Radiohead Helps Fans Make Crowd-Sourced Live Show DVD 103
Kilrah_il writes "After having a go with a Name-Your-Price album and an open-source video, Radiohead is again breaking new ground, this time with a fan-based initiative. A group of fans went to one of the band's shows in Prague, each shooting the show from a different angle. By editing it all together and adding audio from the original masters provided by the band, they have created a video of the show that is 'Strictly not for sale — By the fans for the fans,' adding, 'Please share and enjoy.' Can this be the future of live show videos?"
Nine Inch Nails did this first (Score:5, Informative)
NIN unofficially released 400gb of raw, professionally shot concert footage and told the internet to turn it into a DVD, resulting in Another Version of the Truth [thisoneisonus.org].
Re:Nine Inch Nails did this first (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Nine Inch Nails did this first (Score:4, Insightful)
As Trent Reznor pointed out in an interview with Digg's Kevin Rose, this business model can only work for those who are already well established or can accept not being megastars.
Getting traction in a market flooded with crap when you don't have advertising money is a losing battle.
Re:Nine Inch Nails did this first (Score:5, Insightful)
As Trent Reznor pointed out in an interview with Digg's Kevin Rose, this business model can only work for those who are already well established or can accept not being megastars.
I have to say - that's a good thing. I'd rather 1,000 productive artists making a living wage than 10 megastars living the life of luxury. After all, being a megastar today is mostly an artifact of the monopoly on distribution enabled by the monopoly of copyright.
What I think is likely to ultimately happen though is that we'll just end up with another avenue to megastardom. People really seem to like to be the same as their neighbors, so I think one way or another they will tend to converge on a handful of artists in order to share in that common experience that comes from listening to the same music (and watching the same movies and reading the same books, etc).
I just hope that whatever new avenues to megastardom become popular, that they don't have the same level of deleterious effect on society and culture that modern copyright law has.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
ANY 'business model' (method of promotion) for a music artist requires an established artist and/or crapload of advertising money to work. There is still yet sadly no such thing as an artist who makes it "big" via merit virally on the internet. (Die Antwoord and those treadmill guys actually had label backing and/or were signed beforehand. Don't believe the BS that they "made it" otherwise! Do a little digging if you don't believe me.)
But the age of music superstardom has come to an end. (Unless you call Am
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
It bacame this way... Originally artist sent demo tapes to radio stations and depending of the DJ's taste he either played them on the air or did not play them, but that was when I was young and beautiful in the 1950's and 1960's.
Re: (Score:2)
The Artic Monkeys [wikipedia.org] had very little paid for advertising prior to their no.1 single "I bet you look good on the dancefloor". Much of what has been written about their popularity prior to their success has been exaggerated, but their success was not due to marketing primarily, at least. They signed to a small label only a couple of months prior to the single's release.
Re: (Score:1)
As Trent Reznor pointed out in an interview with Digg's Kevin Rose, this business model can only work for those who are already well established or can accept not being megastars.
Getting traction in a market flooded with crap when you don't have advertising money is a losing battle.
I don't think Radiohead care if they are megastars or not. They just want to do what they do and they do it very well. I agree with you though that this really would not work for the general consumable background noise that the record companies make most of their profits on.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't think Radiohead care if they are megastars or not.
Says the 'already-Megastars' band Radiohead.
I think they would care if they were NOT already mega-stars and just starting out.
Integrity is a nice aspiration, but human nature (and the desire to acquire 'wealth' and/or fame) unfortunately isn't so glib.
Re: (Score:1)
You're thinking of NIN, not Radiohead (Score:2)
the processed sounds of animals being put thru an industrial shredder
It sounds like you're describing a cross between the Happiness in Slavery [wikipedia.org] and unreleased March of the Pigs [wikipedia.org] videos.
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
Yes. I downloaded the main DVD in (checks timestamp) January and it's great (if you like NIN :-)). It's available in Blu-ray, DVD, and several other formats (1080p MOV, 1080p + 5.1 audio in mkv format, etc.) with nice, high-quality audio options. You could download the mp3 and FLAC audio for months before that, and there's a ton of additional stuff available [thisoneisonus.org].
So, yes, what they are doing is cool, but Radiohead is not breaking new ground here.
bah (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think it turned out to be a distraction from actually finding an intellectual property solution that worked for the long term.
Regardless, Radiohead will always be associated for me with this most brilliant "review" of their Creep video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=It6VWk1yT5o [youtube.com]
but in argentina... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:but in argentina... (Score:5, Informative)
They have to make their money someplace. They really do not have many choices.
They can have normal day jobs - which means the likely hood of seeing them outside of a 200 mile radius of their residence is quite unlikely. Not really a good option so we will cross that one off the list. There are others in the "cross off list" category too - say a life of robbing banks and such, I'll assume (though given posts here I have to recall what assuming does) that we will not go there.
They can make it from album (or CD, or MP3, or whatever the format of the day is - I'm old enough to use that term generically) sales. We here do not like this type of thing - recorded music wants to be free and it is my Right to make all the copies I want of it. So for the most part that is not going to happen. Indeed, while I do not agree with that sentiment it *is* reality. It is too easy to copy and that makes it too expensive to purchase for most. Things like jackets, art work, and such are nice - but too many of us will take a decent MP3 over a high quality loss-less digital recording with full artwork for the latter to be a money maker without artificial legal protections. Even with said protections that models days are numbered.
So that pretty much leaves us with live shows. Not movies of them - they end up being a version of the second method to make money but with video. It will suffer the same fate. Therefore it leaves it up to live performances. Since they are popular it is going to be expensive. Given how they sell at 100 dollars a pop the chances of you getting in at 20 dollars a pop was just as slim (if not slimmer) due to demand.
The expense has to come in some area. Maybe you already know this - after all even knowing it I wouldn't be happy if I couldn't afford tickets to something I really wanted to see - but they have to make their money someplace. Further things like "supply and demand" mean something, even were they to drop prices to cheap and their expenses somehow magically get payed you would *still* most likely be putting frowny faces on a post for the tickets being sold out and a huge number of fans angry they didn't get to go. In that case almost no one is happy other than the small group that got cheap tickets. That isn't going to be a workable long term market either.
It's like complaining that some Open Source company want to charge for support - umm, yea.
Re:but in argentina... (Score:5, Informative)
There is. Sample at twice the Nyquist frequency of the recorded signal and a sample size that gives a sample resolution a tad bigger than what the recording equipment is capable of registering - measurement error formulas from the theory of metrology are your friends, coefficients come from the instruction manual for the microphone. You do know that an analog microphone doesn't have an infinite recording quality, right?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The important fact you are missing is real world signal to noise ratio. No source has zero noise, so below a certain signal level there is no signal only noise, so as long as the bit depth is sufficient to cover the available S/N ratio, and as long as the sampling frequency is high enough to cover the frequency range of interest, and in the case of audio thats well defined, and we could up the limit a few times to be sure. So as long as thats all met, and the equipment is working as it should, then yes, los
Re: (Score:2)
You're only saying that because you're not using the right type of cables on your stereo. Buy these elementium plated diamond cables, then you'll be able to tell the difference.
Re: (Score:2)
No shit. There's always a loss when you record with analog, too. You miss a bunch of inaudible frequencies. You miss the thump of powerful speakers. You miss standing in the midst of a crowd that is all tuned into the same experience. You miss being there at the moment of creation. Nobody mistakes a recording for a live performance without being keyed for it (Milli Vanilli, anyone?) and even then it isn't easy.
A recording is not live. Whining about how very high-quality digital is worse than very high
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Actually you need 10 tines the Nyquist to be lossless. Twice the frequency merely guarantees no aliasing.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
"For example, take multiple recordings (each at 2*Nyquist) at different time-shifts and reconstruct a higher-res signal."
And that differs from a higher sampling rate in what way?
Re: (Score:1)
Live shows may be a non-starter, too. Most bands have a flat (or somewhat negotiable) fee for the show and a promoter or venue hires them for the gig and sells tickets, for which they set the price, pay the advertising, accept the risk and keep bulk of the profits, if any. Where most touring bands make their money is off merchandising. There's a reason those cheap black concert shirts are $25-30. My (very limited) experience in promotions and negotiation with bands indicates that NOT having a house cut
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1, Redundant)
You think Nine Inch Nails is a lame, sucky, douchebag band?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
.... I like Radiohead.
That is creepy.
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
I hate them both.
Somebody bring back Elvis as a Vampire.
Re: (Score:2)
Somebody bring back Elvis as a Vampire.
Too late, they already did. [imdb.com]
Re: (Score:2)
the Zombie one was better.
Re: (Score:2)
I hate them both.
Somebody bring back Elvis as a Vampire.
Too late, Charlaine Harris already did [wikipedia.org]...
np: The Fall - I'm Into CB (Rebellious Jukebox Volume 3 (Disc 1))
I'm not a Radiohead fan... (Score:5, Interesting)
...but damn if stuff like this doesn't make me want to go out and buy some of their albums, even if I just give them away, to support what they're doing.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not like they were unable to download the songs later, and they paid what they thought the original tracks worth to begin with, so what is there to be pissed about? Somehow, they felt that value they paid for up front was diminished when the physical product cost less than their self-determined price? IIRC, the average patron paid about $8, so the preponderance of fans got a "good deal" (whatever that means in this context) anyway.
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That's exactly my reaction. I have no interest in their music. In fact, I don't currently listen to any contemporary music, and I haven't paid for music in years. However, seeing something like this almost makes me want to find a way to contribute. In reality, I'll probably never get around to sending any cash their way. Nevertheless, if I can be swayed a little, I'm sure that there are many almost fans who will get to know them and like them because of this move. I don't know if this type of marketing coul
Good for them! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, I hope more bands start realizing this is the right message to give to their fans. A lot of big artists would rather tell you to go stick your head in a pig.
The first? Really? (Score:4, Interesting)
So this is exactly like the making of Bon Jovi's video for _Bad Medicine_, then?
Re:The first? Really? (Score:5, Informative)
A group of fans went to one of the band's shows ... each shooting the show from a different angle.
So this is exactly like the making of Bon Jovi's video for _Bad Medicine_, then?
Bon Jovi didn't do it for a whole concert then give it away for free.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The Beastie Boys also did this (Score:1, Informative)
with Awesome, I Fuckin' Shot that.
Handed out cameras to fans and let them go crazy during a show in 2006. That one was sold, however.
Re: (Score:1, Redundant)
Clear Channel (Score:5, Interesting)
They could raise a fuss [techdirt.com]...
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
That's the type of sleazy weapon clear channel doesn't dare use against a band who can afford to go to court and show the many decades of prior art. It would get invalidated for good.
No, that's the type of thing they will only use against bands who can't afford justice in our legal system.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
They could raise a fuss [techdirt.com]...
Not anymore.
EFF Kills Bogus Clear Channel Patent [eff.org]
Really nice job (Score:1)
Re:Really nice job (Score:5, Funny)
Groundbreaking? Not so much. (Score:1)
I was at that show (Score:2, Informative)
3d aspect (Score:3, Interesting)
I skim-read this, and was disappointed on closer reading when I realized they hadn't created a 3d montage from the video shot from all the different angles :-/
Just like... (Score:3, Interesting)
The Greatful Dead did for years.
They sure sold millions of Albums as well as bootlegs.
Rock on in Heaven Jerry Garcia.
Huh? (Score:3, Funny)
Eh? I thought we were talking about Radiohead here.
Re: (Score:2)
Eh? I thought we were talking about Radiohead here.
Well, if you have a problem with 'share and enjoy', I suppose you'll just have to go stick your head in a pig.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A bit obscure, maybe you should have put the link first time.
Now let's bring the discussion to a neat conclusion by returning to the subject of paranoid androids [youtube.com].
Daft Punk did it too! (Score:1)
At one of their "Alive 2007" concerts, they noticed many fans were filming the concert, so they asked fans to send in their concert footage. They paired segments of many different fan videos with the master audio recording of the concert to make the "Alive 2007" video album.
Sadly, the video isn't available in the USA. Only in PAL DVD.
Re: (Score:1)
You're close, but you've got quite a few of the details wrong. Daft Punk did film a couple of their massive Alive 2007 tour dates, but were completely unhappy with the result... it was all just the same overly-slick swooping camera shots. There is at least one live video posted to youtube that comes from this footage, and it's reminiscent of every other concert video out there. The fan-made video is not "available" in Europe, as it's just as bootleg there as it is here... so you have to find a copy to do
Re: (Score:2)
Dizzy (Score:2)
Can this be the future of live show videos?"
Not until fans can hold cameras steady.
Maybe (Score:1)