Videotape

Okay, YouTube. But check this: live version of the last song on In Rainbows.



The way he shakes his head as he plays the opening chords, weirdly off pulse, makes me wonder what the recording will be like. (The audible toe-tapping toward the end, also on a slightly different pulse, might be another clue.) Skittering polyrhythms? Here's hoping.

Enough now. I will not write about this band or album for at least an hour.

In Waiting

Just paid $10 or the iTunes equivalent of full-price for In Rainbows, out in a matter of hours. My rationale:

a) Pay-what-you-will seems like a good idea and we ought to support it. If Radiohead gets paid, other bands should follow.

b) I expect I'll listen a lot. Why stint?

c) When you don't know about pricing, imitate an established model.

d) I have this feeling Thom's wandering eye will somehow fall on my order - one of millions, yes, but I have this hunch. He'll smile or twitch or do whatever it is Thom Yorke does to express pleasure, and he'll be moved to phone. (He has my info now - am I the only one this pleases?) "You're worth it, Tommy," I'll say coolly, the new album playing softly in the background. "Thanks for the music."

Taste: Get Some

Such was my response to the ugly poll below and the weirdly enraging salad I had with lunch. What is it with New York City chain-grocery produce? Sometimes it feels more conceptual than edible. I know this isn’t news, but Lord, this pepper: enormous, firm, a beautiful glossy red, but utterly, utterly tasteless. Does a person really need to go to farmers' markets to get produce that tastes of this earth (and not some unsubtle marketing firm)? I have a new understanding of ranch dressing. . .

Poll

Rainbows Redux

The Times Music section devotes its lead story today to a survey of East Village hipsters asked what they'll pay for In Rainbows. It's an interesting question, but the piece almost entirely fails to address how people arrive at their figures.

One guy says he'll give $5 or, weirdly, $8, depending on his next pay check; another will give $5 because Radiohead "already have plenty of money." Beyond this, we get very few justifications.

As I consider what I'm willing to pay, I realize the issues are fairly complex. For instance, doesn't it seem unfair to go with the guy above who values labor based on the economic status of the worker? Should we pay people less just because they're rich? (Shouldn't taxes account for this already?) Or conversely, should we pay less just because we're not?

It's also unclear how the cost of production (equipment, manpower, time, etc.) should factor into our decision. (And why do I suddenly sound like a Marxist?) Should a piece for orchestra go for more than one for solo guitar? Should we pay more for an album that took two years to produce rather than two weeks?

Finally, should we consider quality? If the album is great, as I expect it will be, should we pay top dollar? If it's crap and we only listen a few times, can we justify taking it for free?

Alice, commenters, what are you thinking? How do you handle these questions in other, comparable situations - at pay-what-you-will cultural institutions, say, or when they pass around the hat at a rock show? How does this mesh with your feelings on other issues - taxation, for instance, or the obligations of pharmaceutical companies to the world's poor? What would you do in an ideal world? What will you do in this one?

Dollars & Cents

It feels a bit ungrateful to quibble with Radiohead's pay-what-you-will release scheme for the upcoming In Rainbows, but did anyone else notice that to get all the music you have to drop around 80 bucks for a deluxe "discbox" (including two LPs I would guess the majority of consumers will never play)?

I'm all for artists getting paid and I suppose it's cool Radiohead still has an appreciation for LP culture and collectors in general. But if they're trying to be so egalitarian, save energy, subvert capitalist norms, why force us to pay so much to get all the songs? (I have no problem paying extra for art which can't really be had in a low-cost digital equivalent.)

I'm not sure. Perhaps the band isn't trying to be political, but just responding realistically to the MP3 age. After all, they've never shied from elaborate and expensive releases in the past; and maybe this isn't so much about saving us money as presenting more diverse options for spending it. (Have any economists chimed in? Will Radiohead make any money on this deal?)

Also, I suppose one could argue at least they're doing something, and that from a band who commands such market power it's all the more meaningful. Still, I think of this bit of ham-handedness off Amnesiac and feel a bit confused:

"We are the dollars and cents and the pounds and pence
And the mark and the yen, and yeah
We’re gonna crack your little souls
We’re gonna crack your little souls"

I'll take Fugazi over Radiohead for DIY credibility any day. But for better or worse, when it comes time to listen, ethical considerations quickly fall away. One week to go, folks. . . just one week to go!

I Am Testing a New Feature

Which means you can watch this commercial for a tv show that no longer exists except in the hearts of its fans. Of which I am one. Aw.

Tell me, did this take a long time to load? If not, I am going to have fun with this feature.