Jeff Tripoli

intermission

Since the advent of counter-culture, every generation has had its voice, and every decade has had its musical revolution. Usually, one artist at the forefront of the recording arts epitomizes this vision.

For the ‘60s, it was the Beatles; the ‘70s had Led Zeppelin; the ‘80s had … hair metal. Ok, so maybe that generation lost its voice from too much stadium screaming and panty throwing at over-dolled androgynous men, but the pop-culture cable car got back on track, until the death of Kurt Cobain.

So of the myriad of acts vying for our attention, what group has emerged, now, in the home stretch of this decade, as the pre-eminent pioneer of modern music? I asked a few music aficionados from across the country, and the answer was pretty unanimous, much to my chagrin.

“I can’t think of a single band that would really be placed above Radiohead as the greatest alternative rock band of the 2000s, or even the ‘90s,” Daniel Salas of Texas said. “Some other bands may have received more recognition, like Oasis, but they haven’t been nearly as influential as Radiohead has been.”

Having re-stylized themselves with practically each of their seven releases, their appeal seems to be their bland experimentalism which, unlike the true experimentalism of bygone eras, is largely innocuous and hypnotically appealing rather than trailblazing.

With the release of their seventh title, In Rainbows, late last year, the band is at the crux of their success, despite the lack of a major label-deal for the first time in their nearly two-decade career. The record has once again earned the band almost unanimous acclaim, while failing to do anything they haven’t already done before.

This time, however, it’s about more than the music.

“I think the way it was released is much more significant than the actual album itself,” Jesse Sadowski of Florida said. “I listened through it two or three times and I thought it was decent, but not mindblowing.”

At a loss for how to distribute the album without a major label distribution deal, Radiohead made entertainment headlines by releasing In Rainbows via their Web site, allowing purchasers to name their own price. Just how much of an impact will this have on the music industry in the future, though?

“I think it really helped them sell the album,” Salas explained. “The whole thing was all over the news when it was first announced. It was all any music sites would really talk about. I think that because Radiohead is such a big band, it caught everybody’s attention. If another band could generate as much hype as Radiohead did, then I’d say that it’s definitely a great marketing plan.”

The question remains, however: could this become the standard for all artists, big and small?

“Other ‘lesser known’ artists might not find success in this sort of marketing,” Adam Gravelle of Nova Scotia, Canada said. “I mean sure, for … unknown bands, friends and family will pay for [their work] but what about the people who haven’t heard of the band? Overall, it seems like a method that only large-scale bands like Radiohead could pull off.”

With online music stores like Amazon and pay-for-use programs like Napster and iTunes, there’s little room for micro-managing purchases through each artist’s own Web site.

“[If I like a band], then I’ll download [their music] off of iTunes or Rhapsody,” Sadowski said. “If it’s a band that I absolutely love, then I will obtain physical copies of their discography. I downloaded [In Rainbows] back when it came out, but I didn’t pay for it simply because I wasn’t a Radiohead fan.”

Apparently, Sadowski’s not the only one. Although the record has purportedly “sold” over 1.2 million copies, around a third of the online downloaders paid $0. This brought the average price paid for the album through online sales down to around $8 or $9. This is still pretty amazing though, considering common sense tells us that someone’s not going to pay money for something they could get for free. How, then, does Radiohead defy the principles of economics?

“The fact that Radiohead already has an enormous fan base obviously contributed to their success with the digital release,” Gravelle said. “Many people probably purchased the album out of respect for the band, instead of paying ‘nothing’. I don’t think just any band could be successful in this, although it could serve as a good way of spreading the word about independent artists.”

The band has had additional success through their release of a limited edition box set and a standard CD release through an independent distribution deal. The band also claims, however, that initial online sales were enough to pay for the recording and distribution of the record in its CD form.

“I first purchased this album for $0 as a download from their site,” Gravelle said. “I enjoyed the album very much, so when it came out on CD I bought it as well. The enjoyability of the album drove me to actually spend money on it.”

So while the scheme seemed to work pretty well for Radiohead, who has since discontinued the “free” download, I have my serious doubts as to whether it will catch on as a common method for independent artists in general to get their work heard. Thom Yorke undoubtedly has the monetary means to fund and distribute the album out of pocket, but the vast majority of musicians struggle to pay for the eight-track they used to record their demo.

Now that huge bands can ride the momentum of their success all the way to the bank without the help of a major label contract, Radiohead’s legacy may yet be the quashing of small-time artists’ slightest chance of success. Or it could just be the final nail in the coffin of an archaic business model that has caused frustration, heartache and even suicide of artists for decades.

Hopefully, if Radiohead can accomplish anything, it’s the latter.