First For Music News

Editors' Tom Smith: 'Radiohead's 'In Rainbows' release was selfish' Editors Tickets

Frontman says album release was in conflict with Ed O'Brien's stance

Editors frontman Tom Smith has said that he believes that Radiohead's 2007 pay-what-you-like release plan for their 'In Rainbows' album was "selfish". He claimed it was in direct conflict with guitarist Ed O'Brien's current stance on downloading.

O'Brien, a member of the Featured Artists Coalition, has spoken out against file-sharing, calling for a 'three-strikes' rule for offenders before their connections would be restricted.

Smith told BBC 6 Music that he thought O'Brien's view was contradicted by the 'In Rainbows' release – for which fans could choose how much to pay to download it.

"It's a weird thing to say that but in giving it away for free, it didn't feel like it had any connection to the bigger problem and it was selfish," he said.

Smith did, however, say that he was backing the guitarist's anti-downloading stance. "It's like music is just background [for file-sharers], you can just grab bits and pieces rather than an album as a whole," he said. "But I think the big artists have a responsibility for the smaller artists, to speak up when things are going wrong.

"I also find it weird that they [Radiohead] gave their album away for free. I think that's in direct conflict to [taking a stance against file sharing]."

Editors tickets:


 

More News:

 

Comments (21)

Add a comment

Cheesemonkey 

Oct 6, 2009

Congratulations Tom, wading in only two years after that happened. Really capturing the zeitgeist there.

CordyRoy 

Oct 6, 2009

you couldn't get it for free. there was a minimum payment and a processing fee.

rt1767 

Oct 7, 2009

Tom Smith is soooo stupid! Ed O'Brien said that downloading is bad for new bands and that bands like radiohead won't necessarily have the same problem

shinyhappydan 

Oct 7, 2009

I suppose that dictating how people should release their own music in order to further your own agenda is NOT selfish?

binstig 

Oct 7, 2009

Well I paid 5 quid for mine and bought it physically when it was out in shops. And Cordyroy, you could get it for free as many people I know did. And what right do all these artists have to complain about the way Radiohead released their album. They funded it themselves and did it almost completely inepedently so its rather pathetic to criticise what they did. I still bought the CD for fuck sake and it still went to number 1 months after it was downloadable for free!!

chrisanouk 

Oct 7, 2009

Radiohead did something that most artists, regardless of their stature, wouldn't have the bottle to do. This was because they knew it was good enough to deserve payment. Imagine The Editors releasing an album and then saying pay what you like. You'd see them shoppng in Aldi after a month!I am not against file sharing, as long as their are ethics in place. I have a system:1 - Favourite bands/artists - I buy their albums on CD - no matter what2 - Undecided/new acts - I download. If I like it, I buy it on CD. If I don't, I delete it. Beats streaming as I get to listen to it on my iPod in my own time.This system has ensured I buy more albums than I ever had before 2006 (year I started downloading this way). It has introduced me to loads of new bands/artists. I would never own Megafaun or The Antlers if it wasn't for file sharing.

steelad 

Oct 7, 2009

funny, i got it off their website for nothing and no processing fee ... hmmmm??

Decemboy 

Oct 7, 2009

Radiohead choosing to let fans pay what they like for an album is ever so slightly different from being against people downloading entire bands' back catalogues for nothing and then sharing them with others.

ethanjim 

Oct 7, 2009

How is it a conflict with the stance behind file sharing, they were giving fans and people who may be interested in their music a completely legitimate way to try and buy their music. And this worked for Radiohead, if you look at last.fm stats there are tons more listens for in rainbows than the other albums and probably boosted their album sales by generating interest and free advertising.

Loz Lozza 

Oct 7, 2009

I think Tom is 'wading in' with great timing, I guess due to the recent hoo-hah re: Lily Allen and Ed O'Brien episodes. He is completely correct to highlight that artists like Radiohead, Prince, Robbie Williams and now it seems Echo and the Bunnymen - are all devaluing music. Bands without massive backing or status *need* to make CDs for a quid and sell them for 3 quid so they get 2 quid which goes to rehearsal rooms, producers and better recordings. The artists mentioned above are making things very difficult for an unknown band to justify 3 quid to one of their fans.

onetakerog 

Oct 7, 2009

I got it for free via the official route. There was a processing fee on card transactions, so if you decided to pay 5p you would actually pay 5p fee, but if you set the price at £0.00 there was no fee. £0.00 was set as the minimum payment. I can see what Tom Smith is getting at but I think it's a little off the issue. Just because someone offers one thing for free does not necessarily imply that they believe everything should be free.

Kerplunk1001 

Oct 7, 2009

Yes you could get it free, you only paid a payment processing fee if wanted to process a payment!

daniels102 

Oct 7, 2009

ed obriens views on downloading and 3 strikes idea were expressed about 2 weeks ago so how is tom 2 years late. congratulations moron.

Cheesemonkey 

Oct 7, 2009

You could download it for free, because I did myself when I got it from their site. Did pay £60 to see them do their so called "festival" in London after though so I don't feel as guilty.

Grimbo 

Oct 7, 2009

i didnt realise ed o'brien made those comments 2 years ago, it only feels like a few weeks ago to me!

Number Johnny Five 

Oct 7, 2009

Ha! Not knowing there was a minium payment and processing fee means he didn't even buy it himself! Where's your responsibility to the bigger bands then? Besides, surely its more selfish to expect to get paid top dollar? This guys just an apologist for his own lack of sales and/ or talent* (*delete as applicable)

bearblue 

Oct 7, 2009

just because no one wants to buy the shit you record.. some would say editors devalue the concept of music more than filesharers.

scottmmmm 

Oct 7, 2009

I got it for free CordyRoy - I payed absolutely nothing for that album, it was such a good idea - but it wouldn't work for smaller bands

CordyRoy 

Oct 7, 2009

my mistake. i bought the discbox, so didn't actually use the pay-what-you-like bit. just weighing in because Tom Fromeditors (which IS his last name) annoyed me.

CordyRoy 

Oct 7, 2009

by the way, chrisanouk, i have the same system.

penumbra 

Oct 7, 2009

Radiohead don't have a responsibility to anybody except themselves; it's pretty entitled to suggest that Radiohead or any other band should not distribute their music in the way that works for them.

Add your comment

Listen to full tracks now. Users outside the UK can hear 30-second clips of each song.

Free weekly music news, videos and MP3s in your inbox: