Originally Posted by marie-p
I couldn't get the whole article online, but the $10 is the average that people are paying for the album, it's not the required price.
Do they say what it is that costs $3.40? Is it the cost they pay for each download? (I find that a little expensive if that's the case)
Still it seems like this way of "selling" music could be a viable options for bands who don't want (or don't have) a record deal.
I would venture a guess that that's what they are figuring based on what the initial pressing probably would have been (i.e. 200,000 units) including the production and recording/studio costs, but excluding the cost of actual pressing of the CD as well as the hosting, download, costs.
Honestly, I don't think this is a viable option for any band that hasn't already proven itself and has a decent national and international fan base. Yes, people are still willing to pay $10 for a Radiohead CD, but would you pay that much for a band you aren't familiar with? Unless there is a label behind a band initially
to push their music with radio/tv stations, they won't go too far. Ask the local bands in your area who have been playing for years without label support. They don't make any money, and they rarely get a real following outside of the local area no matter how much their online presence.
Don't get me wrong, I LOVE that Radiohead is doing this! Heck, I'm tempted to download it and pay them even though I don't really like their music. RIAA are evil, money grubbing
who can't admit that their own industry is the reason they aren't making as much music (i.e. their choices for new artists - there hasn't been a real new sound coming from the labels in years. The sound and music is stale and blech for the most part. But we're all just supposed to keep buying this tripe because they produce albums...whatever.)