Kim: 'Radiohead made other musicians look bad'
 

Sonic Youth: 'Radiohead made other musicians look bad'



Pic: James Quinton


Cult band also talk about their controversial record on Starbucks label

Sonic Youth's Kim Gordon has claimed that Radiohead showed up smaller, poorer bands with the release of 2007's 'In Rainbows', calling their release plan a "marketing ploy".

Radiohead let their fans pay as much or little as they wanted for the download release of the album, with many fans choosing to download it free.

Gordon has refuted the idea that the Oxford band put out the album off their own backs, criticising the plan.

"They did a marketing ploy by themselves and then got someone else to put it out," she told The Guardian.

She added: "It seemed really community-oriented, but it wasn't catered towards their musician brothers and sisters, who don't sell as many records as them. It makes everyone else look bad for not offering their music for whatever.

"It was a good marketing ploy and I wish I'd thought of it! But we're not in that position either. We might not have been able to put out a record for another couple of years if we'd done it ourselves. And it takes away from the actual making music."

In the same interview, co-frontman Lee Ranaldo spoke about Hits Are For Squares', the compilation record Sonic Youth put out on the Starbucks label last year.

"We thought we'd try it and see what happens," he said. "There's a certain side to this group that likes perversity, and that's a pretty perverse concept.

"At that time, Starbucks were selling records when no one else was. The majors were throwing up their hands. The irony is, for all the spewing it caused on the blogs, it is our most rare record. I have never seen a copy in a store, and I've never met anyone who's seen a copy in a store."

Sonic Youth's new album, 'The Eternal' is out on Monday (June 8).

i've seen hits are for squares in a starbucks!

thanks. and here is the full interview:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2009...uth-rock-music

Kim's right on about Radiohead making everyone else look bad for not adopting similiar policies.

...

Not to mention they suck ass musically.

(except kid a)

Weren't you going to great lengths defending Kid A once?

Isn't this the same sort of argument that's been going on over internet music for some time now? Radiohead took thier album and cut out the middle man (i.e. record label), they gave thier fans who have been buying thier albums and going to thier shows for years this gift. And sure maybe they are lucky enough to afford to do this, good for them. Its not a model they're sticking to, they just had an album already recorded and no other way to get it out to the fans so they said here you go, download it, pay a small fee, what the fuck do we care?

pay a small fee if you will, that is what happened.
good for them who could afford it, but what about the countless others who have to shit blood in order to pay with their own money to make a record?

Kim's totally fucking right.

Indeed, after like 2 years maybe everyone should kinda get over it already.

Kim is wrong. It wasn't a marketing ploy... I downloaded the record at the price I set. How is that a ploy?

The point being made by Radiohead is it is impossible to control intellectual property in the current digital age. But if you give people some credit and provide the source for what they are looking to download they will respond fairly (average download price set by radiohead fans 4 pounds, about $6.50).

Is there even a download only version of the eternal available from Matador? Kim is right about one thing... Radiohead is making her look bad, and rightfully so.

I can see both sides. It is a cool thing for a band to do. But she is right that it may create an expectation that all bands can afford to do it.

kim has been in the music business for donkey's years. So she knows what she's talking about.

they see me rollin..





they hatin..

A million Radiohead fans across the internet rage and writhe in anger.

radiohead bores pink floyd style

I met chamillionaire a year ago. nice guy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ks2MXQXj5y0

I saw Hits Are For Squares once at a record shop and didn't buy it. Goddamn it.

I have never seen a copy of Hits R 4 Squares

I have a copy of Hits Are For Squares on the way right now via Music Boomerang.

So wait, does Lee's quote imply that he looks through the Sonic Youth section when he goes to record stores? That's awesome.

I bet kim was laughing when she made that radiohead crack.

ergh. Whether Kim is right or not, I'd expect SY to know better not to put their two cents in on the Radiohead/In Rainbows drama. It's so fucking old and tired already.

"know better?" they were asked about it.

Sonic Youth has a valuable opinion on the direction of the music industry, and I'm sure they turned a few media heads when they didn't follow suit with The Eternal. It just came up again because of the new album.

Loads of people got their copy of in rainbows/any other album from soulseek
so to speak

The 'In Rainbows' thing (along with a lot of bands doing the same in the past) was one of the most honest artist -to-fan thing i've ever experienced..most young bands fuck up with indie labels and then need to sell loads to pay people who has got nothing to do with music, but well.. if you have the money is good to do it.

Two years ago.

why do people think radiohead are somehow responsible for other, smaller bands trying to survive in the music industry. kim is right, it was a great marketing tool, and it served the band well. but it wasn't meant to be a ploy the band could use again and again: they had a great idea, cut out the middleman, and went for it. and succeeded. at least it was an innovative way of offering fans music, and the fact that they did sell a decent amount of physical copies says something about their loyal fanbase (which SY have!)

and i'm sorry, but going from universal to matador? your'e doing it wrong.

Some dude already has $33.00 in bids on his copy of Hits Are For Squares on Ebay.....that bonus song on there was weak anyway.

it wasn't even a song but more of a jam session

I think you're missing the point. Kim is claiming that the name-your-price thing made it seem like Radiohead was circumventing the label system altogether, which is not true. The physical product came out on Dave Matthews' record label, sales padded by the stir the download scheme had caused. This depends on the premise that no one was going to decide on delivery mechanism (deluxe lp, standard cd, download illegal or otherwise) based on anything other than their preference to begin with.

I can't imagine why Kim would be bothered by this. Who cares.

she didnt seem bothered..

Omg That Was My Evil Post! (666)

they just released a new album and probably got asked about it.
do you people know sonic youth at all?

and yes, it was a ploy, they stopped offering the name-your-price mp3s after two months.

I still can't see how that affects young/new bands though.

I actually think Radiohead made more money as I think quite a few people threw them a few bucks for the download and then bought the physical release a few months later. So what may seem like a nice thing was very profitable for them.

Cult band also talk about their controversial record on Starbucks label

Sonic Youth's Kim Gordon has claimed that Radiohead showed up smaller, poorer bands with the release of 2007's 'In Rainbows', calling their release plan a "marketing ploy".

Radiohead let their fans pay as much or little as they wanted for the download release of the album, with many fans choosing to download it free.

Gordon has refuted the idea that the Oxford band put out the album off their own backs, criticising the plan.

"They did a marketing ploy by themselves and then got someone else to put it out," she told The Guardian.

She added: "It seemed really community-oriented, but it wasn't catered towards their musician brothers and sisters, who don't sell as many records as them. It makes everyone else look bad for not offering their music for whatever. }

she's completely right. I always thought this way.

very simply. Radiohead had the convenience of doing what they did. they have made more money than any of them will ever need. they can afford to appear charitable and only in the game for the "art" of music but the truth is they would never be as big as they are now without the benefit of their past singles and album sales. Yes touring made them money but that was only fueled by the former. New, young bands come now at a time where the infrastructure wherein they could earn a living off of recorded works has been eroded. free downloading is to blame, accelerated by bands following Radiohead's example. I know the industry's tiers of big earners were fucked up and unfair but at the very least, bands still got to make a living from their own recorded works.

Alright...SY is one of my favorite bands and all, but they just recently re-released an album for the 4th time. Not all bands (or record labels in the EMI/Radiohead case) can make money from re-releasing their earlier albums, so I'm calling hypocracy. Plus this is a band whose fans mostly dig the lo-fi sound.

Don't go there unless you're joking.

err.. bands following radiohead example aren't mayority in the business. free illegal download is. and no label, no matter how indie it is can fight against that.

also there have been a couple of bands who released material for free in the past. on the other side there are artists that you can get a record from them by a personal request. not saying everyone should become Jandek, only that in a time when there are a thousand indie bands trying to get signed it's not going to be all easy and fair, especially with this illegal download boom.

The thing I will never understand is what Radiohead has got to do with this.. are people thinking 'everyone is going to follow radiohead omg'!!!??

if someone get scared of people thinking music should be free then it's the labels.. because they'll lose CONSUMERS by free downloading... but any artist with a bit of honestity can say real fans will never stop buying their music.

either way, sy are better live.

radiohead were fucking awful when i finally saw them, and i have loved them far longer than sy.