I appreciate that the music industry is progressively ruled by money. However, often a band or person will use their status to try and change this. For instance Radiohead giving their fans the power to chose the price of their album In Rainbows. Some said it was demeaning for music yet some said it was revolutionary. I shall take the latter. So I believe that Radiohead, in theory, handed the music back to it's audience. Or just created a very intelligent marketing strategy that provoked this quote from the ever perceptive Lily Allen: "They’ve got millions of pounds. It sends a weird message to younger bands who haven’t done as well. You don’t choose how to pay for eggs. Why should it be different for music?" I am not sure how valid that comparison is and I am not yet convinced that any opinion she has regarding music should be encouraged.
Next to jump on the bandwagon was Gene Simmons, protesting: "I open a store and say ‘Come in and pay whatever you want.’ Do you really believe that’s a business model that works?"
Well actually Gene it did work but understandably one is most likely used to affording a prostitute and a line per album sale which wouldn't go down well with fans paying as little as 45p for the album.
But it is not all bad news; Mcfly gave out their newest album in the Mail on Sunday, although arguably as it was the only chance for them to shift a few copies, even before that Prince did the same making the papers sales go up by 600,000 copies.
So can we really put a price on music? It's something we should all enjoy and love but how much is too much to pay? Especially in this so called Credit Crunch. With an ever decreasing amount of disposable income, we should surely celebrate free music. So in hindsight shall we take advantage of these opportunities? I, for one, most definitely will.