Musicians made a living on performances for centuries, hell, for over a millenium. The past eighty years have been a freakish phenomenon. Of course, one can't expect pop stars to have even a remote understanding of musicology. After all, then they wouldn't cheapen themselves by being symbols rather than souls.
Score = 0
The proof is in the pudding. The internet has been a tremendous boon for music and music lovers. I've lost track of the number of new artists I've discovered the last couple of years because of the internet. My fear is that many won't have long-lasting careers but rather will disappear after a couple of albums without a meaningful way to support themselves. Also, those of us who are precious about our music will have to get over our distaste for hearing songs we love or bands we love on commercials. Faced with relative poverty and little record company support it is only right that bands license their music for commercials. As for Radiohead, I think it was a very astute move to raise their profile which had been on the wane for some time.
Score = 0
Adam your a fucking idiot when you say Oasis is just jealous becuase they dont have commercial success and that they wouldnt be anywhere w/o the internet. Oasis is one of the biggest selling groups of all time. They made all their money in the 90's. Hate to break it to ya but the internet wasn't a huge selling point for bands in the early 90's.
Score = 0
...most of you are reading too much into WHO is saying this, rather than WHAT they're actually saying..
none of their logic is actually wrong, they all have good valid points. radiohead did what was best for radiohead. not everyone should follow suit.
i kind of get the feeling that if Sufjan Stevens publically dis-approved of the mothods, you're reaction would be a little more like...
"...well we don't all totally agree with him, but he's got some good points.."
Score = 0
Radiohead are geniuses, Gene Simmons and Liam Gallagher and especially Lily Allen, are not.
All of you who are upset by the whole Piracy thing, just wait. Like this really matters in the big picture of things... I say good god, lets clean out the attic. If that means that a few bands that I like cant exist anymore because they couldnt figure out a way to make it work in the current model then so be it. If it helps get rid of the inane and innocuous pop stars then I say it was worth it. All we're gonna be left with is people who really care about the music they make or people who are clever enough to make money off the current model. Either way I will applaud them both.
Score = 0
I love oasis and lily allen is quite beautiful but i am not a fan of kiss or gene simmons whatsoever. they should mind their own music. theyre publicly announcing their jealousy of the prosperity of a great band, radiohead. new bands most likely would not take that same approach due to financial need. they do what they need to to get by. radiohead has prospered very much and do not need peoples money. this shows that they are content with their monetary situation but still love to make music and want their fans to here it. i am not siding with anyone. bands should be able to make their own choices. if they want to allow fans to pay what they want if anything for their music let them. if the band feels they must take the cliche route and charge $13.98 for their cd let them. i personally did download in rainbows for free. its a great cd. i hope they decide to take the same approach with the next record as i am only 16 and do not have a steady income that allows me buy cds frequently.
Score = 0
If artists want to get economical about it, then they ought to realise that in a capitalist society, whoever sells for cheapest is going to outsell the rest - that is, if the stuff they are selling is of good quality. With Radiohead, it's plain to see they've got that part down.
Furthermore, it's Radiohead's music. It's their intellectual property! Who are you to tell them what they can and can't do with it off contract?
Sorry, Lily.. maybe you can cry on Alfie's shoulder.
Score = 0
Lilly Allen should shut her damn mouth. Who does she think she is having the right to criticise a band like Radiohead. Radiohead have sold 7 times the amount of records that she has and have had a million times the influence. They have influenced fucking jazz musicians for gods sakes let alone millions of rockers. And yes, that guy from the Smiths did say it best. Lilly is a jealous cow by the sound of it.
Score = 0
All the little 20 something's wanting shit for free...You're all too stupid to realize the slippery slope you're on....Here we are a year on from this article and Simmons is proving right...Artists (Young ones too) are losing out. People are beginning to not want to record anymore...eventually, you'll be left with touring acts only. Oh, and by the way morons...For one FUCKING second...think about this-THINK ABOUT THIS-What if it were you...Songwriter just trying to make a living? You couldn't...Because some snot nose little asshole is stealing it from the web. The music biz could die from this. Or, with Gods help...techies will put a stop to it...
Score = 0