Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Music Media Media (Apple) Entertainment

Radiohead Changes Tack, Joins iTunes 176

Posted by timothy from the meeting-people-is-easy dept.
Joe Jay Bee writes "The British rock band Radiohead, who previously stated that they wouldn't want to have their music on Apple's iTunes Music Store (and, indeed, were unhappy when their Kid A album was released via the store) have performed something of an about-face; virtually their entire catalog, including singles and their B-Sides, has appeared on the store. The band previously said they only wanted their work sold as complete albums, which Apple refused to go along with; however their tack has apparently changed, and all their songs are available to mix and match, including their most recent work, In Rainbows. The albums are all available in DRM-free AAC format."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Radiohead Changes Tack, Joins iTunes More

Radiohead Changes Tack, Joins iTunes

Comments Filter:

  • DRM - Free (Score:5, Interesting)

    by elguillelmo ( 1242866 ) on Monday June 09, 2008 @07:05AM (#23707223)
    Maybe the fact their songs are available DRM-free has something to do with their changing of mind...

    • Re:DRM - Free (Score:5, Interesting)

      by spandex_panda ( 1168381 ) on Monday June 09, 2008 @07:08AM (#23707245)
      Yeah, I guess its good, they don't have a record label now right? If I hadn't already bought all their cds I might give them some money, but not through itunes, I would get mp3 from tpb, and order some cds from their website. Its the future.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by leamanc ( 961376 )

        Yeah, I guess its good, they don't have a record label now right?
        No, that's not right. While they self-released In Rainbows before putting out a physical release, they are signed to (and the album was physically released on) ATO in the USA, and XL Recordings in the UK/Europe.

    • Re: (Score:1, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Or maybe its the fact that downloading is "greener" than driving to a store and buy the CD, yeah? *hugs-tree*

      • Re:DRM - Free (Score:4, Insightful)

        by stewbacca ( 1033764 ) on Monday June 09, 2008 @07:54AM (#23707523)
        Or maybe, as an artist, you want your work exposed to as many people as possible and iTunes is the #1 music distributor in the world.

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by Anonymous Coward
          Or maybe, they decided they like money more than integrity.

          • Re:DRM - Free (Score:5, Insightful)

            by aceofspades1217 ( 1267996 ) <aceofspades1217 AT gmail DOT com> on Monday June 09, 2008 @09:54AM (#23708379) Homepage Journal
            <quote>Or maybe, they decided they like money more than integrity.</quote>

            Um so your basically saying that simply by selling their albums on iTunes they have no integrity. After all they did release them in DRM Free format and have never gone after filesharing. Heck radiohead doesn't even have a Music Label and don't have to listen to the RIAA or anyone about P2P.

            If they want to give people th option to buy their music over iTunes...why not. It's not like they can put them on iTunes for free even if they wanted to....So what you want them to stop selling CDs also because you don't think they have integrity simply for selling something.

            Obviously they give people the option of getting it for free on P2P or buying it. If you want to support them buy it if not don't. They aren't saying don't download our music TPB they just turn a blind eye to it. So cmon why must selling something be considered a lack of integrity?

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by dave420 ( 699308 )
              Radiohead are signed to both XL Recordings and TBD Records.
              • For album distribution. So what? Unless Radiohead start pressing their own CDs and somehow gain access to the album distribution chain, at this point in time, they have *no other choice*.

            • Um so your basically saying that simply by selling their albums on iTunes they have no integrity...So cmon why must selling something be considered a lack of integrity?
              I think the "integrity" question comes about because Radiohead said they would NEVER sell their music on iTunes (or something to that effect) but now are doing so. Maybe "hypocrisy" is a better term for them?

    • Re:DRM - Free (Score:5, Informative)

      by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF ( 813746 ) on Monday June 09, 2008 @07:27AM (#23707357)

      Maybe the fact their songs are available DRM-free has something to do with their changing of mind...

      Nope. They made their statement about refusing to sell on Tunes 5 months after Apple had started offering DRM-free downloads for EMI, Radiohead's label. Their spokesman said they objected not to DRM, but to Apple refusing to require customers to buy the whole album at once, whereas Apple requires each song to be available for sale individually as well. The quote from their spokesman was:

      "iTunes insists that all its albums are sold unbundled, but 7 Digital doesn't. Radiohead prefer to have their albums sold complete. The artist has a choice, and if they feel strongly then we respect that."

      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by goonerw ( 99408 )
        whereas Apple requires each song to be available for sale individually as well.

        Bollocks. I've seen quite a few songs on iTMS that are only available as an album bundle. There's a couple on the U218 album, "The Saints Are Coming" is an example.

        • Re:DRM - Free (Score:4, Informative)

          by CastrTroy ( 595695 ) on Monday June 09, 2008 @09:02AM (#23707703)
          Yes, you are right. However most are just certain songs you can only get if you buy the whole album. Usuallly all but one of the songs is available as singles, with one or two requiring that you buy the album. What RadioHead wanted was for the whole album to only be available, and no singles at all. It's a different case. Although I would argue for RadioHead. If that's how they want to sell their music, iTunes should let them do it. Apple's head is getting way too big lately.

          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by Kibblet ( 754565 )

            Yes, you are right. However most are just certain songs you can only get if you buy the whole album. Usuallly all but one of the songs is available as singles, with one or two requiring that you buy the album. What RadioHead wanted was for the whole album to only be available, and no singles at all. It's a different case. Although I would argue for RadioHead. If that's how they want to sell their music, iTunes should let them do it. Apple's head is getting way too big lately.

            Heaven forbid Apple do something for their customers! I prefer to buy what I want, not a whole album. And it has nothing to do with artistic integrity, but pure greed. Take the Napoleon Dynamite soundtrack. There is a song there only available if you get the whole album. It's not like it is the original artist saying "we want these works together as a whole", it must be that no one else wants the crap on that soundtrack and it is the only way to make any money. So kudos to Apple for standing up for thei

            • Re:DRM - Free (Score:4, Interesting)

              by Altus ( 1034 ) on Monday June 09, 2008 @10:12AM (#23708639) Homepage


              I get both sides in this. On the one hand you are right that many people would just like to buy a few songs that are on the radio and leave it at that.

              On the artist side though, its like selling the bottom right corner of a painting. Admitedly the Album is a dying artform these days (mostly due to MP3 players and shuffle) but there are still some artists who develop entire albums rather than just a few songs and some filler. These are the sort of thing thats meant to be listened to from start to finish. I can understand not wanting your album chopped up and sold piece by piece if you put that kind of effort into a whole album.

              Still, I see this transition as fairly inevitable. The album has been dying for quite some time and the rise of the MP3 player is going to pretty much end it.
              • What's next though? just buying the chorus, or the guitar solo? Ringtones have that covered, but how long until you can actually buy them on iTunes. Personally, I love albums, and wish that more artists would produce albums, rather than a bunch of random songs which happen to be on the same disk.
                • Why not? If there's a market for it, it could very well come to that. There's no a priori reason to prevent it from happening.
            • Fine then, if an artist wants to release just the album, let Apple collect higher fees to compensate for the hassle and reduced sales... and enforce a lower price point.

              If the full album were $7.99, it wouldn't be so bad. Eight bucks won't kill you, if it's a band you actually like.

              Pop acts can kiss my ass.

          • Re:DRM - Free (Score:5, Insightful)

            by samkass ( 174571 ) on Monday June 09, 2008 @10:05AM (#23708555) Homepage Journal
            Yes, Apple is really getting evil. First they keep prices at $0.99 per track when the music industry wanted to charge 2x to 3x (or more) that much for popular tracks... and now they're allowing customers to buy whatever they want. Without DRM. The horror!

            Remember, Apple's clout is the only thing standing between you and the record labels at this point. Even if you do nothing but buy from Amazon's MP3 store, you're benefiting from Apple iTunes, since the labels would never have given Amazon such a sweet deal if they weren't trying to break Apple's position in the market.
          • Why should iTunes let them do it?

            iTunes offers a specific set of services to its customers (us). If Radiohead does not like or does not want those services, they are free to sell with someone else who will offer them that option.

            • Why shouldn't iTunes just let them put it up, and see what happens. If nobody buys it, then they should have it removed. However, they'd probably sell a lot more than a lot of other artists taking up space on the iTunes server. I can understand a store not wanting to stock a particular product, because it doesn't make them any money.
      • It probably has more to do with the fact that they're officially no longer with their big record label. EMI recently released a "greatest hits" album; something Radiohead has also been vehemently against in the past. Something tells me EMI realized that the band has been too successful on their own to ever come back to a major label, so they might as well just make a buck without having to worry about pissing them off.

        And really, Amnesiac and Kid A are albums greater than the sum of their parts. I'll admit

        • Amnesiac and Kid A are albums greater than the sum of their parts.

          I find I listen to Radiohead's "experimental" stuff a lot more now than OK Computer or The Bends, but I don't agree with you on this. Not all the "mood pieces" work for me; if I wasn't a completist where Radiohead are concerned I would be tempted to cherry-pick the two albums you mentioned. But then I have already listened to Pulk-Pull Revolving Doors enough times to know that I will never come to love it. New listeners should be given the chance to decide for themselves (and isn't that what p2p excels at?

        • We have a winner! (Score:4, Interesting)

          by dreddnott ( 555950 ) <dreddnott@yahoo.com> on Monday June 09, 2008 @01:14PM (#23711901) Homepage
          http://music.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,,2210259,00.html [guardian.co.uk]

          Read about the ongoing feud between Radiohead and their former big label here.

          I'd bet that the summary article is incorrect and the band itself did not directly approve of the iTunes move.
          • I'd like to half-correct myself now that I see that the "In Rainbows" album, which is not part of the EMI-owned back catalogue, is also available for unbundled digital download. Without being able to do more research (lacking iTunes for one thing), it seems that what's happened is that EMI's now doing the same for all of their older albums. Sort of in the same vein as the greatest hits compilation and the $160 flash drive 'deal'.

            http://www.tuaw.com/2008/01/03/radiohead-on-itunes-yup/ [tuaw.com] --- This happened for I
      • Who gets to define a "track"? Maybe their next album should just have one 70 minute track with a dozen or so short pauses within it.

        Anyways, it's kinda silly. Radiohead never seemed to object to getting radio play, which is just one track at a time.

        • It's usually the record label that decides.

          "we want 15 tracks within 18 months" they make more money peddling "pieces", and get a lot more air-time since the radio (even if its not exactly that) can play commercials inbetween songs, etc.

          If an artist/band was to declare their sum as a single 70 minute song "with pauses", the record company would simply tell them to name the parts, kinda like classical music, and proceed to sell the parts... and if the artist/band made a solid 70 minute song, the record compa

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by jedidiah ( 1196 )
      That's good... now mebbe they can make them "iTunes free" as well.

      Their app shouldn't be necessary in order to make a sale and their NIH format is not supported by other devices out there. That's why there's the idea of bolting ipods onto devices that really should have no need.
      • Their app shouldn't be necessary in order to make a sale and their NIH format is not supported by other devices out there.

        Huh? DRM-free AAC (this is what the Radiohead tracks were released in) is support by nearly every device you can buy today. For the size and bit-rate it's also mostly superior to MP3.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by GWBasic ( 900357 )

      There are other reasons to go onto iTunes, although I'm not sure if Radiohead's releases take advantage of it, AAC files can be created from 24-bit, 48khz sources at the same bitrate as those from 16-bit, 44.1khz sources.

  • reason why they only want to sell albums (Score:4, Funny)

    by muftak ( 636261 ) on Monday June 09, 2008 @07:09AM (#23707255)
    Probably due to the fact most radiohead albums only have 1 good song on.
  • I think this has more to do with the break from EMI than them warming up to iTunes or the DRM issues.
    • It is said that they previously would not let EMI sell their albums song by song, but that they must be sold as an album. They changed their minds [wired.com] with In Rainbows and now with their entire back catalog.
  • If this makes them more money in the end, I don't see a problem with it. But still, who buys files!? Get the physical thing, man, otherwise it's not worth it IMO.
    • While your opinion is, well, your opinion, I'm sure there are thousands of us on here that will answer your question of "who buys files" with, "I do". I haven't bought a CD in probably 8 years or so, thanks to "files". Now lets just hope digital video moves in the same direction. I'm tired of devoting half a book shelf to stupid shiny discs.
      • I buy a CD, rip it to the household server and then put the CD in a box, never to emerge again, until I'm looking for CDs for a car trip (hire cars never seem to have a CD player that plays MP3s) upon which I tend to grab a random handful.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by jedidiah ( 1196 )
        A whole book shelf... you poor thing you.

        A whole book shelf can hold at least 400 DVDs and as many music Albums.

        The problem with "files" is that you never own anything physical that
        serves as some sort of confirmation that you own anything. If someone
        disputes you it's pretty much your word against theirs.

        A media server (which will take up more than a book shelf's worth of
        space) is certainly the bee's kness but it's still not a substitute
        for having some way of confirming legal posession.
        • A half book shelf... I don't need a plastic cd case to know I own something either. I'm pretty sure you are a dying breed of people who prefer physical media, which is fine--just stop acting like it is so weird for anyone to actually download a song (or two thousand) when it appears most people prefer that now.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by afidel ( 530433 )
          Amazon watermarks their tracks with your purchase number so if the record labels ever dispute I own the file they can do their own discovery and ask Amazon, on the other hand if I rip a cd and lose the physical disk I am screwed when it comes to proof of ownership. Therefore purchasing physical media is the poorer option. Not only that but with physical media you will come across DRM'd disks that will attempt to stop you from ripping them, while these attempts are futile they will require an investment in t

          • on the other hand if I rip a cd and lose the physical disk I am screwed when it comes to proof of ownership.
            Ah yes, I've been asked to prove ownership of my music collection so many times in my life. Seriously, what?

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by afidel ( 530433 )
              When you get a false summons from the MAFIAA you can tell em to go take a hike and provide them with a list of the order number of all of your mp3's. Or haven't you noticed the hundreds of lawsuits filed by these folks, often against 10 year old or grandmothers who have never heard of a p2p app.
        • "A media server (which will take up more than a book shelf's worth of space)"

          Huh? What, are you running one of those IBM T-Rexes or something? My media server takes up less space than all of the CDs I took out of their cases, ripped, and put in one of those CD Albums. Heck, your "media server" could be a USB hard drive that takes up as much space as a half-dozen CDs.

          Your point about it being good to have the CDs around is one I agree with, but not because of proof of legal possession. With CDs, you don'

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Omestes ( 471991 )
          A media server (which will take up more than a book shelf's worth of
          space) is certainly the bee's kness but it's still not a substitute
          for having some way of confirming legal posession.

          My "media server" is a MacMini, a monitor, and a key board and mouse (tucked away), and is holding god knows how many albums, movies, and can access tons of streaming content. It syncs flawlessly with my TV, stereo, and iPod. I never have to shuffle disks, sit around pondering what I might feel like listening to (shuffle by
      • "...stupid shiny discs"

        Thats probably like 20% of the enjoyement though, you buy the CD, take it home, unwrap it, and pick through its liner like a crack-addict through the carpet.

        If its a "worthy" album, you display it for all to see, "I like that"... suppose you were a bit late for records too werent you? which was even more mystical, cause you had to take more care of them, like they were pets or something.

        Personally, if I had enough CD's, i'd line an entire room with them... "The Music Room"... fuckin A
        • Actually, no I'm not too late for albums. I prefer them to the sad sad "liner" notes that CDs generally offer (especially modern-day..mostly worthless PR pieces with modeling-agency quality photography...whoopdy doo!).

          My gripe with CDs is that it is an outdated medium, yet we treat it like the holy-grail that it was in 1984. I've no problem with CD quality, as some of my LP-snooty friends do, just the poor quality and poor longevity of the medium on which they are sold. With iTunes tunes, I can make my

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by gtx ( 204552 )
      Eh, the difference between a CD-ROM full of 44.1k/16 bit WAVs and a CD-R with redbook audio is little more than headers on the files. The difference between physical packaging and a pdf file is that 5 years from now I will probably still have the pdf file, and it won't be shoved in a box in my closet.

  • Pick and choose (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Dan East ( 318230 ) on Monday June 09, 2008 @07:16AM (#23707295) Journal
    I guess they finally realized that consumers can and will "pick and choose" regardless, so they might as make some money in the process. It doesn't exactly take a genius to figure that one out.
    • It was most likely not radio heads decision at all, and they were probably pissed off by the release by their ex-lable. I do recall hearing on the radio a few weeks ago that they were upset that their old lable had released a best of album halmarking their time at EMI.

      EMI probably made the deal with Apple not Radio Head.

  • The reason why (Score:5, Insightful)

    by EEDAm ( 808004 ) on Monday June 09, 2008 @07:19AM (#23707313)
    Radiohead finished their term with EMI Parlophone who originally signed them. In the usual way, their ex-record label are now pushing out as much as they can to cash in - 'Best of Radiohead' just having been released for instance. I suspect this is the cause. Mind you after the crap rip-quality of the In Rainbows interweb release and the volte face of the cd release following, I have less sympathy than I once would have done despite the quality of the work.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by slim ( 1652 )
      How was the In Rainbows CD a volte-face?

      I remember clearly that when the downloads became available, I decided to wait for the CD (because I'm old fashioned and like things I can touch) -- so they must have made it clear that there would be one. I did buy the CD and I was very pleased with it.

    • Mind you after the crap rip-quality of the In Rainbows interweb release and the volte face of the cd release following, I have less sympathy than I once would have done despite the quality of the work.

      I think you were perhaps misinformed. It was always clear that an eventual CD release was to come, even if the precise when and how were initially uncertain. For example, see this Pitchfork news item from Oct 1 [pitchforkmedia.com], 9 full days before the online release. But I do agree with your other point, they really should have provided a better quality rip for those who took the plunge.

    • The track listing of that Best Of album is pretty abominable really... There's no ebb or flow to it at all. It's clearly the work of a label with no interest in the band.

  • Radiohead is customer-savvy (Score:5, Insightful)

    by freedom_india ( 780002 ) on Monday June 09, 2008 @07:28AM (#23707361) Homepage Journal
    Instead of sticking its head in sand like Metallica did, Radiohead is showing surprising maturity and acute understanding of what a customer wants: Go to the Customer, instead of sitting on your arse and expecting them to come to you.
    Perception is all-important in Marketing and Radiohead is taking Apple lessons.
    By direct-download of their albums (free and paid) they proved DownloadMusic!=crime.
    Second once they realized people mix and match their music (just like i mod my computer table and computer), they allowed it instead of sending RIAA goons after them. After all, Alienware does not raid my home, if i chose to decorate my PC with Yuletide spirit. Apple does not care if i laser-engrave my iPod. So should music be: If i mix-and-match their tunes with mine, i should be free.
    RIAA believes otherwise. Paying customers think otherwise.
    Who pays for Radiohead's food? Customers and not RIAA. So Radiohead did the sensible thing and listened to customers.
    By releasing their tunes DRM-Free in iTunes they hit the likeness factor a lot: iPod users now have direct-download to iPod; which is 90% market share of MP3 players (Zune; you Turd, you really have no chance). The DRM-free enables users to mix and match.

    Its a pity that Radiohead's music is not country/hip-hop

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by c ( 8461 )
      > [a whole pile of stuff which makes perfect sense] ... then ...
      > Its a pity that Radiohead's music is not country/hip-hop

      At this point, the reader builds a mental image of Radiohead performing a country/hip-hop fusion. The Elder Gods claim another victim.

      c.

    • Radiohead is showing surprising maturity and acute understanding of what a customer wants: Go to the Customer, instead of sitting on your arse and expecting them to come to you.

      Have you been to Metallica's website lately? You can listen to many of their songs, and watch their videos on their website. Also, i wouldn't consider Radiohead "savvy", I'd say they are realizing that if they want to make money of their music, they need to charge for it.

      C'mon Radiohead show the industry that you can make millions by having people 'name their price'. I'm sure this works for all companies. I'll call up Ferrari and suggest they start allowing us to name our price.

  • This was a decision made by EMI, as they still own the rights to the Radiohead Catalogue. In the same vein, they're attempting to make even more money off of the success of Radiohead by selling "The Best of Radiohead," which, as far as I know, is not approved by the band themselves.

    Please do not take this as Radiohead's decision, when it's clearly that of their (former) label.
    • EMI?? It is the artist who owns the copyright. Not the Label.
      If what you say were the case, Britney would be soccer-mom with 3 kids, and Ashlee simpson would be a waitress in a Del Hugos bar.
      Radiohead/artist decides to move to a distribution medium. The label had CD rights: Not digital. Which is why labels are trying to shoot for 360 degree contracts; and why artists avoid it.
      EMI has vinyl, cassette, CD and DVD rights. Radiohead owns live and all other rights not gifted to EMI.
      • "Britney would be soccer-mom with 3 kids"

        Ha! She'd be watching Judge Judy in a single-wide somewhere in tornado alley with five kids from six different fathers, drawing SSI (and flies) and smoking a carton of camels a day.

        Soccer mom! As if!

    • This was a decision made by EMI


      That's not correct as this deal includes the new album "In Rainbows" which was released post-EMI
    • (apart from they'll make money on some of songs) It includes their latest album In Rainbows which was physically distributed on XL Recordings. Perhaps EMI have maintained the digital distribution rights to the latest album, since Radiohead are freelance and all but it's clearly the decision of the artist not the label.
  • When I first saw the announcement they had finally joined the ITMS, I was hoping for a full discography deal like U2 did a while back. Unfortunately this is not the case -- each album has to be purchased individually, and there are absolutely no extras.

    I don't see the added value in this. For almost the same cost I can just buy whatever albums I do not already have on CD (thanks to the ridiculously cheap dollar), and rip in a far higher quality than ITMS offers.

    Itunes is only worth it when there are extras,
    • Itunes is only worth it when there are extras, like bonus songs or interviews. Or at least a discount!

      Not everyone is a completist. If I find a song I like, I'll buy it on iTunes. If I like an artist enough after a while to go ahead and buy an album, I'll buy it on CD. Sometimes I'll buy an album on iTunes if there's enough tracks that the $10 album price makes sense, but usually I just buy a couple of songs.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by afidel ( 530433 )
      in a far higher quality than ITMS offers.

      Unless you are doing a lossless format that's probably not true, ITMS on non-DRM'd tracks is AAC at 256kbit, that's imperceptible from the source for 99.99% of people and tracks, heck even mp3 at that bitrate is imperceptible in most situations (my old collection is ripped at ~220kbit VBR with LAME at -extreme settings which is shown to be fine in double blind testing.)

  • Nude Garageband stem sales (Score:4, Interesting)

    by theurge14 ( 820596 ) on Monday June 09, 2008 @07:43AM (#23707451)
    I'm curious as to how much money they generated from the sales they made of the Nude Remix [radioheadremix.com] contest via iTunes and Garageband. This may have been the band and/or the label testing the waters.

  • Have some sympathy. (Score:4, Funny)

    by Jacques Chester ( 151652 ) on Monday June 09, 2008 @07:44AM (#23707463)
    Well, what with the price of oil these days, even rockstars are feeling the pinch.

    Do you have any idea how much it costs to fill up the tank on a Ferrari?
    • Mine was $180 last week for half a tank, but I'm using fuel I buy at the airport, not the standard crap you most likely put in your engine. I doubt it makes me go any faster but ya never know.

  • How to split music (Score:2, Insightful)

    by manwal ( 648106 )
    Providing individual tracks from a CD is just one way to present a musical work. Music in itself is sound, not tracks. There is music recorded today that doesn't conform to the idea that each song is a single musical entity, and splitting these works does more good than bad from an artistical point of view, or at least some artists'.

    Anyhow, for the same reasons that providing music in these smaller parts is a good thing (which I believe it is), one could easily argue that even smaller parts of the music sho
  • A couple of weeks ago they released their 'Best Of' album for free on imeem [imeem.com], well technically it's ad supported, so they get some cash from this page. But essentially you can listen to the whole album online at their page on imeem, you can't actually download it, it streams via the flash player and every downloader I've tried doesn't work (even though they frequently say that they do.....)

  • Album Artwork (Score:2, Interesting)

    by chriscrowley ( 221157 )
    Since I already own all of Radiohead's CDs (I'm a huge fan) and have them ripped to iTunes, I'm happy that iTunes should now retrieve all their album artwork. I never even knew that Radiohead wasn't available in the iTunes store until recently when I noticed all of their songs on my iPod were missing the album artwork.
  • Okay, maybe it's the "whole catalog" thing that makes this news - but I bought "In Rainbows", in DRM-free AAC format, from the iTunes Music Store several months ago. So it's not like Radiohead wasn't on iTunes, then *POOF* now it is.

    On a side-note: I think Apple's DRM terms are more or less reasonable, at least compared to most others; but ever sense "iTunes Plus" became available I've stopped buying DRM'ed music from the store. I know the labels are watching iTunes and Amazon, so I figure any little bit I
  • I hate that word. What idiot tagged them sellouts? I don't even like Radiohead, but come on-- if you're a professional musician, you sell your music by definition. Labeling someone a 'sellout' for doing precisely that is to completely miss the point of being a musician. You may love someone's music, and you may feel some sense of ownership over it, but get real: it's their music. Maybe they're sick of bumming around in a van in order to add a little quality to your life.
  • "In Rainbows" and perhaps other Radiohead albums have been (and continue to be) available from emusic.com, for up to 50% less than the iTunes price, DRM-free, lifetime-replaceable. so basically, like, meh.

Slashdot Top Deals

I tell them to turn to the study of mathematics, for it is only there that they might escape the lusts of the flesh. -- Thomas Mann, "The Magic Mountain"

Close