Head In the Rainbows

[chilli]

Radiohead have finally released their new album, called In Rainbows, after more than four years of anticipation since their last album Hail to the Thief in 2003. What is really exciting for anyone who cares about the future of music though, is that they have decided that anyone can download it for as much or as little as they want... the album website www.inrainbows.com requires a simple registration process, and doesn't even give you a guilt trip or explanation, you simply enter the amount you wish to pay for the download version of the album.

I decided I would pay nothing, and I am downloading it from the official site now after about a two minute wait. The reason I opted to pay nothing is partly because I wanted to see if you could, but mostly because I am buying the 'hard copy' of the album when it is released in December. Yeah, it also sucks to pay anything for a 160kbps MP3 file. You can also choose to pre-order this hard copy which comes in a box and gives you the album on 2 heavyweight 12" vinyl records, one CD, and another enhanced CD with extra tracks, as well as lush artwork and packaging for 40 quid (I can't find the symbol for GBP!), and I'm hoping it will be available quicker and much cheaper if I order it locally.

There's a gap in between

There's a gap where we meet

Where I end and you begin

[RonnySimulacrum]

It rocks-------------------------------------- got it last night and have flogged the shit out of it already

[Hagakure]

favourite so far has to be "nude"

[occidentalis]

Yeah I paid 6.60

just for fun.

I quite like "All I need"

Great album, much rockier and even a little bit funkier than we've heard for a while.

[chilli]

favourite so far has to be "nude"

Ah, that's what I decided after the first listen!

[dqd]

got told my authentification code is invalid when following link to download?? wtf??

[Ace]

I've not heard much of Radiohead (perhaps this would be a good place to start!), but I really love the way they have gone about the advertising of this CD. There is a chance that people will not buy the CD because they have already d/loaded it, but all the d/load really is is advertising for the real deal. And not only does it entice people to buy the CD (if they enjoy it), but they also get paid for the advertising! Seriously - that is quite ingenious IMO

It'd be interesting to see how successful this method of [paid] advertising is over the next few months. I'd love to see more bands do the same sort of thing (because it really is a good way to test-drive an album, and a great way to get your name heard by the masses), but I wouldn't want to see it backfire (by people not bothering to buy the CD after d/load) and leave the bands out of pocket.

Still, it looks very clever to me!

[dqd]

all ok now, didn't cut and paste the link properly ... will listen to soon...

[Kenny Blister]

Have always liked their songs when they come on the radio or when someone puts them on, but have never bought any of their albums in the past, however, I will pay a few dollars to download this and have it on my mp3 player to listen to now and then, so the concept has worked on me I guess. Actually, I really, really like the songs I've heard on the J's over the last couple of days...

[apothecary]

What is really exciting for anyone who cares about the future of music though, is that they have decided that anyone can download it for as much or as little as they want...

They managed to do this by essentially telling all the big record labels to get fucked. The intergeek community has been trying to champion this cause for about five years now! Good to see some bands taking up the banner.

NIN recently joined the group of bands/artists/whatever to do this also.

At the last NIN concert Trent Reznor said "last time I in Aus, I was complaining about how expensive my albums are sold for here. They made it an international news story and I copped a lot of shit from my label. Have things chaned?" the crowd shouts no, so he says "Well fuck it, I guess you better go out there and steal them! Steal them and make copies, give the copies to your friends!"

Fuck the RIAA/MPAA!

Edited October 12, 2007 by apothecary

[chilli]

They managed to do this by essentially telling all the big record labels to get fucked. The intergeek community has been trying to champion this cause for about five years now! Good to see some bands taking up the banner.

NIN recently joined the group of bands/artists/whatever to do this also.

At the last NIN concert Trent Reznor said "last time I in Aus, I was complaining about how expensive my albums are sold for here. They made it an international news story and I copped a lot of shit from my label. Have things chaned?" the crowd shouts no, so he says "Well fuck it, I guess you better go out there and steal them! Steal them and make copies, give the copies to your friends!"

Fuck the RIAA/MPAA!

Haha that's awesome.

Here is an interesting story from MTV about it, seems some people feel they got ripped off:

Radiohead Fans Feel Duped By In Rainbows' Poor Sound Quality, Possible Ulterior Motives

Edited October 12, 2007 by IllegalBrain

[MORG]

After the first two listens I must say I'm still unconvinced.

I loved Kid-A, Amnesiac, Hail to the Thief and this album's lacking alot of the electro-groove (or just groove in general) that I loved in those.

Here's hoping for the "growing on you" stage

ALL I NEED, FAUST ARP and RECKONER I'm quite liking.

And the quote in your initial post IllegalBrain... that is one of my all-time fav Radiohead songs.... love it

[RonnySimulacrum]

Radiohead can take some repeated plays to get in to the space, i call them smakeyhead

they just know how to get 'everying in it right place'

[Conan Troutman]

hahaha...not like Radiohead to split its fan base or music fans in general

Radiohead fools fans with crappy quality (paid) downloads

Posted on 16 Oct, 2007 - Bookmark at del.icio.us

Radiohead to open box of Pandora for other lesser known bands?

(From our UK correspondent, Joyce Lafonte) It is not all gold that shines in Radiohead's recent move to offer its album as a download to its fans. A big majority of the 'buyers' of Radiohead's most recent album for instance actually seem to have 'purchased' the album for free. This also seemed the case with most of the 100 fans we contacted in the past 48 hours. 64 of them had paid nothing while only 11 had paid 1 UK pound or more with the maximum being 3,50 UK pound. This differs a lot from what has been written in various magazines reporting payments up to 10 UK pound. Strangely enough, all these reports refer to pretty insignificant research on Internet fora and hearsay from so called sources close to the band...

We tried the £ 0.00 option, downloaded the album and saw that no handling fee was asked (unlike what magazines have claimed in the past few days). The question remains if you'd really want to pay for a download like this since the files are encoded in a lousy bit rate of just 160kbps, a very mediocre quality that is. Selling CD's or decent quality downloads was clearly NOT the main concern of the band. The public that would still be unwilling to pay for the music will not be considered as a loss anyhow since all 'buyers' will be contacted later on when the band is playing live for ticket sales and merchandise. The main idea was to pull a larger public to concerts and that will probably be the case. The extras here and there are welcome but not the band's new core business.

A win - win situation? Not exactly because the move by Radiohead and other bands such as The Charlatans and Oasis could cause a real backlash to lesser known bands who cannot fall back on well paid concerts - if they even get booked at all that is - and who see their commercial products devaluated by factor 10. It remains to be seen how the market will react on what happens now, but everything seems to indicate that the gap between the 'haves' and the 'have nots' in the music scene will only be increasing and we are probably just witnessing one-hit-wonder tricks. So far the 'gentle' gesture by the most famous bands.

And so how does he album actually sound like, the most important thing after all... well, it is not new or refreshing and certainly not revolutionary as many journalists have written recently. It's not bad, but certainly far beyond the expectations created by the band especially with such a hyped release. Too much ado about nearly nothing...

SOURCE

[chilli]

Well after quite a bit more listening, I'd say it's a great album, but like the article says, not anything new. It's not even really anything new for Radiohead themselves, in fact it's quite similar to Hail to the Thief, but if you think of Hail to the Thief as being a kind of synthesis of the Kid A/Amnesiac style and OK Computer, I feel like this album reaches even further back and draws on influences from The Bends. The songs that initially stood out to me are still my favorites, and the ones that seemed a bit like filler still seem that way... perosnally, I find Radiohead's ballads or 'unplugged' style songs really quite boring. This album also has less angst than Hail to the Thief, and overall seems to have a kind of mellow or even tired feel to it. Overall, I really like it, especially the production which is pristine even in 160kbps. It has made me trawl through their older albums again.

Favorite tracks at the moment are probably 15 Steps, Nude, Reckoner. Okay, also Bodysnatchers, Weird Fishes and All I Need And Jigsaw Falling Into Place.

I think people whinging about the downloads thing is kind of sad and small minded, after all with the music industry in the state it is, there is a lot of experimentation with new models of releasing and selling music, and this is just one more try at doing something different at a time when everything is up in the air. Personally, despite some of the difficult issues I think it is a move in the right direction and one they should be lauded for, not picked apart by uber-cynical music journalists.

[Sparkster]

I love the website they've got... and like the album more than some of their more recent ones.

Regardless of small band / big band, the money for either tend to be made on the road, and through merchandise.

Talk to any small band and they're eager and depserate just to get their stuff out there. People being signed to labels are bands who can draw a crowd and have an active fanbase. Having music for download through a website is a completely logical way for this to happen. Its all well and good saying that people in countries like US and Australia (with very high disposable incomes) *should* be shelling out $25 for an album that cost SFA to make, this excludes millions of people who simply cannot afford non-pirated CD's (Russia, Brazil, China)

I dont think Radiohead are fooling people with crappy quality (160kb) downloads... no one is being forced to pay here, the less middle men (record companies) the more profit for the band.

b.t.w... i recommend having a look at this band: VAST who make kick arse music & have decided to sell it through their website after traditionally doing it through stores and not through a record company. They havn't made any less money doing it that way, infact they've made more.

Edited October 23, 2007 by Sparkster

[MORG]

b.t.w... i recommend having a look at this band: VAST who make kick arse music & have decided to sell it through their website after traditionally doing it through stores and not through a record company. They havn't made any less money doing it that way, infact they've made more.

Yeah, been lovin' VAST since the late '90s. He was supposed to play in Sydney this year but the gig dropped off the radar. Great tunes.

In Rainbows has definitely grown on me. Will never be my favourite album but there are some definite stand-out tracks there. I agree with IB though that generally I find their slow, acousticy stuff a tad boring. There's a couple like that on In Rainbows. One major gripe though, it's too short!

[occidentalis]

I dont think Radiohead are fooling people with crappy quality (160kb) downloads... no one is being forced to pay here, the less middle men (record companies) the more profit for the band.

I don't think they are 'fooling' anyone, but I do think that they didn't really make it clear enough - I prepaid for my download, several days before the album was released. I paid for it with the assumption that it would be high quality audio, because that's what you get when you buy a cd. I also paid a reasonable amount for it - around $15.

The day before it was available I received an email telling that the tracks would be 160kbps mp3s. Technically I would have been able to cancel the order in between then and the actual release, but that would be a hassle. So I don't think it was entirely honest of the band. I have a good set of headphones and I can tell the difference between 160kbps and 192 or higher.

[Sparkster]

generally I find their slow, acousticy stuff a tad boring.

I tend to really dig those tracks, they're less distracting if I'm reading a book as they don't demand alot of attention.

Whenever a song from O.K computer plays on MP3 player at work I find myself stopping whatever im doing and spin around on my chair for a bit.

[chilli]

I don't think they are 'fooling' anyone, but I do think that they didn't really make it clear enough - I prepaid for my download, several days before the album was released. I paid for it with the assumption that it would be high quality audio, because that's what you get when you buy a cd. I also paid a reasonable amount for it - around $15.

The day before it was available I received an email telling that the tracks would be 160kbps mp3s. Technically I would have been able to cancel the order in between then and the actual release, but that would be a hassle. So I don't think it was entirely honest of the band. I have a good set of headphones and I can tell the difference between 160kbps and 192 or higher.

Okay, I am obviously a fanboy, but I don't see why people expected 192kbps from a downloaded MP3 album, when the iTunes Store sells DRM protected 128kbps tracks for something like $1USD each... 160kbps is actually a significant improvement over 128kbps, and an audiophile who can tell a difference between 160kbps and 192kbps would surely not be satisfied with 192kbps anyway!

It strikes me as a bit bizarre to suggest a band that is not only renowned for their abhorrence of crass commercialism and underhanded record company tactics but also highly successful is being dishonest in order to squeeze a few more dollars out of their fans!

Besides, I don't quite get why it would have been such a hassle to cancel the order, wouldn't it have just involved a couple of clicks of the mouse? I mean, at the very least it doesn't involve getting up from your seat.

I could see why people would be upset if they had been told the album would cost a certain amount, and that it would be in a very high-quality audio format, and then they were told a day before that it would actually be a standard compression rate and they could not get their money back. But instead, this is what happened:

People were able to pay whatever they wanted, and were not told anything about the quality. The day before it was released they were told it would be in a format that is higher than what the iTunes Store encodes tracks at, and then also given the opportunity to cancel their order if they wished. Where exactly is the dishonesty in any of this?

Anyway, ranting over... here is an interesting excerpt from a recent interview with band member Jonny Greenwood:

What’s motivating the band to distribute the album this way?

Just getting it out quickly. It was kind of an experiment as well; we were just doing it for ourselves and that was all. People are making a big thing about it being against the industry or trying to change things for people but it’s really not what motivated us to do it. It’s more about feeling like it was right for us and feeling bored of what we were doing before.

Why give people the option to pay whatever they want?

It’s just interesting to make people pause for even a few seconds and think about what music is worth now. I thought it was an interesting thing to ask people to do and compare it to whatever else in their lives they value or don’t value.

______________________________

I tend to really dig those tracks, they're less distracting if I'm reading a book as they don't demand alot of attention.

Whenever a song from O.K computer plays on MP3 player at work I find myself stopping whatever im doing and spin around on my chair for a bit.

How can you read and listen to music at the same time? I am totally the opposite, I am either giving my full attention to listening or reading, I just can't mix the two... it is like having a conversation with a TV on. Although, sometimes I will chuck on some music whilst gardening or cleaning up.

Does anyone else go and turn the TV off when they arrive at someone's house and it's just blaring in the background with no one watching it, making them feel like they are going crazy?

Edited October 23, 2007 by IllegalBrain

[occidentalis]

Okay, I am obviously a fanboy, but I don't see why people expected 192kbps from a downloaded MP3 album, when the iTunes Store sells DRM protected 128kbps tracks for something like $1USD each... 160kbps is actually a significant improvement over 128kbps, and an audiophile who can tell a difference between 160kbps and 192kbps would surely not be satisfied with 192kbps anyway!

I have never bought downloadable music before. I have always bought cds or 'stolen' music, which is usually at a high bitrate. I was aware that iTunes sells 128kbps tracks, but I have never bought from itunes, nor would I at that bitrate, so when I paid up, I didn't think much about bitrate. I had heard that radiohead were only releasing this album by download or with the discbox, so I assumed the download would be of good quality.

I am not accusing the band of crass commercialism or any other foul play, and I strongly support what they have done (that's why I paid $15 for it), but I would not have paid that price if I had known about the quality when I made the decision about how much I would pay. I would suggest that many others would be in the same position.

I am not interested in indulging your argumentativeness any further.

[chilli]

I am not accusing the band of crass commercialism or any other foul play...

I am not interested in indulging your argumentativeness any further.

You accused them of dishonesty, and I asked you what your reason was and then offered an alternative viewpoint. This is not argumentativeness, it is discussion.

I would suggest that many others would be in the same position.

Yes, there's a lot of whinging, rude little fuckers out there that are difficult to please regardless of how hard you try.

By the way, a regular CD will be released. Maybe you can steal one, then you won't have anything to complain about, but I'm afraid you will have to drag your ass out the door... bit of a hassle, I know.

It's quite dishonest of Radiohead to make you drive to the shop to steal their CD.

Edited October 23, 2007 by IllegalBrain

[benjahman]

I don't think they are 'fooling' anyone, but I do think that they didn't really make it clear enough - I prepaid for my download, several days before the album was released. I paid for it with the assumption that it would be high quality audio, because that's what you get when you buy a cd. I also paid a reasonable amount for it - around $15.

The day before it was available I received an email telling that the tracks would be 160kbps mp3s. Technically I would have been able to cancel the order in between then and the actual release, but that would be a hassle. So I don't think it was entirely honest of the band. I have a good set of headphones and I can tell the difference between 160kbps and 192 or higher.

I have never bought downloadable music before. I have always bought cds or 'stolen' music, which is usually at a high bitrate. I was aware that iTunes sells 128kbps tracks, but I have never bought from itunes, nor would I at that bitrate, so when I paid up, I didn't think much about bitrate. I had heard that radiohead were only releasing this album by download or with the discbox, so I assumed the download would be of good quality.

I am not accusing the band of crass commercialism or any other foul play, and I strongly support what they have done (that's why I paid $15 for it), but I would not have paid that price if I had known about the quality when I made the decision about how much I would pay. I would suggest that many others would be in the same position.

I am not interested in indulging your argumentativeness any further.

Crystal clear, rational and perfectly reasonable. In a buyers market with an embarassment of choice, at 160 kbps vs the 1411 kbps encoding of WAV (cd format), it isn't really providing an incentive for cd proportional levels of donations outside of one's core die-hard fanbase.

You accused them of dishonesty, and I asked you what your reason was and then offered an alternative viewpoint. This is not argumentativeness, it is discussion.

Yes, there's a lot of whinging, rude little fuckers out there that are difficult to please regardless of how hard you try.

Lovely contradiction between the second and third sentences there. Hard to fit much more incisive, personal insult-ridden trolly baiting into 30 syllables than you have right there in sentence three. Nice

By the way, a regular CD will be released. Maybe you can steal one, then you won't have anything to complain about, but I'm afraid you will have to drag your ass out the door... bit of a hassle, I know.

It's quite dishonest of Radiohead to make you drive to the shop to steal their CD.

More baiting and unsubstantiated jumps in logic that leap to incisive conclusions. Does have one point though, if you download it for free from somewhere else in FLAC you won't have to feel too guilty about it creach

Edited October 23, 2007 by benjahman

[ajna]

well i've given the album a while to sink in before giving my critique, but i can't help but feel underwhelmed (poor mp3 quality prob doesn't help the cause).

their previous albums have seen them constantly pushing boundaries, and somehow able to keep out-doing themselves with each release. but it feels with this one as if they've given up on that, accepted that their best music is already out there and happy to release something that's 'just another album'.

not that i could blame them, topping a string of masterpieces can't be easy!! but it's just not fulfilling my expectations of such a great band - although i'd still drop everything for the chance to see them live again!

[chilli]

Crystal clear, rational and perfectly reasonable. In a buyers market with an embarassment of choice, at 160 kbps vs the 1411 kbps encoding of WAV (cd format), it isn't really providing an incentive for cd proportional levels of donations outside of one's core die-hard fanbase.

Lovely contradiction between the second and third sentences there. Hard to fit much more incisive, personal insult-ridden trolly baiting into 30 syllables than you have right there in sentence three. Nice

More baiting and unsubstantiated jumps in logic that leap to incisive conclusions. Does have one point though, if you download it for free from somewhere else in FLAC you won't have to feel too guilty about it creach

How sad... you comprehended so much of the thought and intent that went into every precisely constructed sentence (including the contradictions and unsubstantiated leaps in logic), but you completely failed to discern the irony that impregnated the whole thing.

Still, I'm flattered you think my writing is so incisive that you used the word in consecutive sentences... that will help me assuage the self-pitying feelings of being so misunderstood, and enable me to keep going in life.