Robert Smith Says Radiohead Model Is "An Idiot Plan" • Sorry guys, the price of a Cure album will never be Up To You. Robert skewered the In Rainbows strategy in an interview with Music Radar thusly: "You can't allow other people to put a price on what you do, otherwise you don't consider what you do to have any value at all and that's nonsense. If I put a value on my music and no one's prepared to pay that, then more fool me, but the idea that the value is created by the consumer is an idiot plan, it can't work." We'll help Robert out by completing his thought for him: "Except for the time In Rainbows went to #1 on the charts. Other than that, it can't work." You're welcome.
Posted at 4:16 PM in Where's The Beef?
Tags: Radiohead | The Cure
there's no price that could possibly be low enough to pay for the latest cure album. sorry robert.
Score = 56
jealous cause his new record sold eleven copies.
Score = 22
i don't buy robert smith's music. i get it for free off the internet.
that's how much I value his music.
Score = 42
there's always a chance you are a complete and utter asshole for thinking that about The Cure
Score = -8
the price of the art is not what matters
Score = 34
Smith does have a point in my view, I mean come on, In Rainbows would have gone to No. 1 regardless of whether their strategy was "an idiot plan" or not. The fact is they're Radiohead ffs.
Score = 6
robert smith, robert smith...let's see...robert smith...isn't he the 50 year old still wearing lipstick and eyeliner?
Score = 9
now THERE'S an original complaint.
Score = 31
Smith's not entirely wrong here; I mean, can you really imagine many other bands employing this plan sucessfully? But more importantly, that Music Radar hyperlink not only takes you to the whole interview but also a Wish-y-era-sounding live performance of "Underneath The Stars" in Rome. Q
Score = 20
oh, he's so teen angsty
Score = 3
sorry robert but the value always was determined by the consumer. it's called supply and demand.
Score = 34
Double ups.
Score = 1
The problem is that Mr. Smith is confused. If he is talking about inate artistic value, then no, that is not determined by the consumer (or maybe it is--that is a difference discussion). If we are talking about value as in how much something costs (like Fair Market Value), then, yes, that is determined by the consumer. In fact, that is the definition of value, I think. I was an English Major, so I might be wrong. It appears, by railing on a payment plan, that Mr. Smith is talking about the FMV of a product, and therefore, he is wrong.
Score = 6
I can't believe a year and a half later people are still talking about this, it was just a promotional tool to sell more albums, it wasn't meant to revolutionize anything, a gimmick was it all it was. Even Radiohead managers said so.
Score = 6
"the idea that the value is created by the consumer is an idiot plan, it can't work". which i guess is why radiohead made 10x more money on in rainbows than they ever did from any of their other albums.
Score = 8
the thing he's wrong about is that you can't allow other people to put a price on what you do. of course you can. you have to. especially if you're signed to a damn record label. robert doesn't decide that his discs will sell for $12.99 or whatever. the label does. and beyond that, the consumer has to assign a value to what you do, then the consumer decides whether or not that value is worth the price you're charging. or they just download it illegally.
and either way, it's stupid to talk about it anymore. it was a year an a half ago for one thing, and radiohead never even said they thought it was a sustainable long term plan. it only lasted for 2 months, then they took it down! now if you want in rainbows you have to get it the same way you'd get anybody else's music.
Score = 5
It's also interesting because, what does the price/value of a record even mean? If you look at how many people have access to listen to the music vs. the amount of money taken in by his record company, the price has only been set by the public. He/they have no real control over that.
Score = 4
I think it worked for Radiohead out of pure shock value. It was not just a way of pricing and distributing their album. It was a massive advertiseing campaign once the concept hit the media. And it was free advertising. Radiohead often does this. Rather than spending money on ads, they instead come up with someone so different everyone will want to talk about it. For that reason alone it's a genius plan.
Score = 10
obviously robert has put so much of himself in his music that he can't accept the fact that the customers will determine the value of his work. that is also why the cure has never followed any trend, (in the 00's the cure were a bit out of place); he is not entirely right here but he has also a point; if music become like any other goods, you end up with things like coldplay; radiohead didnt take much risk with that strategy regarding the popularity that they had at the time;
Score = -1
Robert Smith brings this up two years after everyone else has already digested this idea -- only affirming the whole "irrelevant, out of touch dinosaur" thing.
Score = -4
if robert put out a cd of carnage visors and nobody want to pay for it, does that mean that the music is bad?
business, art, and mainstream culture are three things different
Score = 4
Who the fuck is Robert Smith anyway?
Score = -42
and who the fuck are you?
Score = 10
No, no. Leave him be. He's right to ask that question.
Score = -2
Running back for the Minnesota Vikings in the late '90s. Not sure why he is relevant in this whole discussion but whatevs.
Score = 18
you know the guy who did all the new wave stuff, like bloc party, yyy, the rapture etc...but 20 years ago
Score = 5
Whether he's right or not is kind of irrelevant. He could have worded it without sounding like such a dick. Probably just trying to make headlines.
Score = 0
Success
Score = 1
This is so fucking annoying how many of these money-hungry big name artists have no interest in progress. Robert Smith can now add his name to the list of big name artists who have either ignored or shit on Radiohead's brilliant model along with Billy Corgan, Trent Reznor, Oasis, Metallica, the Killers, Coldplay and major label whores U2. Sickening.
"In Rainbows" was one of the biggest albums of the decade! It made them infinitely more popular! They made a shitload of money! They sold out their entire tour! How is nobody seeing the connection here?
When did the music industry get more conservative than the goddamn Bush administration?
Score = -8
Radiohead didn't have a contract to toil under, unlike the rest of the bands you listed.
More importantly, it sold well because it's a fucking great album and dude, Radiohead.
Score = 7
"They made a shitload of money! They sold out their entire tour! How is nobody seeing the connection here?"
Because I'm not entirely sure about the "shitload of money" part, and because they were already selling out tours before.
Score = 6
You're right about the tour, but they confirmed that In Rainbows made them way more money that ever before. Why? Because by releasing it themselves they cut out the middleman, getting 90-100% of the profits as opposed to the 5% or so they would have gotten from a record label.
Score = 4
Which is exactly what all of these other big names SHOULD be doing!
Score = -2
Radiohead > The Cure
Score = 3
In the present tense, yes. But the Cure's body of work stretching from the late '70s until arguably into the early '90s? Let me know when Radiohead approaches that level.
Score = 7
Are you aware that Radiohead has more albums than In Rainbows, I mean they have been providing us with innovative music for well over a decade now.
PS I like The Cure too.
Score = -1
Because Disintegration > OK Computer and Pornography > Kid A, right?
Wrong. Get a clue, ass clown.
Score = -3
Lucy < a turd in a glass
Score = -1
Um, Trent Reznor did not "ignore" or "shit on" Radiohead's model. Ever heard of "Ghosts" or "The Slip"?
Score = 9
no.
Score = 20
http://stereogum.com/archives/video/reznor-vs-radiohead_008470.html
http://stereogum.com/archives/trent-reznor-proposes-internet-tax_007714.html
Score = 1
The Cure model is totally better; put out one good album, then linger sheepishly for thirty years.
Score = 11
The Cure model is totally better; put out one good album, then linger sheepishly for thirty years.
Score = -19
at this point of his career, he'd earn more money from many people paying less to just listen out of curiosity versus fewer people overpaying for what is overvalued by himself.
Score = 0
oh i wasn't aware it's cool to hate on the cure now. thanks for filling me in, guys!
Score = 18
The Cure members are still alive? News to me.
Score = -20
only a handful a bands could pull of the pay what you want thing- cuz the'll make it up in performance fees and merch sales - so to think the model works is nuts- only forsuper groups - which at this point radiohead is - You have to have performance income to back that model of and only 10% of bands on the market do-
if you value your music to be worth nothing- it will effect all the other developing artists that have to pay to track, press, mail and higher pluggers - that's where I think Radiohead showed some serious lack of respect to the common band.
It's a shame to see people haten' on Robert Smith - the guy layed the groundwork for the 'alternative/modern/indie' scene - see Fiction Records - see 80's radio see modern rock go pop in 94 and then it's been sliding ever since.
Score = 18
it wasn't really a "plan".
essentially didn't they just leak the album for everyone before the release date?
Score = 7
i don't know, but you seem to have some insider news, bro! fill us in!
Score = -7
Although I don't agree with Robert Smith's comment, it makes me sad to read all these disrespectful comments about the Cure. Although they may not be the flavour of the week, they produced some of the best and most unique music ever produced. The fact is that a large proportion of the bands that are popular today were probably inspired and influenced by the Cure, directly or indirectly. If anyone has a right to act arrogantly it is Robert Smith :)
Score = 21
Agree. The Cure rules. You kiddies should put down your Radiohead for like one second and look around...
(when someone tells me that they are totally into Radiohead...I stop listneing to what they have to say...)
The Cure's body of work blows Radio's away.
Robert can say whatever he wants.
Score = -21
you make it sound like radiohead is some young hip upstart band. their debut album was over 15 fucking years ago. maybe they're having a popularity resurgence so there are younger folks getting into them now but don't be so condescending for the rest of us.
Score = 11
I hate how everyone always plays the "They influenced other bands and without (insert your stupid old band) there wouldn't be (insert better band)." I swear you might as well credit Beethoven, Bach, and Mozart along with every musician prior to said stupid band.
Score = -4
Robert Smith is fat.
Score = -22
Er... Trent Rezanor gave away the last NIN album for free..., as well as the free Saul Williams album before that which he help produce and release.
Score = -1
An idiot post. The success of one model will not reinvent the wheel. Robert is right: the consumer cannot and should not dictate the value of a product. If a product is valuable to the consumer, the consumer should pay the asking price. If the asking price is unaffordable or undesirable to the consumer, then he should either save and truly appreciate the value of the product upon purchase, or NOT purchase the product, which would eventually result in the artist having to reflect on an important question: if no one is buying my product, am I actually creating something of value? This model would bring us back to the golden age when musicians were educated, songs were good, and competition was based on talent (not PR).
Score = 10
Beethoven, you couldn't be more out of date. Forget the friggin' theory - the reality is if I think his price is too high I can either choose to not buy it or I can DOWLOAD it for FREE. That ain't going to change, buddy. If I, as consumer, can name my price for his product I might slip him a $. I gave radiohead $6 because I want him to get his eye fixed.
Score = 6
Dozens of successful artists give away their music for free. The "plan" is to stay relevant.
Score = 0
The Cure were a great band, and i love their music... but they haven't done anything that great in a looong time.
All Radiohead did was leak their (excellent) album for 2 months with the pay-what-you-want scheme. it was an interesting thing to do, so it got a lot of press. Radiohead themselves weren't aiming for revolution.
Trent Reznor took that concept and perfected it, really. the way he's released his music over the past year is what is really revolutionary, even if the music itself isn't the best of his career.
point is, it only works when you're that caliber of artist with a devoted fan base. the Cure might still have that. NIN and Radiohead definitely do. but i think Robert is sort of being overly close-minded on the concept of adapting to the internet age.
...and the Cure should really try and do something good... challenge themselves and their audience. it was no secret that Robert wanted to put out a pop album to win people over instead of a "darker" album.... he said so himself. nothing wrong with pop albums, but i think he's just aiming to keep making the Cure profitable with lots of forgettable, stale pop songs he wrote better versions of 20 years ago.
Score = 2
you are right, maybe Robert Smith is a little too closed minded to the internet thing;
regarding the "he's just aiming to keep making the cure profitable", i dont think he has to worry about that (anyway, cure doesnt sell much album these days);
the problem with the cure is that they were great and its not easy to still exist while the best you have achieved belong to the past; I would doubt very much that they keep on going just for the money
Score = 0
i agree with your comment. what's interesting about the cure seeming closeminded to the internet is that when they first set up their website back in 95/96 or whenever, they seemed rather ahead of the curve. big talk of new 'web only' albums and singles, downloadable this and that, blah blah...but then it all went away. maybe robert got some bad advice, some investor told him the internet was just a fad.
Score = 0
you people are childish, moaning about Robert. Its his opinion, and just saying how great radiohead are is just silly.
The Cure >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Radiohead anyday anyway. :P also an opinion :P
Score = -6
More than 900,000 attended the 65 shows The Cure played on their world tour 2007-2008. They've sold between 32 and 34 millions of albums. They still sell between 300,000 and 1 million each year. And I don't talk about singles, clothes, compilations and movie soundtracks they're on... So one really think Robert was talking about Radiohead being successfull ?!! He was only trying to say it's not possible to let people choose the price of a product. Radiohead managed to get attention but they quicly changed their strategy when somehow 40 % of people didn't pay a penny to get their album. In Rainbows was a success, Robert Smith knows that. But he's probably convinced that Radiohead won't act the same way next time.
And I have to had he didn't want to release a pop album but a double one with a mix of dark and upbeat songs. His music is always different and ambitious : it's not because The Cure do not sell as they did in the 80's and it's not because they're not into making always the same album, that they're relevant. Listen to "The Scream" and "Underneath The Stars", attend one of their concerts... you'll understand why such an incredible number of musicians refer to The Cure...
Score = 13
I agree with this.
Plus, Robert's comment was taken out of context. Robert was talking about the music industry as a whole, and how influencing the market towards a "pay what you want, or nothing at all" will really hurt upcoming bands who can't conform to this method because selling their stuff is how they try to put food on the table.
Of course, Robert himself explains it best:
"ANY FAMOUS ARTIST WITH A HUGE AND DEVOTED FAN BASE (OFTEN ARRIVED AT WITH A LITTLE HELP FROM A WEALTHY AND POWERFUL 'PATRON' OR TWO?) CAN AFFORD TO DO WHAT HE, SHE OR IT WANTS...
INCLUDING GIVING THEIR ART AWAY AS SOME KIND OF 'LOSS LEADER' TO HELP 'BUILD THE BRAND'
ALL WELL AND GOOD (WELL... NOT REALLY! 'LOSS LEADER'? 'BUILD THE BRAND'? AAGH! BUT THIS IS THE LINGUA FRANCA... )
HOWEVER
IF THIS 'ART FOR FREE' IDEA BECOMES THE CULTURAL NORM
THEN HOW DO ARTISTS EARN THEIR LIVING?
HEY
HANG ON
WHAT WAS THAT ABOUT A WEALTHY AND POWERFUL 'PATRON'
LIKE... A BIG RECORD LABEL?
EXCELLENT!
ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS SIGN UP AND AGREE TO ITS TERMS AND CONDITIONS
AND IT WILL MARKET YOU DECISIVELY
AND IF YOU PLAY IT RIGHT ITS EVEN WEALTHIER AND MORE POWERFUL PARENT COMPANY WILL AIR YOUR WORDS AND PICTURES AND VIDEOS AND MUSIC AND ADS ON ITS MANY AND VARIOUS WEB/TV/RADIO CHANNELS
AND CHARGE ADVERTISERS HUGE AMOUNTS TO ADVERTISE TO THE MILLIONS OF PEOPLE CONSUMING ALL YOUR FREE ART...
AND YOU THE ARTIST WILL OF COURSE GET A 'FAIR' REWARD FOR YOUR EFFORTS... ?"
This is his main issue, and he used "In Rainbows" as an example, because it's the most widely known.
Robert Smith has (successfully) been in this business for over 30 years, and he's definitely had issues with all of the corporation bullshit. You don't have to agree with his views, or like his music (which has been HUGELY successful and is still relevant today--the recent singles topped the charts), but why attack the man? It's childish. Especially because most of you did it just because you're Radiohead fans. Geeze, what happened to respect?
Score = -1
I'm a fan of both bands. I don't know why Smith would care so much about how other bands release their work, but you hipsters need to acknowledge that the Cure is relevant in the sense that they've been around since 1979, they've made some great albums/songs and they're at a point where they can release albums and go on tours until they decide to retire. I've never understood why it becomes cool to shit on bands when the members get to be your parents age. They paved the way for a ton of the bands you call "innovative" today.
Score = 12
I would pay €0,01 for the whole album. Either that or I'll illegally download it or I won't get it at all... The same applies to the latest Cure album, although it's the second best they made since 1993...
Score = -5
The only reason Radiohead's experiment worked for the band was because they had the wealth to play with, including affording many new servers to avoid to many crashes and because the band planned to release a physical version in 2008 and tour. Radiohead was also lucky because of the honor concept among many of its loyal fanbase; also, it didn't tell anyone that it would be a bunch of mediocre quality mp3s. I bought the discbox, personally and love the band, and i think it was a neat thing to do.
However, Robert wasn't just attacking Radiohead. He was criticizing the philosophy that you're willing to accept that your art is worth nothing. He's right about the pretentiousness of "allowing" people to choose the price. Radiohead wouldn't do that for its concert tickets or all its albums in the future; that doesn't quite make it hypocritical, but it doesn't mean the band stands by the idea 100%. For The Cure, so many people download illegally that it's disgusting and immoral and too many people get away with the idea that because it's easy, it's morally okay. Radiohead made it easier by saying that it's okay to only pay us nothing, which I seriously doubt Radiohead thinks. The band was depending on this being a limited thing and the honor system, not on actually taking the concept to the nth degree.
So, they're both right and you internet journalists, especially that dick Ryan Drombal at Pitchfork who'd rather praise that selfish bastard Morrissey who refuses to tour Canada because some poor people make a living sealhunting but has no trouble touring warmongering nations like America and Israel. Screw you guys for attacking a good man and defender of his fanbase, Robert Smith!
Score = 10
you have said absolutely everything i wanted to say, from start to finish. from the radiohead model's ethics [& questionable success] to morrissey's infuriatingly hypocritical canadian boycott.
thank you so much.
Score = 0
Thanks, massromantic. I'm a big Smiths fan, but I was so mad about Morrissey doing that. Robert's so wonderfully honest about stuff.
Score = -1
Why turn the debate into the Cure Vs Radiohead in artistic terms? I saw both bands live last year and enjoyed both concerts immensely. Both make and have made great albums and songs.
Its up to individual bands as to how they distribute their music.
Score = 10
I'm pretty sure Trent Reznor did the same thing not too long after.
Score = -1
Radiohead should have retired halfway through OK Computer.
Score = -17
Props to whoever said they're downloading Robert Smiths music for free.
Art and economics don't mix very well. Several bands have done what Radiohead did or similar, either as a promotional tool or with the idea "who cares if I sell albums, I'll make money in live shows." None of them go quadruple platinum, but they do ok.
Also, if you really want to think about value theory, in economics demand drives price down to marginal cost. The marginal cost--cost of producing an additional unit--of a digital music file is very, very close to 0. That's why illegal downloading is viable. So why not give your music away?
Score = -1
i love the cure, but he is oh so angsty.
Score = 0
The Cure are the best. No wonder they won the GODLIKE GENIUS AWARD by NME!
Score = 6
Yah you're willing to accept that your art is worth nothing if you had very little to do with it to begin with and your bank account is fat.
Score = 0
Look, Robert makes one comment, probably didn't put much thought into how it was worded, but he's Robert Smith and an icon and so if zooms all around the internet and people get worked into a tizzy. You can't compare Radiohead to The Cure. The same way it's silly to compare Nirvana to Smashing Pumpkins to Pearl Jam. Art is art and exists on it's own terms. These aren't football teams--they are not somehow in competition with eachother. Silliness! Is Robert sometimes a little arrogant? Yup. Are the members of Radiohead? Oh god yeah. Ever seen them interviewed? And it's perfectly okay--who gives a f***?
Score = 6
Robert Smith is the Kanye West of fag music.
Score = -25
Kanye West is the Kanye West of fag music.
Score = 9
ummm, i guess depending on what people mean by a model "working" for a band, but haven't people been passing a hat in a crowd after a gig and other similar practices for a long time? while you can't buy a jet with such earnings, you can scrape by, no?
Score = -1
First of all, Robert Smith is totally lame. The Cure is overrated.
Now that that's out of the way; the model worked for Radiohead because they were the first people ever to do it and because they were already so ridiculously famous. I paid 5 pounds for 'In Rainbows' which is about equal to the $9.99 I would have paid if I got it on iTunes, all of which went to Radiohead rather than a record label, which made me very happy. I did that because I thought that what they were doing was really cool and I wanted to support the idea. If every band started doing it, however, I doubt I would pay for everyone's album. At that point the "price" of supporting an idea or feeling good about yourself for doing so goes up dramatically. It is possible, but doesn't seem likely, that artists could still make more than the dollar or so per CD that they receive under the current system if everyone switched to this model. Basically my point is that Robert Smith is right but for the wrong reason. Also, it wasn't an "idiot plan". I saw it as brilliant social commentary, whether they intended it to be or not. It raises all kinds of questions about capitalism and the inherent value of art.
Score = -11
So, you're just a Radiohead fan, obviously not a Cure one. How did you come up with these 5 pounds? What if someone else would have come up with 1, or 0 ? Robert Smith is right about that. He sure had in mind not jyst Radiohead, but also the fat cats form the music business too. If you really live up to your profession, you cannot allow it to be degraded by others. If consumers don't buy it, you just stop selling it. But you never give it for free. If you do, its' just your hobby, not your profession. Radiohead would have never been able to sell In Rainbows so massively, hadn't they been backed up by the industry in their first 10 years. So, it is not fair to put it all to Robert. After all, this Guerilla advertising campaign of radiohead paid off. They sell their album now regularly, like EVERYBODY ELSE!
Score = 10
Hmm, when was the last time I BOUGHT a Cure album? Hmm, about 10 years ago!
Score = -10
Haha...And when was the last time you BOUGHT an album at all? Ten years...?
Score = 12
Supply and demand??? There is no free lunch in any economy. So, you propose that bad albums should be given for free, because the supposedly low demand, while the good albums should be expensive to buy...Doesn't make sense. If it did, we'd all be listening to Shania Twain by now, cos there wouldn;t be anything else. Just imagine you visit a doctor and just because you don't like his moustache, you leave just a dollar, instead of the real price...The next time there wouldn't be any doctor for you, they'd be al broke....
Score = 4
I think Robert has not only missed the point, he's failed to even consider all the facts. Putting a price tag on something doesn't give it intrinsic worth and when was the last time he, or any other musicians apart from Radiohead, got to decide how much to charge for their music. The 'idiot plan' of self releasing and letting people pay want they want may well be misguided for the unknown but this is Radiohead we're talking about here. In one typically bold and innovative move they've managed to create a shit storm of publicity for their new album, win a power battle with record companies who didn't even know they were in a fight and, in their own words, make 'more money during the three months prior to the album's physical release than [they] made [in] total on 2003's "Hail to the Thief."' The physical album then went on to top the US and UK charts when released. I should have such idiot plans that can't work.
Score = 0
How to create a shitstorm.
Take one part Stereogum taking quote of context or exaggerating it
Add two parts Radiohead
Add 1 part other notable band who was responsible for offending quote
Add rabid fans
Mix together and stir on low heat for 5 days|
Yield: #1 most commented shitstorm of the week.
Score = 12
Robert Smith is an idiot plan.
Score = -12
First, both the Cure and Radiohead are amazing. Not really much room for debate there.
Second, Kanye is the Kanye of "fag music". True.
Third, ol' Bob, Radiohead and Kanye are ALL getting paid, so who gives a shit?
Actually, I do...sort of. It's become painfully clear from the responses here that LOTS of people will illegally download music. So, long and short of it, this little debate is a moot point to all of you fuckers who AREN'T MUSICIANS but will gladly steal what musicians spend their blood, sweat, tears and money making. I suggest you all read the liner notes to Neko Case's 'Canadian Amp'. I don't steal the Whopper your sorry ass flips at Burger King, so please don't steal the songs that provide at least part of my livelihood. I have rent and kids and bills too, bickering Hipsters.
As for those of us who sorta HAVE to think about this issue, because it's how we pay the mortgage and feed our kids, year and a half ago or not or squibbly-doo who the fuck cares or whatever, this is still a valid discussion. Though, that said, the Cure and Radiohead and Kanye probably don't really need to worry all that much about it at this point. For those of us on the come up in this climate of digital digtalness and all that entails, though...
Score = 5
Yeah, it went to Number 1, but did we ever find out how much money it made?
Honestly, I loved the idea. It made everyone really consider how much they value Radiohead a a band. But yeah, it only REALLY worked because they ended up releasing a hard copy.
Which pissed me off, cause I paid for the o.g. download, only having to pay the same amount for my stickers and CD!
Score = -1
Well....I'm a big cure's fan....I'm often agree with what Robert says...and...now...too........In my opinion..the problem is.that....I.could.deicde..to pay.an Album..yes...BUT AFTER HAVE LISTENED TO IT!!!!!!!!!!!....yes..it..is good...30 Euro...not..is bad to me....1Euro............uderstand.....that's all folks...
Score = -6
More than 900,000 attended the 65 shows The Cure played on their world tour 2007-2008. They've sold between 32 and 34 millions of albums. They still sell between 300,000 and 1 million each year. And I don't talk about singles, clothes, compilations and movie soundtracks they're on... So one really think Robert was talking about Radiohead being successful ?!! He was only trying to say it's not possible to let people choose the price of a product when it’s art. Radiohead managed to get attention but they quickly changed their strategy when somehow 40 % of people didn't pay a penny to get their album. In Rainbows was a success, Robert Smith knows that. But he's probably convinced that Radiohead won't act the same way next time.
And I have to add he didn't want to release a pop album but a double one with a mix of dark and upbeat songs. His music is always different and ambitious : it's not because The Cure do not sell as they did in the 80's and it's not because they're not into making always the same album, that they're not relevant. Listen to "The Scream" and "Underneath The Stars", attend one of their concerts... you'll understand why such an incredible number of musicians refer to The Cure...
Robert Smith is smarter than one may think, by far. Either you like their work or not, The Cure is a symbol of integrity. There are very few artists who doesn’t accept their stuff to be used on adverts (the only time Robert did so, it was to protect his back catalogue), who shout at I tunes when they want to sell a Cure E.P. at the price of a whole album, who care about ticket concert price, who fight with their label to release a free bonus acoustic CD when releasing a Greatest Hits…
I really love Radiohead’s music, but I’m not that enthusiastic regarding the way they act : they’re more interested by money than they pretend to be. One could ask the amount they asked for to play a festival in Arras last year…
Score = 7
Smithy can say what he likes. The man has 30 years knowledge in the industry, im thinking its not an un-educated opinion. You wouldnt buy a Radiohead album anymore would you? they set a precedent, its all free from here on in and even thats too much for the crap they've released in the last few years. Nerds.
Score = 4
You aint foolin' anybody.
Score = -1
radiohead is slammed by both trent reznor and smith because the two know these 5 no talent hicks are just riding the same convoluted reasoning much of their fans that are mostly composed of indie loving music snobs also share. full of hubris and pretense. these posturings make something like limp bizkit a paragon of virtue. at least there, the filth don't pretend to be something its not. robert smith owns thom yorke anytime of the day.
Score = 0
First I guess we're supposed to qualify ourselves by talking about how much better one artist is than the other, right? Well, I own more Cure albums than Radiohead albums, so take that to mean what it will. I like both bands, honestly.
I don't understand what exactly is meant by people who say "The Radiohead model" won't work for "upstart" or "young" bands. As far as I can tell, young bands most often give their music away for free; they've been doing it for decades. Am I the only person whose pockets are constantly inundated with local CDs everytime I go out on the weekend? And people have been haggling over prices on CDs and letting people name their own prices forever, just ask any kid who sells his own CDs out of his trunk.
Anyway, in my experience, giving music away for free online doesn't preclude you from making money selling CDs. My band has been doing it for several years, and we make plenty of money selling physical CDs at shows. The idea of "value" in art is flawed. People value the musicians, not the music. If the audience has no personal connection to you, then they won't think twice about taking your art for free. If they feel some sort of empathy towards you--as in something tangible or real, not just that they like your music--then generally they are happy to help out by buying an album; because buying an album in that context doesn't feel like "commerce" or "business", instead it feels good. What doesn't work is brow-beating people into paying for 1s and 0s when they don't really like you or your music much to begin with.
Score = 3
i have a big penis.
Score = -5
ROBERT SMITH IS GOD! THE CURE TILL I DIE...AND BEYOND!
Score = 2
I find Radiohead quite boring and The Cure, well, have seen better years.
But lets come back to the real question...
I think offering all your art for free would be an ideal case, like communism, and thats why it can't work. Music fans would maybe transfer money for the first couple of albums, but then it would fail because consuming becomes so easy why should anyone pay hard-earned money? I personally, wouldn't know how much I'd value an album which has had a real impact on my life...10€ or 120€ ?
I mean, in the end attention is the real currency of the 21th century, and in this case Radiohead have made it right. And Robert Smith goes Noel Gallagher... and is probably doing right, too. But these are big name artists, who can afford such discussions... think of the young bands...they hardly earn anything from record sales and have to tour their arses off to pay the rent. should this be the future of musicianship?
Score = 0
he's just sore that nobody cares about him anymore.
Score = -9
Robert Smith is sad. Sad, but dreamy.
Score = 0
Robert was talking about putting a value to your art, not the records. I think many people here seem to have misunderstood the whole thing. You should probably read the whole article and think a little bit before insulting the man. And as many, I do like Radiohead and I like the Cure but anyone here who thinks Radiohead is better than THe Cure or that thinks Robert is an idiot or is envious of their fame has obviously no clue about music. Radiohead is here becuase of The Cure as well as many other bands of the present scene. They have been in the stage for 30 damn years! Robert probably has right now enough money to live the rest of his life without leaving his house (and way more than all Radiohead, trust me) and as somebody said he`s a model of integrity. Now, if you dont like their music, fair enough, but to dont recognize who Robert Smith is just shows a completely lack of musical knowledge.. Young kids...
And I think the whole In Rainbows situation was just a marketing tool, sucessful, yes of course, but at the end is not like they invented the rain.
Score = 1
Wait, Robert Smith is still alive?
Score = -7
Robert Smith said this on their official website the other day
(oh and I agree by the way)
SO
IT SEEMS A FEW PROFESSIONAL APOLOGISTS (YOU HAVE TOLOVE THEM!) OUT THERE DISAGREE WITH MY "EVERY ARTIST SHOULD VALUE THEIRART" MUSING
AND THINK ITS OK FOR ART - MUSIC IN PARTICULAR - TO BEMADE AVAILABLE FREE FOR ALL...
NO I AM NOT CONFUSING 'ARTISTIC VALUE' WITH'COMMERCIAL VALUE'
MERELY QUESTIONING THE DUMB ACCEPTANCE OF THE 'FREEART IS THE 'NEW' PARADIGM - THATS JUST THE WAY IT IS' MANTRA
IN THE WAY OF OUR BRIGHT AND BRAVE NEW WIRED WORLD
THESE IDIOT CRITICS HAVE TRIED VERY HARD TO TURN MYGENERAL POINT - A POINT I MADE USING RADIOHEAD'S 'IN RAINBOWS: PAY WHAT YOUWANT' MARKETING RUSE AS IT IS THE MOST WIDELY KNOWN EXAMPLE - INTO A MOCK SHOCKHORROR "HOW DARE ANYONE QUESTION THE FAMOUSLY INDEPENDENT ANDANTI-CAPITALIST RADIOHEAD, THEY SELL MORE 'PRODUCT' THAN THE CURE SO THEIRSTRATEGY OBVIOUSLY 'WORKED' (HUH?!!)... AND ANYWAY, ROBERT SMITH IS WAY TOO OLDTO COMMENT ON CONTEMPORARY CULTURE" MOMENT...
MY POINT IS NEITHER PARTICULARLY NEW NOR ORIGINAL
NOR EXCLUSIVELY ABOUT RADIOHEADS 'IN RAINBOWS'
BUT IT IS I FEEL STILL COMPELLING
ANY FAMOUS ARTIST WITH A HUGE AND DEVOTED FAN BASE(OFTEN ARRIVED AT WITH A LITTLE HELP FROM A WEALTHY AND POWERFUL 'PATRON' ORTWO?) CAN AFFORD TO DO WHAT HE, SHE OR IT WANTS...
INCLUDING GIVING THEIR ART AWAY AS SOME KIND OF 'LOSSLEADER' TO HELP 'BUILD THE BRAND'
ALL WELL AND GOOD (WELL... NOT REALLY! 'LOSS LEADER'?'BUILD THE BRAND'? AAGH! BUT THIS IS THE LINGUA FRANCA... )
HOWEVER
IF THIS 'ART FOR FREE' IDEA BECOMES THE CULTURAL NORM
THEN HOW DO ARTISTS EARN THEIR LIVING?
HEY
HANG ON
WHAT WAS THAT ABOUT A WEALTHY AND POWERFUL 'PATRON'
LIKE... A BIG RECORD LABEL?
EXCELLENT!
ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS SIGN UP AND AGREE TO ITS TERMSAND CONDITIONS
AND IT WILL MARKET YOU DECISIVELY
AND IF YOU PLAY IT RIGHT ITS EVEN WEALTHIER AND MOREPOWERFUL PARENT COMPANY WILL AIR YOUR WORDS AND PICTURES AND VIDEOS AND MUSICAND ADS ON ITS MANY AND VARIOUS WEB/TV/RADIO CHANNELS
AND CHARGE ADVERTISERS HUGE AMOUNTS TO ADVERTISE TOTHE MILLIONS OF PEOPLE CONSUMING ALL YOUR FREE ART...
AND YOU THE ARTIST WILL OF COURSE GET A 'FAIR' REWARDFOR YOUR EFFORTS... ?
BAH
SOME 'NEW' PARADIGM!
SO
I STAND BY MY POINT:
AN ARTIST HAS TO VALUE THE ART THEY CREATE
OTHERWISE I DONT BELIEVE THEY CAN BELIEVE IT TO BE ART
I AM MORE THAN HAPPY TO PAY AN ARTIST FOR HIS OR HEROR ITS ART
AS IT OBVIOUSLY HELPS ENABLE THAT ARTIST TO KEEPCREATING
AND QUITE HONESTLY
AS ANYONE THAT DISAGREES WITH THIS POINT
IS UNLIKELY TO BE AN ARTIST
I DONT REALLY CARE TOO MUCH WHAT THEY THINK... !!!
I JUST WROTE ALL THIS BECAUSE I GOT PARTICULARLY FEDUP TONIGHT WITH THE SQUEALING HIGH DRAMA OF THE 101 STORIES A DAY AND NONE OFTHEM PARTICULARLY TRUE BRIGHT AND BRAVE NEW WIRED WORLD MEDIA THAT WHINES ONAND ON WITHOUT RESPITE OR REFUTATION…
CRETINS!
OR MAYBE ITS JUST MY POST BIG GIG HANGOVER TALKING?!!
ONWARDS...
RSX
PS
I WONDER HOW MANY OF THE PROFESSIONAL APOLOGISTS OUTTHERE WRITE THEIR SHIT FOR FREE?
HA!
Score = 3
I think that an MP3 download is worth less than a big gatefold-album. For one it has no physical form (other than the files); has not been shipped anywhere and can be sold direct to the consumer. - If your songs arent being shared, you have a problem.. You can't change the fact that many people will download the music. It's partly because it's overpriced, but also because it is impossible easy.. Everything for free on Google in seconds.. Game over.
Score = 1
Robert Smith certainly knows better than what he's saying here. First of all, just simply as a matter of principle, its just straight up stupid to say that its OK for record executives to determine the price of an artistic product but not the consumer. That is a very overly-corporate-friendly point of view, but this is something Smith is just way behind the curve on.
Sad, because in all of popular music that ensued after punk, he may be the single most innovative and influential individual, and was way, way ahead of the curve for so long its hard to estimate his real influence. But he has to know, has to, that records are not where he makes his $$, not since 'Wish' anyways.
Another point - as a matter of basic economics, the consumers do end up setting the price of a product. That's how this all works, and its a big part of why we have internet downloading today. Forever and a half, the music industry has coddled its stars, used stupid and dishonest tactics, and been unnecessarily hostile toward their customers, and yes, charged far too much for their products while allowing very little of that $$ to go to the actual artists. As if you never see copies of 'Wild Mood Swings' sitting in the discount bins for $1.99. Does Robert show up to the record store where his album is relegated to 'cheap-o' status and throw a hissy fit about it? Why not, he's clearly being undersold and should really do something about it!
People who think that they have a inborn-right to make money by playing music - I just have to laugh at them. You know who wants to be a famous musician? Everybody. Know who has a 'right' to be a highly paid, famous musician? Absolutely nobody. If it happens to you - great, make the most of it. If not, join the god damn club! Everybody wants to make music for a living. Having someone download your track as a developing artist is a success, not someone "stealing" from you. Really, if you and your unknown band think you're being ripped off by people, you're just an ego-maniacal douchebag. Get a job like the rest of us!
Score = 1
People (being Robert Smith, Lily Allen, Oasis, and other article comments) don't seem to understand the whole point of the radiohead plan. Its not entirely to let people pay what they want to pay for a cd (although that is a small part of it), its to prove that artists can distribute their music without the help of record labels (who generally take chunks ranging around 80% of the artists profits). And it proved its point very well.
Score = 2
Robert Smith is great. I just hope he didn't say this just to get attention.
Score = 0
I still torrent'd "In Rainbows" even though it was free...
Score = 1
In response to Robert Smith's new comments:
The best "art" is made when people don't get paid for it.
When art becomes your job...you loose your muse...
Making a living off your art is the worst thing that can happen to your "art."
For most artists, their best work is created at the beginning of their careers, before they become "full time artists"....(Bukowski...)
I consider both The Cure and Radiohead "full time artists"...
And not as good as they were before they both took themselves way too seriously.
Before they lost the muse...
When did people first start getting paid for music?
I've always wondered this...
Who was the first dude to say, "I'm a musician. Pay me. For my art."
That must have been so sweet...to be that dude.
Was art created before that time?
Was it valued?
-Farmer Ted
Score = 2
this just in! "Robert Smith feels like an idiot, next Cure he's paying people to hear it!'
is this officially the longest comment list on the shortest article posted?
Score = -3
reading the original robert smith post, i found myself wondering, "how would i feel if someone actually spoke this way to me"
it reminds me of a poorly written high school play
which robert smith physically looks like he could be a character in...
so i guess it all works out.
Score = 0
Haha
"You can't allow other people to put a price on what you do..." because that's the job of the record company who decides all the work that goes into an album is worth exactly $15.99
Score = 0
well it's obvious most of you missed the point and didn't get that this wasn't to be taken so seriously. everyone is entitled to their opinion but i still think THE CURE, ROBERT SMITH is brilliant! if the rest of you can't hear that in his melodic and well written lyrics then you don't deserve to have the privilege to even listen to them. - from the edge of the deep green sea...
Score = 0
Mr. Smith also thought doing Korn unplugged was a good idea. Stick to eating way too much ice cream, Robert.
Score = 0
Lots of people blame Radiohead for this "business" model hurting music sales. If one can get a band's music for free, then why pay for any band's records? Robert's just voicing a grievance of MANY lesser selling bands.
But to be fair, Radiohead ended up signing to a major label and "re-releasing" In Rainbows. (Thus # 1) Certainly not an "idiot plan" but not exactly their primary goal.
NIN are still actively working against the corporate record companies and have distributed their music through other channels. I would say NIN are much more successful in the fight against the industry's moguls.
Score = 0
HAHAHA I love that people get so crazy about stuff like this.
I hate to say it but Robert is right, take Dali as an example he used to give away his art to pay for food etc , this has devalued his art and it is worth a lot less than artists half as good.
Radiohead gave away the cd the people flipped out and made it number one, come on people anyone with a four track and half a mind could have made the last few Radiohead cds even if they released a cd of Thom Farts it would sell well, there fans are sheep anything they do is considered brilliant or ahead of its time, LOL.
But here we are a year later talking about it.
I must say all the free cds I get NIN , Radiohead etc I care less for them and they mean less to me.
Say what you want I wont let anyone else tell me what my art is worth , fuk them!
Score = -1
He's a great guy but really outspoken and comes off as a jerk. I don't think he's envious on their success. He's maybe only jealous he didn't come up with the idea first :) They did kinda become these selfless heroes of the music industry and hearing about it on and on has probably become annoying.
He has a point: most people will spend as little as possible even though they really admire the artist. We haven't yet reached the level of morality for this: be overly nice and your fellow human beings will rip you off and feed off you until you have nothing more to give.
Score = 0
Why is the former running back of the Vikings so mad at Radiohead? I didn't even know he made music!?
Score = 1
eh id buy in rainbows (again), even if it was 50 bucks.
no, seriously.
but robert smiths new album? ahh 5 bucks, maybe?
it sucks, cause i used to love the cure.
Score = 0
Radiohead wishes they could collectively attain even HALF the talent Robert Smith has.
Score = -1
In Rainbows #1 in the charts? Well, that would likely happen to most ANY well known band if they let people pay whatever they chose to pay. Any idiot could figure that out.
Score = 0
There's a lot of heavy weather here and some quite purile unnecessary unpleasantness directed at smith
Smith has a valid
Point though I agree his tone is rather angst ridden. Petulence is hardly endearing and I hope
A man as intelligent as smith hasn't become pompous in his suceess.
For me the point is simple. I run a business and bands are businesses. No business gives its
Product away for free unless it can afford to take the hit. Radiohead can take that hit but other
less established bands
Could not unless they wanted to go bust. Bands need to charge for their music
To pay staff and bills and maintain their career. We put art on a pedistal because it is above
and beyond Money in so many ways. But if artists want to create for a living they have
to be commercial. And if
Your art is exceptional whether your picasso or robert smith it has enormous value as people want it
And enjoy it. And businesses make money out of it. In this way the author should be renumerated.
Otherwise lots of people are making cash from the music accept the author and that's just daft.
Artists deserve this reward for their talent. There is nothing worse than an artist dying peniless
and then
A whole industry cashing in on their psothumous legacy.
I for one don't see many other turkeys voting for christmas free rainbows or not.
Score = 0