(At first I was surprised that it was in this year’s running, but I learned that it was because the album’s “hard copy” was released on January 1, 2008. But they didn’t talk about the digital release last year much either…hmm…)
Many organizations, such as the Metropolitan Museum, have taken this route for years—and they’ve found long-term sustainability in not quantifying the arts. Judging by the fact that I rarely see anyone at the MET without their colored aluminum tag “en lapel,” people are not willing to be perceived as cheapskates even though the minimum donation is merely “suggested.”
This leads to why I am proud of the outcome of Radiohead’s “little” experiment. No one knows if you download In Rainbows for free—there’s simply no shame in it. But most people paid anyway, affording the music makers viable compensation for their work.
Distribution costs are out. Perfect infinite copies are in. People know this and so I’m also not surprised to read that as many as 60% of listeners may have downloaded for free. If 60% of something in the traditional model was stolen that would be a problem. But in this model, so what? The option was provided to do so and the band-mates were better off in the end anyhow.
I’m not arguing that it should have won album of the year; I did not even listen to all the options.
However, I might argue that it was downplayed during the awards ceremony out of fear. General fear of the content-makers who bravely turn away from “this decaying business model.” And fear by those struggling to run the show that soon there will be no need for music categories when everything is blurring anyway, televised “live” performances that can be rewound with DVRs over and over, or high-brow awards when public rankings and reviews are what mean the most to consumers in the end.
So, thanks for sharing, Radiohead (because I know you’re reading this).
Note, added 2/11/09: So the video at the top of this used to work…case in point!