View Full Version : Radiohead to give away new album
Sporkman
October 1st, 2007, 04:38 PM
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2007/10/01/bcnradio101.xml
Radiohead to give away new album
By Angela Monaghan
Last Updated: 1:01pm BST 01/10/2007
Radiohead, the internationally renowned band, has taken the unusual step of telling fans that they can pay as much or as little as they like for the band's new album In Rainbows.
In a break from industry tradition the UK band famous for hits including Creep, Paranoid Android and Karma Police, has told fans "it's up to you" what they pay to digitally download the album.
This isn't the first time that an artist has opted to charge nothing for its album, but the move is significant because Radiohead remains one of the biggest bands in the world.
Radiohead is free to sell its album directly from its official website because it is no longer tied to a record label. So far the album is only available to pre-order from the website, where it can be downloaded on release on October 10.
While loyal fans are likely to want to pay the band something, customers could opt to pay as little 45p - the credit card handling fee.
The album is also available separately as part of a £40 box-set which includes the album on CD, two vinyl records, a CD with additional songs, photos, artwork and lyrics.
It is Radiohead's first album since Hail to the Thief, which was released in 2003 after which the band's contract with EMI/Capitol expired.
It is likely that many of its millions of die-hard fans will be unable to resist buying the box-set, available in December, while Radiohead will not be required to share its profits with either a record label or shops.
Radiohead could even benefit from those who ignore the box set and choose to pay nothing to download the album from Radiohead's online shop, where they will be required to register their details and therefore become targets for future marketing campaigns.
Free albums also drive demand for live tours, which translate to pound signs for the artists behind them. A great example of this is Prince, who in July gave away his album 3121 for free in the UK through the Daily Mail.
He subsequently announced 21 tour dates in London, all of which sold out.
Radiohead has the financial welly and is sufficiently well-known to be confident enough that the move is a risk worth taking, but it might also become an answer for those lesser known bands that struggle to be signed by a record label, or are reluctant to share their profits.
mostwanted
October 1st, 2007, 05:25 PM
I preordered it earlier from radiohead.com. I'm a cheapskate + I have no idea what I'm getting (DRM, quality) so I didn't pay anything.
23meg
October 1st, 2007, 05:36 PM
To return the gesture, I'll pay the highest reasonable amount I can.
Kingsley
October 1st, 2007, 06:31 PM
Cooool. I heard about that on the radio while I was working out an hour ago.
tcpip4lyfe
October 1st, 2007, 06:52 PM
I consider Radiohead to the the beatles of my generation.
The Soundophiliac
October 1st, 2007, 07:51 PM
This is the way to sell music or any kind of art assuming it's sustainable. This ensures availability to all who have internet.
ynnhoj
October 1st, 2007, 09:24 PM
i wasn't crazy about hail to the thief (or amnesiac), but i might give this new one a chance anyways. i definitely like how they've decided to release it.
23meg
October 10th, 2007, 11:17 AM
It's out; I'm downloading at the moment. 160kbps, DRM-free MP3s; No FLACs or higher quality MP3s. I must say I'm disappointed with the distribution.
n3tfury
October 10th, 2007, 11:29 AM
It's out; I'm downloading at the moment. 160kbps, DRM-free MP3s; No FLACs or higher quality MP3s. I must say I'm disappointed with the distribution.
i don't see why you'd be disappointed unless you're one of the 2% that are actually going to pay money for it.
Tom Mann
October 10th, 2007, 11:32 AM
I think this a fantastic idea - to get us to pay what we like - though I do think there should be a minimum payment. (Or an allocation of free downloads). Then files could be released in higher quality formats for a little more. Like follows:
MP3 ( 128k ): Free (500 Allocated)
MP3 ( 256/320k ): £3 (Higher Quality than the above)
OGG ( Q=8 ): £1.50 (Feel the love for OGG)
FLAC: £3 (Hell yes!)
Note OGG being cheaper than the MP3, and my favoured beloved FLAC format being the same price as the lossy MP3.
23meg
October 10th, 2007, 11:35 AM
As I indicated in my first post, I did actually pay money for it, but that's beside the point. I'm very much into Radiohead, and the fact that they're distributing only low quality MP3s is disappointing, regardless of the cost. I'd say the same if I had paid nothing, or twice what I paid.
And about the 2% figure, Radiohead's spokesperson says otherwise. From http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/7024130.stm:
Mr Chalmers also said that to date, most fans were pre-ordering the "discbox" and that very few fans were trying to download the album for next to nothing.
He said: "Although the idea is that you can decide what you want to pay, most people are deciding on a normal retail price with very few trying to buy it for a penny."
Luffield
October 10th, 2007, 11:44 AM
Other bands are following Radiohead: Nine Inch Nails said they'll do it, the Charlatans will release a free album later this month, and rumors are that Jamiroquai and Oasis will do it too. I think Ian Brown also said positive things about it.
slimdog360
October 10th, 2007, 11:48 AM
I was listening to it on jjj on the drive home today. Pretty cool.
n3tfury
October 10th, 2007, 12:13 PM
As I indicated in my first post, I did actually pay money for it, but that's beside the point. I'm very much into Radiohead, and the fact that they're distributing only low quality MP3s is disappointing, regardless of the cost. I'd say the same if I had paid nothing, or twice what I paid.
And about the 2% figure, Radiohead's spokesperson says otherwise. From http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/7024130.stm:
i don't know wth happened to my original reply to this post, but basically it was:
i missed that you had paid, sorry. my thought is if you pay, you should be able to get your music in a lossless format. i don't like the route that this sort of distributing music is going. i fear that one of these days we'll be faced with some generic itunes front and paying $1/song@128kbps and that's it. no thanks.
sunexplodes
October 10th, 2007, 09:59 PM
I ask because the release was fairly interesting. Radiohead decided to release it on their own, over the internet, for whatever people think it's worth. There were two options made available:
1. 160k DRM-free mp3s. This is the option I went with. It takes you to a checkout. You pay what you think they deserve (I paid $5, presumably you could pay $0, but I want to support this kind of thinking), then on the 10th, they sent out an email download link. I'm a little disappointed it wasn't a slightly higher bitrate, but I'm not a serious audiophile, so I'll live with it.
2. The full package. This one's a little more conventional. Avaliable on vinyl or CD, comes with a lyric book, album art, and a second disc of b-sides, outtakes, live stuff, etc. It goes for about what you'd expect to pay for a commercial CD, except the money's not going to some major label, it's going to the people who made the damn record.
So, what are your thoughts on this? Good album? Good idea? How feasible would it be for more bands to do this, especially lesser-known bands? What does this imply for the industry? For fans? What kind of adaptation would it take for this business model to work for not-so-rich musicians who are still struggling to put food on their tables with their art?
FRuMMaGe
October 10th, 2007, 10:11 PM
I think it's a great album. Too bad it wasn't a better band who thought of it :(
sunexplodes
October 10th, 2007, 10:15 PM
Wait, what do you mean? You like the album, but not radiohead? Or did you mean "I think it's a great idea. Too bad it wasn't a better band who thought of it"?
FRuMMaGe
October 10th, 2007, 10:25 PM
Sorry yeah I meant "idea". I wasnt really concentrating.
n3tfury
October 10th, 2007, 10:40 PM
*edit* thank you Mod
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=564640&highlight=radiohead
Nonno Bassotto
October 10th, 2007, 10:52 PM
Got it, but I hoped in something better... maybe when I listen to it again
ComplexNumber
October 10th, 2007, 10:52 PM
i'm COMPLETELY and TOTALLY in favour of this!! the sooner we can get rid of those parasitic waste of space's called the record labels the better!
money should go straight to the artist. i wouldn't have it any other way!
this will help to kill off(or at least, significantly diminish) the usual manufactured dross that the record labels keep on churning out, and help to give greater publicity to good artists.
bionnaki
October 10th, 2007, 10:54 PM
death to the major labels.
bionnaki
October 10th, 2007, 10:56 PM
i'm COMPLETELY and TOTALLY in favour of this!! the sooner we can get rid of those parasitic waste of space's called the record labels the better!
money should go straight to the artist. i wouldn't have it any other way!
this will help to kill off(or at least, significantly diminish) the usual manufactured dross that the record labels keep on churning out, and help to give greater publicity to good artists.
not all labels are scum. most independent labels treat their acts quite well and advance their endeavours. its the major labels that rip off the artists and consumers.
23meg
October 10th, 2007, 10:59 PM
i'm COMPLETELY and TOTALLY in favour of this!! the sooner we can get rid of those parasitic waste of space's called the record labels the better!
money should go straight to the artist.
The money doesn't go straight to Radiohead, unfortunately. It's still published through the band's former publisher, which happens to be Warner/Chappell Music Publishing. Who will produce and distribute the discbox also seems to be unknown at this point.
p_quarles
October 10th, 2007, 11:02 PM
I've tried a couple times to check it out, but the site is down ("crashed" according to someone on Wikipedia).
I think it's a fantastic idea. Radiohead is in a good position to start this trend because they have a very loyal fan base, and they will definitely make money in this venture. Ultimately, though, it should be a distribution method that works for a wide range of musicians.
sunexplodes
October 10th, 2007, 11:09 PM
The money doesn't go straight to Radiohead, unfortunately. It's still published through the band's former publisher, which happens to be Warner/Chappell Music Publishing. Who will produce and distribute the discbox also seems to be unknown at this point.
The publishing company is a different animal than the record label, though. It's sort of the equivalent of patents or copyrights. Publishing your music/lyrics through such a company is completely optional, the fees are small, and it protects artists from plagarism.
23meg
October 10th, 2007, 11:15 PM
The publishing company is a different animal than the record label, though. It's sort of the equivalent of patents or copyrights. Publishing your music/lyrics through such a company is completely optional, the fees are small, and it protects artists from plagarism.
True, but it's not quite true that Radiohead is completely breaking away from the established music industry models here. It's a good gesture, a step in the right direction, and the timing is right, but there's a false aura of instant-radicalism pumped by articles with titles such as "Radiohead Gives Away New Album" that seems to make some people (not necessarily here) think that they're completely breaking free from the industry and doing things on their own. Not quite yet.
ComplexNumber
October 10th, 2007, 11:21 PM
not all labels are scum. most independent labels treat their acts quite well and advance their endeavours. its the major labels that rip off the artists and consumers.
yes, i know they do. one little indian(home of polly paulusma et al), for starters. but we all know the ones that i'm referring to.
bapoumba
October 10th, 2007, 11:36 PM
Threads merged.
(PS: Hello CN :))
tcpip4lyfe
October 11th, 2007, 12:23 AM
I downloaded it at 3am and listened to the whole thing before I went back to bed. I've probably listened to it about 6 times today. It just keeps getting better every time I listen to it.
macogw
October 11th, 2007, 01:39 AM
I ask because the release was fairly interesting. Radiohead decided to release it on their own, over the internet, for whatever people think it's worth. There were two options made available:
1. 160k DRM-free mp3s. This is the option I went with. It takes you to a checkout. You pay what you think they deserve (I paid $5, presumably you could pay $0, but I want to support this kind of thinking), then on the 10th, they sent out an email download link. I'm a little disappointed it wasn't a slightly higher bitrate, but I'm not a serious audiophile, so I'll live with it.
2. The full package. This one's a little more conventional. Avaliable on vinyl or CD, comes with a lyric book, album art, and a second disc of b-sides, outtakes, live stuff, etc. It goes for about what you'd expect to pay for a commercial CD, except the money's not going to some major label, it's going to the people who made the damn record.
So, what are your thoughts on this? Good album? Good idea? How feasible would it be for more bands to do this, especially lesser-known bands? What does this imply for the industry? For fans? What kind of adaptation would it take for this business model to work for not-so-rich musicians who are still struggling to put food on their tables with their art?
According to the other post, the box set is £40. That is *far* from the price of a commercial CD. For a normal box set, yes, but a normal CD is..hmmm well...$15 is around £7. Are CDs terribly overpriced in the UK?
ComplexNumber
October 11th, 2007, 02:19 AM
Threads merged.
(PS: Hello CN :))
ay up, bp :D
Are CDs terribly overpriced in the UK?
a very big "yes". they are typically around £11-16(22-32 USD). sale items are around £4-8
p_quarles
October 11th, 2007, 02:24 AM
a very big "yes". they are typically around £11-16(22-32 USD). sale items are around £4-8
I understand that Trent Reznor (who is supposedly planning a "pay what you think it's worth" album himself) asked the same question at a UK show. When someone told him the price of his last album, he encouraged everyone in the audience to pirate it. :)
ComplexNumber
October 11th, 2007, 02:26 AM
When someone told him the price of his last album, he encouraged everyone in the audience to pirate it. :)
i'm not surprised ;)
Depressed Man
October 11th, 2007, 03:32 AM
Not a huge Radiohead fan but hell I'd pay the price that CDs go for here (15 USD) simply for this gesture. It's a step in a better direction (at least to me it is).
ButteBlues
October 11th, 2007, 04:51 AM
According to the other post, the box set is £40. That is *far* from the price of a commercial CD. For a normal box set, yes, but a normal CD is..hmmm well...$15 is around £7. Are CDs terribly overpriced in the UK?
The box set includes:
2 vinyls (album + bonus disc)
2 cds (album + bonus disc)
artwork
lyrics book
some other junk
HermanAB
October 11th, 2007, 05:29 AM
Hmm, I've been to their web site and for love or money I cannot see where to buy or download anything. I guess their site only works properly with ******* Internet Exploder...
macogw
October 11th, 2007, 05:29 AM
The box set includes:
2 vinyls (album + bonus disc)
2 cds (album + bonus disc)
artwork
lyrics book
some other junk
Well I said for a normal boxed set it sounded right but not for normal cd as the poster I quoted said. Thinking about it thought, £40 does sound rather high. That's just over $80. $40-60 is what I would expect.
macogw
October 11th, 2007, 05:34 AM
Hmm, I've been to their web site and for love or money I cannot see where to buy or download anything. I guess their site only works properly with ******* Internet Exploder...
nor can i. i think it might be that you have to go to inrainbows.com but it was down when i tried
EdThaSlayer
October 11th, 2007, 08:42 AM
Wooohoo!!! Free music. Giving away music is another way to advertise when their band actually comes to a place.
n3tfury
October 11th, 2007, 09:35 AM
nor can i. i think it might be that you have to go to inrainbows.com but it was down when i tried
i used FF early yesterday morning just fine. also, if i dig it enough, i'll pay for the box set. vinyl would be hawt.
bigbrovar
October 11th, 2007, 10:36 AM
mehn i wish coldplay could do the same
nonewmsgs
October 11th, 2007, 12:02 PM
lame ---preset standard would be ideal.
smashing pumpkins did something similar (although they never asked for any money for machina II).
23meg
October 11th, 2007, 12:05 PM
Hmm, I've been to their web site and for love or money I cannot see where to buy or download anything. I guess their site only works properly with ******* Internet Exploder...
It does work with Firefox; sometimes the page fails to load completely, probably due to high load.
n3tfury
October 11th, 2007, 12:16 PM
lame ---preset standard would be ideal.
smashing pumpkins did something similar (although they never asked for any money for machina II).
actually, a lossless option would be ideal :)
ButteBlues
October 11th, 2007, 12:55 PM
lame ---preset standard would be ideal.
smashing pumpkins did something similar (although they never asked for any money for machina II).
-V0.
sunexplodes
October 11th, 2007, 01:03 PM
smashing pumpkins did something similar (although they never asked for any money for machina II).
Which was smart of them, because it wasn't worth any.
finferflu
October 11th, 2007, 01:27 PM
Curious that nobody contrasted free with libre. I think this might be some kind of little revolution to the way music market does business, but still that music rests restricted, royalities are still there. The matter is not about paying or not paying for music, it's about what you can do with it. Well, I guess I'm one of the few who actually cares about this...
n3tfury
October 11th, 2007, 01:30 PM
Curious that nobody contrasted free with libre. I think this might be some kind of little revolution to the way music market does business, but still that music rests restricted, royalities are still there. The matter is not about paying or not paying for music, it's about what you can do with it. Well, I guess I'm one of the few who actually cares about this...
i'm not sure i understand. what do you mean "it's about what you can do with it"? can you elaborate?
finferflu
October 11th, 2007, 01:37 PM
Yes, I mean the right to redistribute, to reproduce and (even though not necessarily) to edit the work. To use it in any possible ways, at least for educational purposes (i.e. non-commercial). I think Magnatune (http://magnatune.com) is on the right path (not to speak about Jamendo (http://jamendo.com)).
n3tfury
October 11th, 2007, 01:42 PM
redistribute? so you think they should only make money from other things (ads, concerts)?
as far as reproducing or editing - that kind of thing is only looked for by a very small percentage of the population.
finferflu
October 11th, 2007, 01:51 PM
Yes, that would be a solution. But I think music shouldn't really be a business practice (of course you might need financial support to keep doing music, but the aim is different from making music to make money). Being art (if it is), it should be one's expression of the self. I believe the words music and industry are mutually exclusive, a paradox, but well, that's just my conception of the whole thing.
As far as editing, since it's looke for only by a small percentage of people, there should be no problem for the artists to allow it.
As far as reproducing, I believe this is looked for by more people, like schools, associations, and so on...
n3tfury
October 11th, 2007, 02:01 PM
Yes, that would be a solution. But I think music shouldn't really be a business practice (of course you might need financial support to keep doing music, but the aim is different from making music to make money). Being art (if it is), it should be one's expression of the self. I believe the words music and industry are mutually exclusive, a paradox, but well, that's just my conception of the whole thing.
As far as editing, since it's looke for only by a small percentage of people, there should be no problem for the artists to allow it.
As far as reproducing, I believe this is looked for by most of the people, i.e. burning copies of CDs, giving away digital copies of songs, and so on...
well, like it or not, some people do want to raise the standard of their lives. for those musicians/artists that aren't married, don't have kids, are fine riding their bike and/or walking everywhere, and don't necessarily care about retirement, i can understand how they might feel like it all should be free do what you like with it. unfortunately, the real world is nothing like that. you have bills, taxes, a mortgage/rent, etc. that need to be paid. the world (good or bad) revolves around currency and that won't change in the near future.
happy-and-lost
October 11th, 2007, 02:08 PM
I think it's a fantastic idea. Pure marketing genius.
Damn good album too, but it's no OK Computer...
finferflu
October 11th, 2007, 02:11 PM
Well, I don't like it, but that was not my point, I was just making an observation about how many people cared about the philosophical terms of this discussion. Don't want to bring this discussion off topic...
23meg
October 11th, 2007, 07:16 PM
I would no doubt be happier if they licensed the work permissively to allow its free redistribution and creation of derivative works; as I said (http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=3510909&postcount=24), the work is now licensed to a conventional music publishing company, with all the conventional royalty and licensing mechanisms in place.
I do trust that Radiohead are sincere with their outspoken attitude against the status quo of the industry; thus I see this as a step ahead, not the ultimate move with which they finally broke free from the confines of that status quo. I expect that they'll build on this move to further their efforts; it wouldn't be unrealistic to expect them to have much more freedom and make use of it with the next album.
Lster
October 11th, 2007, 07:32 PM
I think this rocks - they have my respect!
ComplexNumber
October 12th, 2007, 01:38 AM
someone has just bought In Rainbows for a lot of money.
http://www.purebuttons.com/pr/
Sporkman
October 12th, 2007, 09:40 PM
Uh oh....
Radiohead Fans Feel Duped By In Rainbows' Poor Sound Quality, Possible Ulterior Motives
Statements from band's management seem to indicate that downloadable album was just promotional tool for physical CD...
http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1571737/20071011/radiohead.jhtml
thisllub
October 13th, 2007, 06:29 AM
I have never listened to Radiohead before but I recently heard that OK Computer was one of the most favoured albums of all time.
I think In Rainbows has a few reasonable songs on it but between that and what I have heard of OK Computer I am completely puzzled as to why they are so highly thought of.
Must be because so much modern music is complete crap.
toupeiro
October 13th, 2007, 06:46 AM
Even if the management statements are true, they set a precedent.
I bet they get more off this than they normally would pushing sales through a label (they make pennies on the album sales) which makes me feel better knowing that the artist is being compensated better for their work.
I am a bit bummed about the low quality mp3's. If you are going to make a statement like this, you shouldn't whisper when the moment arrives...
Still, I hope the idea does better in time than the current example.
HermanAB
October 13th, 2007, 08:16 AM
Hmm, I downloaded it and well, it is a perfectly boring CD, so the quality doesn't matter. Radio Head isn't quite in the same league as Pink Floyd, Deep Purple or Ozzy...
n3tfury
October 13th, 2007, 12:07 PM
Uh oh....
http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1571737/20071011/radiohead.jhtml
those are the same people that probably use itunes and most of their collection is @128kbps. boo hoo.
I have never listened to Radiohead before but I recently heard that OK Computer was one of the most favoured albums of all time.
I think In Rainbows has a few reasonable songs on it but between that and what I have heard of OK Computer I am completely puzzled as to why they are so highly thought of.
Must be because so much modern music is complete crap.
Hmm, I downloaded it and well, it is a perfectly boring CD, so the quality doesn't matter. Radio Head isn't quite in the same league as Pink Floyd, Deep Purple or Ozzy...
subjective, just like everything else.
regomodo
October 13th, 2007, 01:46 PM
i got it from a torrent. It says once a person has bought/got the mp3s from inrainbows.com that they can do what the hell they want so i didn't feel guilty.
TBH i was a little disappointed in the choice of bitrate and codec but the album is good. Listened to it 3 times when i got it. A bitshort though.
Going to buy it when it comes out next year
n3tfury
October 13th, 2007, 02:24 PM
i got it from a torrent. It says once a person has bought/got the mp3s from inrainbows.com that they can do what the hell they want so i didn't feel guilty.
screenshot? i didn't see that anywhere on day 1 when i got it from the site and i was perusing around a bit.
n3tfury
October 13th, 2007, 11:27 PM
did anybody else notice what regomodo said he read at inrainbows.com?
also, for those that may be curious, here's the output from metamp3 -info:
File: 01 - Radiohead - 15 Step.MP3
Type : mpeg 1 layer III
Mode : joint stereo
Frequency : 44100 Hz
Frames : 9081
Length : 00:03:57
Max. Reservoir : 507
Av. Reservoir : 299
Emphasis : none
Scalefac : 5.9%
Bad Last Frame : no
Encoder : Lame 3.93
Bitrate (average) : 160
-----------------------------------------------------------
160 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 100.0%
-----------------------------------------------------------
Lame Header : No
ID3v1.1 tags:
Title : 15 Step
Artist : Radiohead
Album : In Rainbows
Year : 2007
Track : 1
ID3v2.3 tags:
TIT2:
TALB:
TSRC:
TCOP:
TDRC: 2007
TRCK: 1
TPOS: 0/0
TPE1:
CBR :(
thisllub
October 13th, 2007, 11:37 PM
those are the same people that probably use itunes and most of their collection is @128kbps. boo hoo.
subjective, just like everything else.
I didn't say Radiohead were crap just that I don't get them.
A view shared by some other musician friends of mine who have also heard tha album.
n3tfury
October 13th, 2007, 11:47 PM
and i didn't say you said they were crap ;) to be honest, i didn't get them for awhile either, but they definitely grow on you. p.s. i'm a musician too, although i'm not sure what difference that makes.
slimdog360
October 14th, 2007, 01:03 AM
I like it.
regomodo
October 14th, 2007, 01:39 AM
did anybody else notice what regomodo said he read at inrainbows.com? (
Maybe it wasn't there but i'm fairly sure i read it in a review with a direct quote from Thom Yorke. I may found it via wikipedia. I'll have a look
n3tfury
October 14th, 2007, 12:54 PM
cool, thanks.
slimdog360
October 14th, 2007, 04:04 PM
Whats everones fav song off the album, mine is the 7th one, whatever the hell its called.
regomodo
October 15th, 2007, 08:16 AM
Whats everones fav song off the album, mine is the 7th one, whatever the hell its called.
Reckoner - My favourite too. Currently using it as my alarm as i left my phone at work
n3tfury
October 15th, 2007, 04:03 PM
nothing yet?
ticopelp
October 15th, 2007, 04:29 PM
I bought it. It's my first time listening to Radiohead, and I think it's pretty good. My favorite track is probably either "All I Need" or "Bodysnatchers."
The bitrate and sound quality is fine. People, especially fans, are big whiny babies.
23meg
October 15th, 2007, 04:53 PM
The bitrate and sound quality is fine.
It's surprisingly fine for 160kbps, since it's seemingly been specially mastered for MP3 at that bitrate.
n3tfury
October 15th, 2007, 04:58 PM
I bought it. It's my first time listening to Radiohead, and I think it's pretty good. My favorite track is probably either "All I Need" or "Bodysnatchers."
The bitrate and sound quality is fine. People, especially fans, are big whiny babies.
"fine" depends on how much you paid.
n3tfury
October 15th, 2007, 05:04 PM
It's surprisingly fine for 160kbps, since it's seemingly been specially mastered for MP3 at that bitrate.
i don't get that at all considering they're releasing the cd versions soon.
23meg
October 15th, 2007, 05:06 PM
"fine" depends on how much you paid.
So if I paid nothing, I have no right to complain, but if I paid $100 I have more right to complain than others who paid something around a regular CD retail price?
i don't get that at all considering they're releasing the cd versions soon.
Mastering is always done separately for each different release format (cassette, vinyl, CD, etc.); nothing irregular here.
ticopelp
October 15th, 2007, 05:07 PM
"fine" depends on how much you paid.
Not for me. I didn't pay expecting a certain bitrate, and I also am not going to complain about the bitrate if the music itself is clear and free of artifacting, which it was.
n3tfury
October 15th, 2007, 06:05 PM
So if I paid nothing, I have no right to complain, but if I paid $100 I have more right to complain than others who paid something around a regular CD retail price?
Mastering is always done separately for each different release format (cassette, vinyl, CD, etc.); nothing irregular here.
say i paid $15 (avg cd price) then found out that the bitrate was 160 after buying, yeah, i'd be a little upset. I pre-ordered the box set, so i'll be getting my FLAC goodness at some point.
i'm pretty sure the work that goes into "mastering" these lossy files are nothing like what goes into vinyl or cd.
Not for me. I didn't pay expecting a certain bitrate, and I also am not going to complain about the bitrate if the music itself is clear and free of artifacting, which it was.
we agree to disagree. ok.
LowSky
October 15th, 2007, 06:30 PM
I bought it. It's my first time listening to Radiohead, and I think it's pretty good. My favorite track is probably either "All I Need" or "Bodysnatchers."
The bitrate and sound quality is fine. People, especially fans, are big whiny babies.
If you like what you hear try their album's OK Computer and The Bends. IMHO Probably the best work they ever did is on those two albums.
bruce89
October 15th, 2007, 06:39 PM
Encoder : Lame 3.93
Lame? Radiohead don't think much of software patents then.
No wonder it's crap with such an ancient version of Lame.
forrestcupp
October 15th, 2007, 07:38 PM
Lame? Radiohead don't think much of software patents then.
No wonder it's crap with such an ancient version of Lame.
No, I really doubt if software patents is really what's on their mind. I think they're more into music.
I checked out a track-by-track review that had live sound samples of the song. These guys are pretty talented, but I'm not into their style much. Too depressing sounding.
I loved their old song Creep, though. But that's not really a good example of what they are like.
kellemes
October 17th, 2007, 09:23 PM
Preordered the discbox of there new album, not cheap but surely worth it! I'm a big fan of these guys and everytime they create an album it's my new favorite!
Best song on album (up to now) must be videotape.
:guitar:
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.2 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.