This art vs. commerce debate isn’t just resigned to the on-going writer’s strike; it’s happening all over. As a warm and fuzzy holiday gift, Radiohead (the most blogged about musical act of 2007 not involved in a drug scandal, custody battle, or underage sex tape) was engaged in a public war of words with its ex-label EMI over the re-negotiations of their recording contract. For motives still unclear, a spokesperson for EMI recently said “Radiohead were demanding an extraordinary amount of money and we did not believe that our other artists should have to subsidize their gains.” To which Radiohead frontman Thom Yorke replied with some choice words suggesting that EMI’s pants were, in fact, on fire. More on this story here. Much of the debate was on how much control the band had over its present and past material and how it was used… sounds similar to the writer’s strike. Note to young bands… if you don’t want your song used for a hemorrhoid ad, own the rights to your master recordings.

Radiohead, of course, opted out of EMI’s offer, and infamously released their latest ‘In Rainbows’ over the internet earlier this year. The band’s decision to charge fans whatever they felt like paying for the album was more PR stunt than business plan, but their strength of brand and populist campaign has made the album a modest success. For people who still enjoy biting off the plastic with their teeth and removing security stickers, the record is now available in the US in compact disc format (on ATO, an artist-friendly label co-founded by Dave Matthews).

Do you think this battle between creative control and corporate control will result in better choices for you in the end? Can only older, established artists like Radiohead and others (Paul McCartney, Eagles, Joni Mitchell) who have left the big-label system wage this war? (Oh, and check this Jay Z story). Leave your comments here or start a new opinion on any of the artists our main site using the links above.