direwolf74 Wrote:Tthip Wrote:Thanks for the link.
I just recently read an article that stated Radiohead was not going to be releasing any albums in the foreseeable future, just singles when they feel like it. The album making process is to much of a wear on them.
*edit: Here is an article about that: <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2009/08/12/radiohead-says-no-more-albums/">http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2009/08/12/ ... re-albums/</a><!-- m -->
That's just silly. I love Radiohead's music, but Yorke can be such a pussy sometimes. Is making a full-length album really that taxing? Just about every other band on the planet seems to enjoy the process of making records. What exactly makes it such a chore for Radiohead? Is it because their music is so "brilliant", "genius", and "cutting-edge" that the act of making an album takes more out of them than your average band?
Um, no.
It's because a) nobody buys albums anymore and b) people are only interested in singles.
Yorke understands that if they bother to produce a full length album, few will purchase it and the consumer will instead sift through it, put the tracks he likes on his iPod and discard the rest. This way, the band can continuously keep fans interested, releasing singles once a month or however long it takes them to complete it. Instead of making a bunch of tunes and waiting for a year to release them.
This is also the principle behind In Rainbows. The band only finished the record some 10 days before they released it.
Does a band really need to take 2 years or 3 years to make an album? And when they finish, how long are they sitting on it for? How long was WATS finished for, sitting finished, for months, because the record label said they need to run singles up the charts first? Or how bout Matt Good's Vancouver, which he has openly stated it would have been out months ago if it were up to him, but his label says there was not enough time between his double live album and his new material, so they delayed it for half a year.
Don't shit all over Yorke, if he keeps to his word he and the band will continue to release material constantly for their fans, instead of their fans having to wait for years between albums. Billy Corgan also seems to be going the same route.
And yeah, I would think an album would be taxing. You make 15, 16 songs, whatever, and it's gotta be just perfect for you to release it. There's tons of pressure, which songs stay, which songs get cut, what order they go in, which songs do we work on and try to make better, which songs do we shelve and pull them out a few months from now upon a looming deadline. Instead, nope, we've cut a track. Up on our website. For free. Go nuts.
Like Bob Lefsetz says, you release an album, it takes the fan 2 weeks, 3 weeks, 4 weeks to digest it. Then the fans are done. And they want more. But they can't get more, because you're going to make the fans wait for another 2 or 3 years before they can repeat the process of taking a whopping 4 weeks to digest the new material. Continuously releasing new material is a way to keep your fans continuously interested. I'm an REM fan, I have no fucking clue what's going on there other than they're "working on new material." I'm a Sam Roberts fan, and jeebus, I didn't even know when his last record was coming out, I found out but weeks before it released. I'm a New Pornos fan, and I have no idea if AC Newman is working on his solo garbage or compiling new Porno's stuff, and I've but forgotten about Challengers. Joel Plaskett cut 33 tracks for his last record. Can you imagine if he released a track a week, and THEN put out an album compilation? The Killers, God, they pump up every album like it's the second coming, and then it releases and nobody cares. Ditto for U2, and the album comes out, and it's a huge flop, but they play the roof of the BBC like they're the fucking Beatles? What did people want? Get On Your Boots! Number one singles track on iTunes for quite some time, the rest of the record, who cares? Where's that follow up single? Nowhere, because there ISN'T ONE! Now what? Now we wait for U2 to take another 3 years to compile their next single, I mean, masterpiece that we absolutely must steal, err I mean, own?
Radiohead understands 3 things: That people will download your music anyway. And that a vast majority of people do not care about the album format. And lastly, they understand how to be on the leading edge of the music business industry. Just as what happened with their "tip jar" model, watch people emulate the singles-only-through-download-via-your-website model.