Cutesy “Wall Street Journal” Article Gives Us The Bends

This analysis of Radiohead fans’ tendencies toward spending too much money for a download of In Rainbows raises some good points about the possibility of people showering the artists they love with maybe a little too much money (yes, even in today’s paying-for-music-averse times), but I’m guessing whoever was assigned to copyedit the thing didn’t realize that the piece’s anonymous writer was playing “spot the tortured reference to the band’s discography” from the first sentence. Which is: “Will Radiohead leave fans high and dry?”

It only gets better from there:

• “According to a poll conducted by United Kingdom music magazine NME, the average fan appears to be willing to pay $10 for a digital copy. Now, that may not sound like a blow out.”

• “Radiohead’s fitter, happier approach slices out even more cost. The band pulled the ripcord on EMI…”

• “As a well-known band it’s also able to take the knives out on marketing and promotion costs…”

And, finally:

• “To avoid letting down fans, it might be more productive to adopt a no-surprises policy and fix a simple, fair charge for its record.”

All in a 292-word piece, at that! (And I probably missed some along the way.) I’m just surprised that whoever wrote this didn’t go ahead and call the president of EMI Music a “creep,” although maybe that bit got struck out in the editing process.

What Price a Download? [WSJ]