*poor grammar.

if only i was an uber-rich indie bloke, that would DEFINITELY be the first purchase

and I just don't buy it (no pun intended).

If you want to get a message out to as many people as possible, then surely it makes sense to make use the wider reaching apparatus which is already in place? If you truly have a agenda you wish to fulfill, your going to overlook your conduit's misgivings and focus more upon the end effect.

All these cute extended metaphors your using to paint Yorke as some fat cat smoking C-Notes is doing nothing more than revealing your own jealously for his financial success. Fair enough, you think the album's crap; but so what if they've made $$$. That's what large bands do!

Should Bill Hicks have never ventured upon the set of a program which is owned by a conglomerate?

So what if they're not Propagandhi? Radiohead's music isn't entirely centered around anti-capitalism. It's only from The Bends onward (when they were already signed to a contract) where they starting to explore socio-politics.

artist making money from their art is treated with such contempt. you may not think In Rainbows that good artistically (i personally disagree) but its merit is clearly not affected by the marketing of the album. i dont see the band pushing the anti corporate messages, only pundits commenting on the whole saga. i dont see why they shouldnt market it imaginatively as it is their work to distribute how they please. you could pay or get it free, i dont see how offering the music free before making it available on cd is a cash-in, not many artists would do that (ok radiohead are rich, but chrysler doesnt give away free cars). also judging by the way the record industry is shitting itself, and them simiultaniously hitting the top of the charts, they have been pretty successful in subverting the industry and still selling their records. i'm no fan of consumerism, and certainly not in music, but personally i'm glad to see their 'business model' succeed, because what is the alternative?

radiohead never made a 'statement' when they released the album the way they did. they never said 'we are doing this because the internet's the future and record labels are evil' or anything of the sort. The press did it for them.

the other albums were all released with incredible power of EMI's marketing machine behind them.

XL are a relatively small label and I didn't get the impression there was a massive amount of marketing.

That said, it's still pretty low.

the bemused guy who delivered my discbox said they were sending out 16000 in the UK.

so i guess that means, if we assume it might normally have expected HTTT level 1st week sales, that over half of the more enthusiastic fanbase have picked up physical copies in some form.