Radiohead's 2007 album In Rainbows has enjoyed critical and commercial success since it was released last October through a unique "pay-what-you-want" scheme directly from the band and its management team. Likewise, many fellow artists have come out in favor of the scheme or against the method used by the English band. Fellow English band Oasis, however, has completely dismissed any notion that the band will ever duplicate that method, citing expenses incurred during the recording of new album Dig Out Your Soul over the course of the past year.

A new report by Gigwise reveals the band's position and reasons for it, with Oasis calling the Radiohead method nothing more than a marketing tool. Noel Gallagher, Oasis' lead songwriter and guitarist, did call Radiohead "rebels and outsiders" when commending Radiohead's method as a unique marketing tool.

Oasis signed a new deal with Sony BMG Music Entertainment, a joint venture between Sony Corporation (NYSE: SNE) and Germany's Bertelsmann Music Group, last month that will see the band's own label, Big Brother Recordings, release the new album while Sony BMG oversees the band's back catalog and previous releases. The deal is a more traditional arrangement in today's market and environment that makes the new comments against Radiohead unsurprising.

Despite criticism by Irish band U2's manager Paul McGuinness over Radiohead's method for releasing In Rainbows last October, U2's lead singer Bono has published an open letter in NME disagreeing and applauding Radiohead for the album and how it was released. McGuinness told the BBC in early June that the method was "a failure and backfired" because "it still resulted in over 60%-70% of listeners acquiring the album through illegal channels."

Bono's letter to NME, printed in last week's issue, takes a sharp left turn from his manager's opinion, calling Radiohead "courageous and imaginative in trying to figure out some new relationship with their audience." Bono also remarked how "blessed" he feels "to be around at the same time" as "a sacred talent" like Radiohead. U2 have recently taken steps to reach their audience, joining forces with Live Nation Inc. (NYSE: LYV) in a deal that will market their music and concerts with related products from one location.

U2 is still signed to Universal Music Group for the band's record releases, which may have been one reason McGuinness came out against the method Radiohead used last year. Neverthless, the disagreement between manager and lead singer is insignificant compared to the applaud Radiohead continue to receive from fellow artists. Trent Reznor of Nine Inch Nails, a band that was also signed to Universal Music Group, has also come out in support of Radiohead's method, even though he, too, took issue with some aspects of it. Reznor has since released two NIN albums the same way.

British band Oasis have reportedly signed a new record deal with Sony BMG Music Entertainment via the band's own record label Big Brother Recordings. Big Brother will release the band's new material while Sony BMG, a joint venture of Sony (NYSE: SNE) and Germany's Bertlesmann Media Group, handles distribution of the new album and the band's back catalog in all markets, and the two companies will share profits. Music newspaper NME additionally reports that all signs indicate the first album as part of the new arrangement will be released this fall.

The band has been associated with Sony BMG in some form or another since its first album was released in 1994. Creation Records, the band's first label in the United Kingdom, handled distribution and release there, while Sony handled the same duties in other markets, including the United States. When Creation folded in the late 90s and Big Brother was set up, the same arrangement was kept. The band's last album of new material was released in the U.S. by Sony BMG's Epic Records, while the band's final album under the old contract, a "best of" compilation, was released by Columbia Records.

Oasis' management reported that the band is excited about the deal and the prospects that it gives the band in "building on the band's already considerable international success." The band's management reported that the new deal "allows the band to take advantage of all the opportunities presented by the new business models available today as well as remaining totally in control of their own destiny." Other band's at the same level of international success as Oasis, like Radiohead or Nine Inch Nails, have pursued different business methods than more traditional record labels.

According to U2's manager Paul McGuinness, the revolutionary and landmark method English band Radiohead used last fall to release the album In Rainbows was a failure and "backfired." Talking to the BBC, McGuinness critiqued the band and the "pay-what-you-like" method because it still resulted in over 60%-70% of listeners acquiring the album through illegal channels. He told the BBC that U2's forthcoming new album, due this fall, would not be released in a similar method at all.

The primary reason U2's album will not be released like Radiohead's In Rainbows, is probably because the Irish quartet is still contracted with Universal Music Group for album releases. Radiohead released In Rainbows without the assistance of a record label or any firm of the music industry. Their management and the band's website was utilized to oversee the release of the album. Perhaps McGuinness realized how much would be required for him if U2 chose that method? The new U2 album is due near the end of October, regardless.

McGuinness also told the BBC that physical sales "are still an enormous part of [U2's] business and [the band] still sell a lot of actual CDs." Although Radiohead did not release In Rainbows on CD in the beginning, when the CD appeared in January it went straight to number one in various countries, including the United States and the United Kingdom. The band has still not revealed exact figures from the experimental method, but that has not kept other groups and critics from analyzing it, including McGuinness. The U2 album will likely sell well, but that shouldn't mean that a download-only method initially was a failure.

Fresh off the heels of a successful mini-tour of the United States, Radiohead's former label, privately-held EMI Group, has released a new greatest hits album and made the band's back catalog available on Apple Inc.'s (NASDAQ: AAPL) iTunes Store. British-based download retailer 7digital first scored Radiohead's back catalog last September but was only able to sell the music as album-based downloads, but without the anti-piracy technology digital rights management. iTunes will offer DRM-free files, but also individual track downloads in addition to album-based purchases.

The back catalog's availability on iTunes follows the band acclaimed seventh, non-EMI released album, In Rainbows, by about five months. According to Billboard, "Radiohead had been holding out because of its desire for fans to buy the albums in complete form, rather than as individual tracks." Billboard also quotes unnamed sources that claim "iTunes always had the option of selling Radiohead's back catalog in album-bundled form, but did not do so, in keeping with the fact that the overwhelming majority of artists sell their music as individual track downloads on the service."

Billboard calls iTunes practice of offering individual track downloads over album-bundled forms "a smart one from a financial standpoint." Digital sales of In Rainbows accounted for 106,000 of its 526,000 copies sold. It is also a good one for the industry since single track downloads have grown in popularity and make it easy for listeners to choose what they want to hear from artists. Even though Radiohead tracks are available as individual track downloads now, it would be unsurprising if the albums did not also witness nice sales from new and old listeners.

I've been thinking about free digital downloads for a while now, and with the success such models have seen in the last seven months or so (since Radiohead's In Rainbows was released), it would seem only natural that the record labels would recognize that value in their product should not be based on money or profits. Automatically I realize that the kind of suggestion I have made is detrimental to the music industry and the artists that produce music, even when some of the said artists are embracing free download business models. Nevertheless, it is not surprising in the least to see the music industry fighting tooth and nail to retain some control over the business they rightly think they should control.

British rock trio Muse revealed to music newspaper NME Friday that the band's new material may be released more "organically" in the future, versus reserving it for an album release. This idea of taking the "album" out of the equation is something that many bands have been quoted as saying in the last couple of years, most notably Radiohead. Drummer Dom Howard is quoted as saying that the new methods of digital releasing and downloading "presents a canvas to do whatever you want and just release music as and when it is ready to release," that is, more organically.

The new "canvas to do whatever you want" should not indicate that Muse (or any other band) is "against the concept of releasing an album in the traditional format." Howard maintains, "If we group a bunch of tracks together, it's because they're meant to be together as a unit." The new formats are most exciting for new listeners and consumers, in Howard's opinion, since they do not typically purchase an album on CD. Despite Radiohead's success at releasing an album solely via the internet (and for free), Howard also denied that Muse would duplicate that method. He and his Muse bandmates just remain open to new ideas for the music industry.

Organically released music would make more sense in the market as it grows closer and closer toward single-track downloads. The most obvious case in favor of releasing music as soon as it is ready is Coldplay's recent free download of single "Violet Hill" in support of the band's new album. While it was not released as soon as it was ready and was intended to directly promote the album, it did enjoy high downloads and put word about the band, the band's return, and the new album out there rapidly and well in advance of the album's release next month. Singles did not originally correspond directly to albums, so why shouldn't the music industry return to that idea?

In Rainbows, the media scrutinized album by Radiohead, first released online last October, finally achieved a number one chart position in the band's home country of England earlier this week. The album also scored a number one position in the Billboard 200 chart, after entering at #156 last week due to early releases. The release last week brings to a close the three months that media outlets have scrutinized the band's decision to release the album online to fans at pay-their-own-prices, and demonstrates the "traditional" success possible after such a gimmick.

According to Billboard, the top position in Britain is the fifth time Radiohead has enjoyed such success. The band's first number one album was 1997's OK Computer, followed by 2000's Kid A, 2001's Amnesiac, and 2003's Hail to the Thief. A new single off In Rainbows, "Jigsaw Falling into Place," is set to be released in the United Kingdom next week, which will surely enjoy success on its own as well as promoting the album further.

Neither the band nor its management has released any viable information elaborating on the success of the band's decision to release the album online, and the physical release -- the "discbox" -- which the band released alongside the download was unavailable to enter charts when it finally hit streets in early December. While it is impossible to determine what kind of precedent the download release and the new CD version will set for the music industry, Radiohead has enjoyed similar success in the past. Both 2000's Kid A and 2003's Hail to the Thief saw online leaks before being released and eventually enjoyed major chart success, a number one and number three in the Billboard 200 respectively.

With the monumental changes the music industry experienced in 2007, this year has large shoes to fill in order to see if the developments will continue or stall. One of the biggest developments that will likely continue to change is the place of anti-piracy technology, namely the use of Digital Rights Management software (DRM). It's been quite a while since EMI Group plc (ADR) (OTC: EMIPY) decided to halt its use of the technology (last April) and since then the other majors have been slow to adopt similar stances, while EMI has changed hands (literally) becoming a part of European-based private equity firm Terra Firma.

Sony BMG, a merger between Sony Corp. (NYSE: SNE) and Germany based BMG, have recently debuted "MP3 cards" which will enable consumers to buy DRM-free albums from stores versus buying the tracks strictly from an online store. The program is intended to "bring digital stores into the physical retail space" with Sony BMG using the website MusicPass.com to allow buyers to retrieve albums. In essence, Sony hopes that the program will expand both the digital and physical markets. Apple (NASDAQ: AAPL)'s iTunes Store debuted a similar program with Starbucks (NASDAQ: SBUX) last autumn, but the new program will see a larger market due to the retail stores chosen to stock the cards.

Finally, the other major development is the band's Radiohead online-only decision to initially release an album without label involvement. Although this kind of move will likely not be repeated across the board, some bands have mentioned intentions to follow the direction and offer new music in a similar method. The problem with this method is that Radiohead is a firmly established act with a large fan base. New acts and smaller groups will still need to rely on the music industry to further their names unfortunately. It is unlikely that this method will ever be viable for a band unless they are firmly established and can foot the bill without label money. Of course, Radiohead itself has labeled the release an "official" leak, which means that it conforms to similar patterns that album releases face, albeit one from the band itself and not fans getting material out illegally before the CD is released.

It seems that the future of the music industry will rely on these kinds of developments, even if they are not successful. The benefit they bring to the industry is a new level of excitement and interest peaked in changing business practices and models.

It was bound to happen eventually. Backlash against English band Radiohead has emerged from the band's former label EMI Group plc (ADR) (OTC: EMIPY) in response to the method used to release the band's new album In Rainbows. You may recall that in October, Radiohead received a great deal of media attention and coverage after declaring that fans could "pay-want-they-want" for the new album. Despite hints that the band may have enjoyed a significant monetary figure from that decision, reports since then have claimed otherwise, stating the band took a loss when only about 40% of consumers paid any amount for the album.

The word slinging against Radiohead from EMI began late last week when an article for London-based The Times newspaper cited an EMI spokesman's claim that the band had demanded £10 million (roughly $20 million) upfront. Apparently, the £3 million offered by EMI and new chief Guy Hands was insufficient beside the fact that the label would not give up control over the band's previous six albums, a major point of contention for the band. According to the band's manager in the article, the band left the table when that point became unavailable. Radiohead front man Thom Yorke has since hit back at these claims in the band's official blog, dispelling the notion that Radiohead wanted a load of cash, while questioning EMI's decision to air its "dirty laundry" and backing the comments made by the band's spokesman.

To an inordinate degree of fuss, British rock group Radiohead self-released its seventh album, In Rainbows, on its website back in October, employing a pass-the-hat pay model whereby downloaders could pony up what they wished for the album, from as much as 100 pounds (about $200) to as little as virtual pocket lint.

The band has kept mum on the actual download figures, as well as their take, but a comScore study on In Rainbows' early success estimated that just 38% -- less than two in five downloaders -- bothered to put up anything at all. comScore's findings -- which Radiohead has disputed -- suggest the band gave out some 744,000 copies of the record for free, not to mention all those unrestricted downloads that bewilderingly saturated the file-sharing piracy sites, despite their free availability.

December has not been very kind to music company EMI Group PLC (OTC: EMIPY) and its new owners, the private equity group Terra Firma, led by Guy Hands. The company has come under fire from former artists like Paul McCartney and Radiohead, and it is now rumored that current artist Robbie Williams is looking to go elsewhere after the release of his next album.

Paul McCartney, that famous Beatle, recorded with EMI for 45 years before ditching the label earlier this year to sign a one-album deal with Starbucks Corporation (NASDAQ: SBUX) Hear Music label, then a new creation. McCartney came out last week and vented his dissatisfaction with EMI, though his comments were about the company before Terra Firma bought a majority holding. In an interview with The Times, the former Beatle "accused EMI of being unimaginative" in the demands that he market the album by speaking to multiple journalists and giving EMI at least six months to market the album. McCartney also bashed the excessive time for marketing by comparing his situation to former band mate John Lennon's success at releasing a song in 1970 within a week of recording it. Reportedly, Guy Hands agrees with these sentiments about EMI under former CEO Eric Nicoli, but that does not change the fact that artists since the takeover have voiced similar concerns.

In the same queue, Radiohead has now come out slamming Terra Firma's policies and pushes at EMI since the takeover. If you remember, Radiohead created quite a stir in the music industry, the blogging world, and news outlets, after announcing in early October to immediately release In Rainbows, the band's seventh album, as a digital download first. Since then, the band has signed deals to release the album physically as a CD, but not with the band's longtime label EMI. The band's guitarist Ed O'Brien recently gave an interview to BBC "claiming that [Terra Firma] do not understand the music industry." Apparently, EMI was the band's first choice to release the album, but the new owners were unwilling to give the band what they wanted, and "didn't understand where a band like us sat on a label like EMI, so they weren't able to give us what we needed." Front man Thom Yorke mirrored these sentiments commenting, "now you're in a situation with private equity firms, [Terra Firma] looks at music as something to buy and then sell on."

Billboard reported yesterday that Radiohead and long-time publisher Warner/Chappell Music, a division of Warner Music Group (NYSE: WMG), have created "a unique 'all rights' digital licensing service for the alternative rock band's new album In Rainbows." This arrangement is in anticipation of the upcoming physical release of the album, following the two months it was available on a special website set up by Radiohead, which ended yesterday.

According to Billboard, Warner/Chappell set up a "global one-stop shop" which allows potential rights users to acquire the rights to the album from one location. In queue with Radiohead's initial decision to release the album without the music labels, this "one-stop shop" effectively removes those same entities from the rights process and keeps direct control with the band and the publisher. Jane Dyball, the senior VP of Warner/Chappell for European legal and business affairs, told Billboard that the arrangement is an "'experimental solution,' which should benefit Radiohead while 'providing all their licensees with a new, highly flexible service.'"

In a new blog on Radiohead's webpage titled "The End of the Beginning," the band announced yesterday that new album In Rainbows would be removed next Monday from the download site set up in October to sell the album. This album has sparked widespread media coverage because of this website and the method used to sell it: without the music industry. The "shut down" of the download site comes as the band prepares to market and sell the album in a more "traditional" way through retail stores, according to NME's reading of the blog.

Billboard also reported that the band has now entered into talks with Apple, Inc. (NASDAQ: AAPL)'s iTunes Store to sell the album in digital stores. It looks like the fan-oriented "pay what you want" feature will certainly be gone for good. Radiohead has apparently resisted a move to the iTunes Store because it allows consumers to "unbundle" albums, breaking up the continuity the band wishes to keep for every album. This has not kept other digital stores from selling Radiohead's albums; they simply do not allow the albums to be cut apart.

The "new" versions of In Rainbows will literally go on sale as the new year begins, with the physical CD release managed and distributed by TBD Records. Radiohead moving into iTunes would add another obvious omission from the store, but it does come at the expense of the experiment the band spearheaded in the last two months. It would be naive to expect any move by the band into iTunes to not follow in the same formatting as the download site had sold. The band's title for the change from their experiment to the "usual" methods seems very apt. Unfortunately, it feels like "the beginning" was more a test than a long-term change.

In the United Kingdom, retailers have "urged the music industry to drop piracy protection for online downloads after new figures showed the average Briton has bought fewer than three digital tracks in the past three years" according to the Financial Times. The Entertainment Retailers Association also states that anti-piracy methods have inhibited growth in the digital market and are "working against the consumer interest." The three tracks in three years figure is slightly hard to believe, but another point in the article made me think about the upcoming holiday season and digital music players.

The Financial Times remarked that the ERA is urging the music industry before the Christmas season because hopes are that digital sales could grow tremendously in January for consumers that want to load up their new players. While the average user might not be able to tell the technological benefits of Digital Rights Management (anti-piracy) free tracks, they can certainly enjoy the ability to easily transfer said track without having to worry about the tedious protection measures. Unfortunately, anti-piracy protection seems to inevitably require the consumer to sign in and confirm purchases, no matter the length of time since it has occurred.

DRM-free technology (anti-piracy) software has come under fire since February when Apple Inc.'s (NASDAQ: AAPL) Steve Jobs challenged the music industry to drop usage of the technology. So far the challenge has only been partially successful with London-based EMI the only music company to fully drop DRM and offer higher quality tracks for sale in various digital stores, including iTunes. The other music companies have not been as quick to adopt a DRM-free position, with Universal Music Group the only other label even beta testing files without it.