crazy how a big band like them released it like this,

 

listening to it now :thumbup

Did you set your own price?

 

And if so, how much?

 

 

Also, would you say its a return to a more song-writing orientated sound or abstract like Kid A?

I paid 0 for it, but I'm broke right now. As soon as I get paid I'm gonna buy it proper. It's really good.

No one should have to pay for 160 kbps MP3s (if you look at the tracks spectral analysis they aren't even good quality for 160!).

 

Only thing different from streaming your album on MySpace and what Radiohead did is more of a hassle going through that ordering system.

And I can play this on my iPod. And it's really f***ing good.

I can put songs off of MySpace on my iPod too.

Well, I don't know how.

 

I still don't mind paying for it since I honestly cannot tell the difference unless I'm listening to them with my really good headphones (which just broke, son of a bitch) or through my stereo at home. Plus, if you want, you can not pay at all. I may end up just waiting for the cd to hit stores in 08 and then pay for it.

http://www.myspace.com/blackkidsrock

 

Click 'download'. (They even released them at 320 kbps)

 

If you can't tell the difference between a medium encoded 160 kbps MP3 on a portable device and your home stereo, that is because of equipment not because there isn't a quality difference. I can hear a difference between 160 and a V0 encoded MP3 almost every time.

 

I'll be downloading the discbox as quality is very important to me and I want to support a band that is giving the middle finger to the RIAA. I just think they've dropped the ball on this digital download where they could have made it something huge.

 

Trent Reznor finally got out of his record deal and if he goes the self-release route I imagine it will be handled much better than Radiohead has. At least I hope.

http://www.myspace.com/blackkidsrock

 

Click 'download'. (They even released them at 320 kbps)

 

If you can't tell the difference between a medium encoded 160 kbps MP3 on a portable device and your home stereo, that is because of equipment not because there isn't a quality difference. I can hear a difference between 160 and a V0 encoded MP3 almost every time.

 

I'll be downloading the discbox as quality is very important to me and I want to support a band that is giving the middle finger to the RIAA. I just think they've dropped the ball on this digital download where they could have made it something huge.

 

Trent Reznor finally got out of his record deal and if he goes the self-release route I imagine it will be handled much better than Radiohead has. At least I hope.

 

Of course, there is a very important point to be made here, and that is that you're average music fan (even your average Radiohead fan) isn't an audiophile and won't mind the lack of quality.

 

And yes, I fully realize the difference is because of my equipment. I'm saying the equipment is the reason I don't mind the lack of quality, since I don't have my good equipment with me. So I really don't mind the quality difference in this case.

 

Plus the album f***ing rules.

I definitely wouldn't consider myself an audiophile I just don't get why they chose to go with such a sh*tty format. Releasing it lossy is one (and sometimes good/fair) thing but for a band to do this is just surprising. They are definitely trying to make a point to the recording industry by self-releasing it digitally but the lack of quality will (despite what you think about the average user's audio aptitude) make a lot of people go for the physical album which will need a distributor to reach overseas so you are still paying the middleman and not just the band.

 

If bands continue to succesfully 'get away' with releasing it like this, then physical media will become obsolete. That is unsettling.

 

I'd fork over $30 (3 x a normal 1st week release album price) if I could get it in a lossless format.

I dunno, I've never been big on .Flac or lossless formats anyways, as I just convert them to mp3 anyways. Sure I do it at a higher bit rate than these, and I can hear the difference (mostly in lows. They come out more distorted at high volumes), but I can't bring myself to complain when a really great band allows their fans to download a really great album for free or for whatever they want to pay.

Fox you obviously have more knowledge of compressed sound files than the average music buyer (not saying this is a bad thing). Im a hardcore music fan and have done production work but you know infinitely more than I do about MP3's.

 

I think what bobbob is saying is that if the product is excellent, it can overshadow lousy formats. And vice versa............if an artist releases a sh*tty record, it won't matter how good the file quality is because you can't polish a turd.

And believe me, if everyone decides to go digital, it won't be at 160 kbps. Just look at iTunes upgrading to DRM free 256kbps. It's inevitable. It was probably just cheaper and more efficient for Radiohead to do it this way. Their website was already bogged down last night, it would've been even more so with larger file formats.

if the product is excellent, it can overshadow lousy formats. And vice versa............if an artist releases a sh*tty record, it won't matter how good the file quality is because you can't polish a turd.

 

And this is probably the most true thing anyone has said about the problems with the music industry today.

Fox you obviously have more knowledge of compressed sound files than the average music buyer (not saying this is a bad thing). Im a hardcore music fan and have done production work but you know infinitely more than I do about MP3's.

 

I think what bobbob is saying is that if the product is excellent, it can overshadow lousy formats. And vice versa............if an artist releases a sh*tty record, it won't matter how good the file quality is because you can't polish a turd.

I agree with that point.

 

I think the idea of what they are doing is great, like I said, I'm for more supportive of truely independent artists then I am of RIAA artists but they absolutely have let a lot of people down with this. I know a ton of people didn't pay anything for this album but I also know there are people who paid anywhere from $10 - $50 and probably a lot more for a product that isn't very good, for a band that should be heard in the best possible sound.

 

I just think it sets a dangerous/bad prescedent or standard for other bands considering going the same route. It will be very interesting to see what Reznor does now that he is independent.

 

I didn't take my feelings from this but PFM wrote up something with a similar sentiment this morning. Just to let you guys know I'm not the only one who feels this way.

Anything over 128 is good enough for me. I remember reading somewhere that people can't even really detect the difference once you hit that number. I guess that's probably not entirely true, but I've never sat there and though to myself, oh crap this sounds like a crappy 128. And if you've listened to as much LoFi stuff as I have, I think you just don't care all that much.

 

I'd rather listen to this and then pay as much as I want to, but since they set up the system like this, I'll prob. just buy it for $1 tonight.

can anyone post a link to the radiohead album so i can "buy" it

So the other day I did something crazy. I went online, downloaded a CD, and didn?t pay for it. Strangely, I didn?t feel the tiny pangs of guilt generally associated with downloading music for free.

I had no fears that a team of armed men would storm my dorm and find me hiding in my closet, a burned Memorex CD clutched in my arms. Nor did I have the image of the distraught record company CEO, wringing his hands over declining sales and trading in the keys to his Maserati and trading down to a Mercedes.

Clearly this was not your every day album release.

In fact, this release, In Rainbows, Radiohead?s 7th studio album, was released in anything but a conventional way. Following the completion of their 6 record deal with Capitol, the band was in the rare position of being at the height of their commercial and creative powers and free from the constraints of the modern record game.

Taking advantage of this rare opportunity to control not only the distribution of the record, but by denying reviewers advance copies, the public?s perception of the record, Radiohead decided to set up a website where their fans could literally pay whatever they wanted for the new record.

Over a million fans responded in the first two days of release, with many paying nothing for the album, but with many others essentially donating whatever they felt was a fair price for the record.

And this is where the core of the success of this business model will come from. Does the quality of the album match up to what fans feel they should be paying for it?

Beginning with ?15 Step?, a schizophrenic semi-dance track featuring a trip-hop beat, and on down to ?Videotape?, the album?s plaintive closer, In Rainbows is well worth whatever price you spend on it..

Prior to it?s release of the album, the band said that the album was, at various times, the most ?lush?, ?sparse?, and ?creepy? thing they had done, and while those descriptions may seem almost contradictory, they find a way to make them fit on almost every track.

Take ?Nude?, the album?s third track, for instance. The slow waltz-like pacing of the song allows room for the song to meander from a soft, methodical arpeggioed guitar intro that eventually gives way to ominous synthesized strings that bring to mind ?Exit Music For A Film? from their 1997 release Ok Computer before fading out as silently as it began.

In fact, all over the album, there seem to be references to their earlier work, without looking behind them, with the outcome being something like one part great leap forward, one part greatest hits package.

?Bodysnatchers? features arguably the best riff Radiohead has written since The Bends, their last ?conventional rock? album. So while it rocks in a very conventional sense, it also harkens back to ?The National Anthem? off of Kid A, especially around the 1:10 mark, where the simulated sound of a spaceship landing sounds lifted straight off of that track, not to mention the frenzied Yorke vocal that matches the intensity of the last few minutes of ?The National Anthem?.

And speaking of Yorke?s vocals, he has never sounded as good as he does on this album. From the way he rides the beat on ?15 Step? with his signature falsetto, to the intensity of the vocals on the aforementioned ?Bodysnatchers? and ?Jigsaw Falling Into Place?, to the echo drenched ?House Of Cards?, with his pained plea ?I don?t want to your friend, I just want to be your lover? , he dominates this album after consciously pushing himself into the mix to feature as just another instrument on recent releases.

Overall, In Rainbows is another strong addition to the impressive Radiohead catalog, proudly standing beside classics as Kid A and Ok Computer and giving further credence to their status as the most important band in rock and roll.

I am really curious as to how many people downloaded it for free vs bought it and the breakdowns for those who bought it.

 

Im going to wait for the CD to be available in stores. I do mostly downloading these days but I always go by the CD for my favorite acts.

 

bob, how many times did you listen to it before you did your review? How would you rank it amongst their albums?

I am really curious as to how many people downloaded it for free vs bought it and the breakdowns for those who bought it.

 

Im going to wait for the CD to be available in stores. I do mostly downloading these days but I always go by the CD for my favorite acts.

 

bob, how many times did you listen to it before you did your review? How would you rank it amongst their albums?

 

I listened to it about 10 times, probably. I'd rank it as such

 

1a. Ok Computer

1b. Kid A

3. The Bends

4. In Rainbows

5. Hail To The Theif

6. Amnesiac

7. Pablo Honey.

 

Of course, I'd give all but PH at least 4 stars.

I usually can't even formulate an opinion on a Radiohead album until like 2 or 3 months later.

I decided to pay 0.50 pounds for it, but they added an extra fee, so it came out to 0.95 pounds.

 

I've listened once, so it's really to early for me to judge it. My early opinion is that it sounds most similar to Hail To The Thief (no surprise) and I was only so-so on that record.

I usually can't even formulate an opinion on a Radiohead album until like 2 or 3 months later.

 

 

 

+1

 

 

But bob did give it 10 listens which is more than I would assume most critics listen prior to writing a review.

I usually can't even formulate an opinion on a Radiohead album until like 2 or 3 months later.

 

 

 

+1

 

 

But bob did give it 10 listens which is more than I would assume most critics listen prior to writing a review.

 

I'm a reviewer who writes one or two reviews a week for a publication that has a readership if 10,000 or so. Which isn't even close to most reviewers. But when I review something, I listen to it nonstop until about 5 minutes before my deadline. I don't know if I am a typical critic, but I always want to give anything a fair shot. Even the Jimmy Eat World album that I didn't like on any of the 7 or so listens I gave, I still listened. It's only fair, really.

 

So, if anyone disagrees with me on my reviews, at least I can feel like it is my true opinion without a guilty conscious. Sure, my opinion may change with time (if I judged OKC on it's first 10 listens, I wouldn't think nearly as highly of it as I do now), but at this point, this is how I feel. Which is as honest as I can be.

My post wasnt a dig at you (if thats how it came across).

 

 

Im not a big fan of music critics though. Ive read so many horrible reviews of albums that I later learned were above-average/fantastic that Ive lost faith.

 

Critics can destroy 2 years of hard work in a studio with a lazy review. Obviously I am generalizing and Im sure there are plenty of responsible/educated critics out there but there are plenty of them who are a disgrace to their profession.