In a Kanye-locked post, the Godlike Genius clarifies calling Radiohead’s In Rainbows strategy, aka “marketing ruse,” an “idiot plan,” taking a moment to address the “idiot critics”: “I AM NOT CONFUSING ’ARTISTIC VALUE’ WITH ’COMMERCIAL VALUE’ … MERELY QUESTIONING THE DUMB ACCEPTANCE OF THE ’FREEART IS THE ’NEW’ PARADIGM – THATS JUST THE WAY IT IS’ MANTRA.” You can read the rest at The Cure’s blog, cretins.

Comments (19)
  1. Maybe he’s not confusing artistic and commercial value now (priced vs. priceless), but he sure was then. He very clearly was. Also, Rob, buddy.

    KAPS LOK R NOT KRUZ KONTRL FOR KOOL.

    In closing, I could read the rest at The Cure’s blog, but why would I?

    Thank you.

  2. Smacky  |   Posted on Mar 2nd, 2009 0

    He’s got a good point. Caps Lock or not.

  3. i write for free

  4. Using all caps to get your points across is an “idiot plan”.

  5. megaindiedouche  |   Posted on Mar 2nd, 2009 0

    I’m taking a class in focused relaxation this semester. I might try out that mantra tomorrow.

  6. His exact quote was “the idea that the value is created by the consumer is an idiot plan”. There’s nothing for him to argue or revise there. It doesn’t matter whether he’s talking about “ARTISTIC VALUE” or “COMMERCIAL VALUE” (as he is now distinguishing the two in big caps), he’s still wrong. The consumer has always and is always going to dictate that value.

    I guess it’s just people struggling to understand changes in the industry. People like him don’t seem to see that if we had had the technology we have today back at the start of the recording industry there would be a completely different commercial value to the product. I don’t know. Maybe I’m completely wrong. I mean he did write some great songs back in the day and I’ve written none. Perhaps he just thinks that the value of my opinion is less important than his.

  7. JoeStarship  |   Posted on Mar 2nd, 2009 0

    AN ARTIST HAS TO VALUE THE ART THEY CREATE
    OTHERWISE I DONT BELIEVE THEY CAN BELIEVE IT TO BE ART
    I AM MORE THAN HAPPY TO PAY AN ARTIST FOR HIS OR HEROR ITS ART
    AS IT OBVIOUSLY HELPS ENABLE THAT ARTIST TO KEEPCREATING

    -He’s not confusing artisitic and commercial value here. He’s totally ignoring artistic value all together.
    -Lots of people give their “shit” away for free. Just take a look at any graffiti artist. They don’t charge every person that happens to walk by to look at their wall/mural. Instead, they just do it because they think it’s beautiful.

  8. Ryan  |   Posted on Mar 2nd, 2009 +1

    Radiohead valued their art financially enough to make money off leaking it themselves, and also the free promotion they created in the press for the eventual physical release…. They fortunatley were in a position to do so, Robert not so much. I’d give him a dollar though for being involved with creating Disintegration. What’s your paypal email Mr. Smith?

  9. ZU  |   Posted on Mar 2nd, 2009 0

    And again, before making an opinion, you should read the whole blog, not only this part. I´m still on his side cause he´s not attacking radiohead or the way people decides to put outhere their music, more like giving a personal opinion about something he´s related with.

  10. ‘Dumb acceptance’? Like we have a choice. Music is as accessible as running water these days. It always will be from this point on, unless the internet goes the way of radio and television where it is entirely owned by cable companies (which is not that far-fetched I’m afraid). I swear, people would charge for oxygen if they could…

  11. che  |   Posted on Mar 2nd, 2009 0

    i like how the only way a band as big as the cure can get exposure is by bagging on radiohead. its pretty stupid how these artists try to piggyback on avant-garde by atacking them for trying something new.

    • anonymoose  |   Posted on Mar 2nd, 2009 0

      we’re calling radiohead “avant-garde” now, seriously? nothing in this whole world has been avant-garde for decades. get with it.

  12. Matt  |   Posted on Mar 2nd, 2009 0

    Bob Smith always types in all caps. It seems as though his caps lock key got stuck years ago and he’s learned to live with it. I doubt he’s as familiar with Internet “norms” as most of his readers.

  13. nitrams  |   Posted on Mar 2nd, 2009 0

    problems with Smith’s argument:

    Radiohead made more money off In Rainbows “pay what you want” window (Oct. 2007-Jan. 2008) than off the entire release of their last major label album (which sold better than the last several Cure records).

    It was “pay what you want” not “FREEART” (sic).

    The Cure is big enough to make more money this way than they would through Universal. They’d just have to make a good enough record that people would pay for it (and buy another million or two when the CD came out).

  14. Matt  |   Posted on Mar 2nd, 2009 0

    For the record, The Cure is still making great music.

    • Great? They HAVE written great music. I’d call the new stuff “pretty good” or “passable”. that should be acceptable for a big fan given the history.

      • Matt  |   Posted on Mar 4th, 2009 0

        What are you talking about? Underneath The Stars, The Perfect Boy, the entire Bloodflowers album…all great. I know it’s hip to knock older bands though so fair enough.

  15. I know Radiohead is not your typical band, but much like a few other artists out there, they are experimenting with other models that might in the future help new and struggling bands. One of my favorites, Repeater from Long beach, http://myspace.com/repeaterband , just got picked up by Ross Robinson, (who produced a Cure album, coincidentally), and they are trying their best to avoid the old system and somehow take advantage of new marketing strategies. Good luck to anyone who doesn’t try to get Signed to a big lumbering giant.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post, reply to, or rate a comment.

%s1 / %s2