Gaming World Forums
General Category => Entertainment and Media => Topic started by: post on October 01, 2007, 07:12:32 am
-
Speechless. Already ordered boxset awhile ago.
Release: October 10th.
http://www.inrainbows.com
http://www.radiohead.com/deadairspace
FROM INRAINBOWS.COM
----
CD 1 AND VINYL:
15 STEP
BODYSNATCHERS
NUDE
WEIRD FISHES/ARPEGGI
ALL I NEED
FAUST ARP
RECKONER
HOUSE OF CARDS
JIGSAW FALLING INTO PLACE
VIDEOTAPE
CD 2 :
MK 1
DOWN IS THE NEW UP
GO SLOWLY
MK 2
LAST FLOWERS
UP ON THE LADDER
BANGERS AND MASH
4 MINUTE WARNING
-----------
I really dont think I could be happier with a better release than this.
-
i've pre-ordered this. i seriously can't wait.
-
Hopefully, the experience and emotions tied to listening to In Rainbows will be like witnessing the stillborn birth of a child while simultaneously having the opportunity to see her play in the afterlife on Imax.
-
Pre-ordered. If it's good I'll order again to up the amount I paid.
-
i absolutely cannot wait and if i had £40 to drop on a boxset i'd do it instantly
for now i've just ordered my download for £0.00
edit: also it's pretty great how they've done that for the download. you pay as much as you feel like paying.
-
I just preorded a download as well. I think that this is a pretty good idea on their end.
I've been looking forward to this album coming out for the last 4 years, so I'm pretty excited about this. :D
-
apparently they went over everyone's heads. the record label, the RIAA, and like...EVERYONE. so there's no leaks possible at all either because the band are the only people with the album!
this is so nuts man.
-
Oh shit I'd better free some room on my hard drive then
Too many Cosby samples taking up space
Btw is that just weird British tense RADIOHEAD HAVE MADE A RECORD or is it being sarcastic (oh wait nevermind it's just the British way because they say "Radiohead are" and not "Radiohead is").
Edit: But seriously though the first thing I thought was RADIOHEAD ARE NOT GOOD WITH COMPUTER
Edit: Oh God and I am a customer so WE VALUE YOUR CUSTOM
-
I've been looking forward to this album coming out for the last 4 years, so I'm pretty excited about this. :D
Likewise- I went to their first night in Chicago a little more than a year ago and got a sampling of their new music. I was definitely impressed and am expecting this album to possibly be my favorite.
Although I think this is amazing how they are giving the album out for free, having people set their own prices, and then including the bonus stuff in the discbox, it kind of scares me. Each discbox is made on order. That's putting a lot of time, effort, money into the listener. It really puts into perspective their motives, if all you care about is the music- they are distributing it anyway, without leaks- its brilliant. However, it just makes me believe that this could end up being their last album.
-
anyone know where I can listen to samples? i kknow it goes without saying its gonna be fantastic....oh well ill just dl anyway.
-
Definitely was not expecting such a bold move from them, releasing the album in 9 days with no hype whatsoever and in such a manner. I'm stoked, placed my preorder a few hours ago.
-
My twin has quit school and work so he can listen to it over and over again. Seriously though he went from one of the most musically diverse people I know to 'Radiohead has all I need in life.'
Still I'm looking forward to it.
-
Are you serious
Anyway I was debating getting the album because Radiohead depressed the hell out of me when I was into it. But at least now it's free depressing stuff!
They really do rip off Aphex too so I kinda just listen to him now instead
Also is the free download both CDs or just the first one? Because I really want to hear Down is the New Up, it sounded like Myxomatosis ^ 2 but it might've just been because it was an ultra-washed out concert video I was watching
-
Are you serious
Anyway I was debating getting the album because Radiohead depressed the hell out of me when I was into it. But at least now it's free depressing stuff!
They really do rip off Aphex too so I kinda just listen to him now instead
Also is the free download both CDs or just the first one? Because I really want to hear Down is the New Up, it sounded like Myxomatosis ^ 2 but it might've just been because it was an ultra-washed out concert video I was watching
The download looks like it is only for the first disc. The second disc comes only with the boxset I believe. (I don't know if it comes with the regular album version which is appaerntly supposed to come out in 2008 or something)
-
Well I looked up the tracklisting for the download and it showed both CDs. Hopefully it wasn't just laziness or something stupid like that.
Plus wasn't Down is the New Up a working title for the album?
-
Well I looked up the tracklisting for the download and it showed both CDs. Hopefully it wasn't just laziness or something stupid like that.
Plus wasn't Down is the New Up a working title for the album?
Hmm yeah it was, but apparently they decided to change it.
Also, I hope that they give you options into what to download it as (or maybe a lossless option so that I can burn it on a cd to play in the car). I don't want to end up with 128kbps mp3s. (I would be angry if I had actually paid for it though)
-
radiohead is pretty good as far as audio quality goes man, I don't think they'll jew you like that!
-
Radiohead is pretty much the only "Rock" that I like. I might buy this...
-
As much as this is a troll post I honestly want to know
has thom yorke relearned how to make words with his mouth yet?
(also which Radiohead album(s) should I get if I want to actually see what this band is all about)
-
OK Computer if you want their rocky kind of stuff at its best
Kid A if you want their most experimental
Amnesiac if you want their most mediocre :/
-
OK Computer if you want their rocky kind of stuff at its best
Kid A if you want their most experimental
Amnesiac if you want their most mediocre :/
Amnesiac is my favorite album of theirs... I don't consider it their most mediocre, instead, maybe Pablo Honey.
-
Preordered the box.
Wash Cycle: I would listen to Ok Computer a few times, and if you like it, listen to it more times. If you don't like it, try The Bends. Either way, listen to the Bends. Because it is good also.
Then Kid A or The Eraser. You probably won't enjoy Amnesiac so much until you get bored of Kid A, which in my case took a very long time. Now, all I listen to is Amnesiac.
-
Man how can anyone prefer Amnesiac
Kid A is like such a developed idea and Amnesiac is just SONGS IN SEQUENCE to me, which it very well might be because it was the B-sides to Kid A
-
(also which Radiohead album(s) should I get if I want to actually see what this band is all about)
You only need two songs, Creep + High and Dry
-
That is so fucking weird! It's a shame the "discbox" version doesn't have a retail release (or does it? maybe I misread), though. At least the standard version is available.
Also, it's good to hear that Stanley Donwood is working with them again, but what's the deal with no Nigel Godrich? Oh well. I've not listened to them for AAAGES, but I'll check it out.
-
Man how can anyone prefer Amnesiac
Kid A is like such a developed idea and Amnesiac is just SONGS IN SEQUENCE to me, which it very well might be because it was the B-sides to Kid A
I saw them in concert. Thats what did it to me. I think Amnesiacs artwork and concept is way more developed than Kid A in many aspects. Not to mention, I really like the Jazz feel the album has. If you take time with Amnesiac, it will grow on you. If you listen to their songs, live (not youtube), in concert, it will probably change your life. I never thought much about the song "You and Whose Army?" until they opened with it.
Don't get me wrong, I love Kid A as well... but you were throwing Amnesiac in the garbage. Not to mention, I LOVE the Amnesiac acoustic live versions so much. The entire album is so distinct. I know I'm not the only one, I recall Fade saying he liked Amnesiac the most as well.
Some good videos to check out:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rulyu_FhRU - "I Might Be Wrong", live acoustic le reservoir
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oj2fFPlkAsk - "Knives Out", live acoustic le reservoir (check out all of the le reservoir songs)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XD7xhARrLTs - "Kid A", live olympia theatre
-
You only need two songs, Creep + High and Dry
yeah if you want to be college kid #53953 who loves radiohead but doesn't actually like 99% of radiohead's catalogue. hey why don't you throw street spirit in there too! and karma police!
-
Here is a good list of songs that I found if you want to introduce someone to Radiohead, they might begin to like them:
B-sides:
"Gagging Order"
"Fog (Again)"
"True Love Waits"
"Palo Alto"
"How I Made my Millions"
These are pretty much all acoustics, except for Palo Alto. It gets you used to his voice, lyric style without coming across to frightening at first.
Album:
"Electioneering" <-- What got me into Radiohead.
"National Anthem" <-- What got Sean into Radiohead.
"Everything in it's Right Place" <-- What got my friend Sean, John, & Rob into Radiohead (featured in the movie, Vanilla Sky).
"How to Disappear Completely" <-- What got my girlfriend into Radiohead (featured in some chick movie).
"Subterranean Homesick Alien" <-- What got my Mom into Radiohead.
"2+2=5" <-- What got my friend Nichole into Radiohead.
-
"Electioneering" <-- What got me into Radiohead.
me as well. This is probably my favorite Radiohead song, you should check it out
-
Yeah it probably helps that my first Radiohead song was Everything in Its Right Place. My brother had the CD and we were listening to it on the way somewhere. So I always thought of Radiohead as like this POST-MUSIC band almost. Amnesiac just sounds whiny to me. Some odd time signatures and sound concepts (lol backwards song) but whiny nonetheless. Definitely more ALL IS WOE IN THE WORLD than I can take seriously too.
Edit: I thought I'd elaborate - like if a sign of a good writer is being able to fabricate a character, like say they make a guy named BOB JOHNSON, if I'm convinced for a while that BOB JOHNSON exists, or at least he's believable as a real human being, I take that as good writing. So it tends to impress me if I hear a song and I'm like struggling to comprehend that it was actually written, some songs/albums/styles feel more like THERE IS MUSIC rather than "people are performing a song that they wrote". That's why Kid A impresses me, it does this without just being NOISE or RANDOM NOTES. It also doesn't present itself like most music does, like Everything in Its Right Place has this weird feeling to me, like it's always existed or something, like there was just a radio somewhere that was playing this song 24/7 and I happened to approach it so that's why I started hearing this song all of a sudden. Sigur Ros is pretty awesome too because they manage to get the same feeling even though they stick to rock instruments almost all the time I think. So even though music is being performed, it feels more like MUSIC IS HAPPENING. I know you guys hate me mentioning it but I think Aphex Twin's Selected Ambient Works Vol. II is so impressive too because if you really go out of your way you can hear some very traditional techno sounds in there, but it's presented in a way that it feels neither natural nor artificial somehow.
So that's why I think Kid A is more HIGH-CONCEPT than Amnesiac.
-
"Subterranean Homesick Alien" <-- What got my Mom into Radiohead.
That's pretty interesting. My Mom prefers something akin to High and Dry on the Bends. She shys away from any other album. My sister has been listening to Spinning Plates because it was on one of her tv shows. I'd like to think that they are "into" Radiohead but really they are not.
B-sides:
"Gagging Order"
"Fog (Again)"
"True Love Waits"
"Palo Alto"
"How I Made my Millions"
Add "Pearly" to that list.
Ditto on Electioneering as the gateway song, though Paranoid Android was the reason why I listened to OK Computer in the first place.
Ragnar, Maybe you have the wrong idea about the album in general. There's a song called Pyramid Song that is very comforting and uplifting, not really all is woe in any way. Yeah, it has a melodramatic feel to it (it is about dying I guess), but I think that's just to better express the latent optimism behind it. It's a song that very effectively plays on your emotions. My personal take on it (if you care) is there's so much we can't know about everything ("all my past and futures") but still in the end (after you die) fear and doubt, which are human creations, don't really exist anyway so why worry. Wherever you go anything you ever loved is going the same way. This is my favorite song, btw.
I agree with you though about it (the album) being a lot to take in. It's pretty emotional and engaged. As for Kid A being more high-concept, well to me Kid A and Amnesiac are two sides of the same coin, so I don't know if I agree with you there. You are probably right, though. I couldn't really get into Amnesiac like I mentioned before until I listed to Kid A 73 times. You are correct to say that Kid A is much more mellowed out and a lonlier album, much like some of Aphex Twin's work particularly on Selected Works, than Amnesiac. I suppose that could make it more accessible than the latter, which sometimes seems a little biased toward the way of the world. (knives out)
-
I heard that aside from pre-orders, they're offering the album for no set price, just whatever you feel like paying them. I think every band should do that.
-
I will definitely be getting this. :DD
-
Just to let you guys know, I got my copy of this about an hour ago.
And this is now my new favorite album.
Im speechless.
-
It is awesome. One problem- no album art :(.
-
I'm annoyed. I haven't yet received my download info from them.
-
I cannot get over how focal Thom's voice is and Jonny Greenwood's string arrangements are. I don't know if I have a favorite, but Nude and Arpeggi are really close.
-
160 kbps no thanks I'm gonna illegally get the boxset instead.
good job fucking up Radiohead!
-
it sounds fine and its awesome 160kbps is not a "terrible bitrate" its entirely adequate
-
if you got shitty speakers maybe but cymbals always sound washed out as fuck to me at that bitrate!
I really don't like listening to much below 192. and it's more the principle of the fact that some people did PAY for it and they should at least get a good bitrate.
-
I still haven't got it!!
-
I haven't listened to all of it yet, but so far my favorite track is Nude. It kind of sucks that I missed out on CD2, but I guess I could just torrent that when it comes out.
-
if you got shitty speakers maybe but cymbals always sound washed out as fuck to me at that bitrate!
I really don't like listening to much below 192. and it's more the principle of the fact that some people did PAY for it and they should at least get a good bitrate.
standard itunes tracks are 128kbps aac and people pay for that. if you want super high quality for your golden ears, wait for the cd release. they cant be expected to cater for audiophiles when 99% of listeners are absolutely fine with 160kbps. raising the quality would also raise their bandwidth cost considerably.
-
...are you kidding.
Radiohead fans are the biggest fucking audio dorks on the planet.
ahahaahahahhaha you're not serious dude. go on any other music forum and you will see at least half of them kind of pissed off about the fact that they paid money for a shittier version. some of them expected FLAC lossless shit.
99% of listeners are also fine with commercial radio but we're not talking about LISTENERS, we are talking about the most intense fans for a band that made a name for subtle audio tricks.
edit: also I'm glad I never buy shit from Itunes if you're serious. most music sharing sites ban your account if you upload anything less than 192, let alone fucking 128.
-
I don't know why everyone is bitching about the audio. It sounds fine.
I think Faust Arp is my favorite track.
...are you kidding.
Radiohead fans are the biggest fucking audio dorks on the planet.
I go to a Radiohead fan forum, and they seem fine with it. Just a few people bitching. Like here, like you. I am a big Radiohead fan, but I like the music first. My copy of Headphone Masterpiece by Cody Chesnutt is 64kbps, and I listen to it all of the time- it's still a fantastic album.
-
perhaps it is 160kbps because you can choose between a price of FREE and WHATEVER
-
perhaps it is 160kbps because you can choose between a price of FREE and WHATEVER
that's not a good enough excuse for people who paid the whatever though. plenty of people paid the price they would, were the album available in stores, since they didn't have 80 dollars to spend on a boxset. that's a complete ripoff for anyone who paid more than free, and I know plenty of people (like I said, despite what prefix says, most Radiohead fans are huge audio buffs) who are pretty disappointed considering the previously high standards the band has set!
I...don't see how anyone is arguing it is a good thing they released the album in two formats only, one of which costs 80 dollars and the other of which you have to take a shitty quality regardless of what you pay?
-
Whoa this is exciting. Listening to it now. The first track is like a mix of Eraser and Thief maybe I dunno.
They should have mentioned the bitrate on the website, but it's not like 160 kbs is not listenable or anything. Most people will actually not notice nor give a shit. Someone who paid for the album at all is a dork, kid. It is FREE after all. I bought the box and assumed the download would include disc 2 though but wahtever, I can wait. And then I will burn it to my mp3 player and listen with 200 dollar headphones.
-
Whoa this is exciting. Listening to it now. The first track is like a mix of Eraser and Thief maybe I dunno.
They should have mentioned the bitrate on the website, but it's not like 160 kbs is not listenable or anything. Most people will actually not notice nor give a shit. Someone who paid for the album at all is a dork, kid. It is FREE after all. I bought the box and assumed the download would include disc 2 though but wahtever, I can wait. And then I will burn it to my mp3 player and listen with 200 dollar headphones.
well, KID, maybe you didn't realize this, but you were supposed to pay for it pretty much if you wanted to support the band at all. so basically anyone who gave money to support the band and this experiment is a dork, cool. this from the guy who spent 200 dollars on headphones and 80 dollars on a box set.
it must be nice sitting on an ivory tower and disdaining people who didn't have 80 dollars to waste but still wanted a product that they paid for! OH BUT SOME PEOPLE GOT IT FOR FREE okay cool whoopee still a ripoff for the ones who paid!
how am I the only one following the line of thought here that just because something was potentially free does not mean having it shitty is good. do you seriously think people who don't like Radiohead are downloading this album? the ones who would have bought the album are also usually the ones who would donate money for a scheme like this, and it's pretty ridiculous that they get a subpar version than if they had gone through the corporate bullshit and bought a cd in the record store, or to expect them to pay 80 fucking dollars for a version where the cymbals don't sound like they are underwater, for a band that once again is pretty important to listen to as clearly as possible.
-
Well usually you don't go ahead and spend money on any product until you have an idea of what it is you're buying. Most people learn that early in life.
WHat I am saying is anyone who handed Radiohead their money when they could easily have got it for free is a pretty big fan so they won't get ANGRY or anything if it turns out the product isn't exactly what they expected. Plus man everyone is just gonna bittorrent the 320 kbs version in 2 months anyway so who cares?
I don't have 200 dollar headphones too I was just kidding.
-
MAN this album feels underproduced after Kid A/Amnesiac/Hail to the Thief.
I'm liking it so far but I've heard live versions a while back and it's kind of hurting my brain hearing the "official" album versions. Like I heard this live version of Arpeggi that didn't have any drums or anything like that, it was very minimalist and I still think I like that version better. I think that version needed more but not in this way, this is just more layers.
But yeah then again I like way weirder music than this usually, so I was hoping for KID B or something when I downloaded it.
Edit: Bodysnatchers is pretty awesome, I love the second part, it's so reminiscent of Paranoid Android but it seems to end up in a different place than that song.
And Nude reminds me of the theme from Platoon combined with How to Disappear Completely, for some reason.
-
oh also this album wasn't that great! I'm kind of surprised Prefix liked it so much. Yorke's voice is a little better but yeah, it was just aight.
Well usually you don't go ahead and spend money on any product until you have an idea of what it is you're buying. Most people learn that early in life.
WHat I am saying is anyone who handed Radiohead their money when they could easily have got it for free is a pretty big fan so they won't get ANGRY or anything if it turns out the product isn't exactly what they expected. Plus man everyone is just gonna bittorrent the 320 kbs version in 2 months anyway so who cares?
I don't have 200 dollar headphones too I was just kidding.
they are actually pretty mad dude! I am looking at a topic now and a lot of people are kind of ticked because they were paying full price for an album that is pretty low fidelity. I'm not making shit up just to cause trouble, there's actually a bit of angry backlash.
granted, it's just nerds grumbling but if Radiohead does this again, they probably won't give them a dime. it's pretty sad because you will go into discussion threads and someone will say "how good fidelity do you think?" and they will all say "OH RADIOHEAD...YOU WON'T DO US WRONG" and then two pages later they are all "nooooooooo...thom why...."
-
Man maybe it would help if there was some weird production or album art or something, because it feels so much like a COLLECTION OF SONGS now when the other albums had a pretty pervasive mood to them. This just feels like a bunch of tracks in sequence. I dunno, I guess all the tracks are STRINGY or something.
Edit: I kind of REALLY LIKE Faust Arp because I can't predict where the song is going to go at all
plus the name reminds me of Faust
-
oh also this album wasn't that great! I'm kind of surprised Prefix liked it so much. Yorke's voice is a little better but yeah, it was just aight.
It's a matter of opinion really. I think this album is definitely something that will grow on you if you listen to it enough.
-I like it because it's stripped down and very minimal in some spots.
-Thom's voice is excellent quality, and very focal. He is incredibly clear and very delicate.
-Jonny Greenwood's arrangements are also a very big highlight. He has improved so much as a musician, and I think that the string arrangements are really what moves this album along.
-The lyrics are also a big reason why I love this album. Every single song has very beautiful lyrics, and really, most of them are love songs which Radiohead doesn't seem to produce all the time - they lightened up as a whole - but its incredibly eerie at the same time. I love the guitar riffs a lot as they are all so fresh - I love that slow guitar riff in 15 step.
-It also seems that this album isn't so tightly wound or strict like the other ones were with the exception of HTTT (Hail to the Theif). It doesn't seem they felt so perfectionist, and they might have been, but they worked at their own pace so it didn't reflect in their music. Things are a lot more loose. A lot more comfortable. I think I could compare to Radiohead right now to a worn out shoe that fits now the way you want it to fit. It's got a few smudges on it, but you like them more than a new pair of shoes- which I would consider OK Computer to be.
-The climax's in the songs give me goosebumps, most notable, All I Need.
-It is not the same as Radiohead's other albums, and I think it's a great direction they were heading. It has a very romantic, but also equally eerie and colorful and very serious theme to it. It's so distinct, but I could not put words to it. It can be so fucking RAW with songs like Bodysnatchers (and to a lessor extent, Jigsaw Falling Into Place,) but so smooth with Faust Arp and Nude. It is very dreamlike, especially tracks like Arpeggi. Which, I think the title of the album "In Rainbows" fits perfectly.
-Anyway, it definitely has a large sense of accomplishment and a sense of everything being alright no matter.
-
My only complaint is that it's too short. I played it like 5 times already and it's only getting better, but I want the second disc, dammit.
Thom's voice reminds me a lot of the Eraser, but it's so much more of a vibrant album instrument-wise that he sounds mellow and pleasant comparatively. The bells in All I Need and violins in Faust Arb are very classy, it's symphonic in a way.
This is how the band has always wanted to sound and it is pretty great I think.
-
My only complaint is that it's too short. I played it like 5 times already and it's only getting better, but I want the second disc, dammit.
yeah I think that's the issue. the themes feel a little underdeveloped atm.
I see a download for the bonus disc right now so I guess I will tell you what I think after that?
-
I've found what claims to be 320kbps on Isohunt . Anyone want to verify as I'm shitty at detecting quality differences.
Edit: Also, does anyone else think they've heard Videotape's intro piano before?
-
I think I noticed there was a sample from Kid A or OK Computer somewhere - maybe they re-used the odd pianos at the very end of Karma Police?
For some reason when I thought Radiohead and pianos that sprung into my head.
-
I've found what claims to be 320kbps on Isohunt . Anyone want to verify as I'm shitty at detecting quality differences.
Edit: Also, does anyone else think they've heard Videotape's intro piano before?
There is no 320kbps release, it's just the 160kps release. The 160kbps is the only available format for this album currently
...are you kidding.
Radiohead fans are the biggest fucking audio dorks on the planet.
ahahaahahahhaha you're not serious dude. go on any other music forum and you will see at least half of them kind of pissed off about the fact that they paid money for a shittier version. some of them expected FLAC lossless shit.
99% of listeners are also fine with commercial radio but we're not talking about LISTENERS, we are talking about the most intense fans for a band that made a name for subtle audio tricks.
edit: also I'm glad I never buy shit from Itunes if you're serious. most music sharing sites ban your account if you upload anything less than 192, let alone fucking 128.
radiohead fans on the internet are the biggest audio dorks on the planet. if you really think a few nerds on forums represent anything but a tiny share of radiohead's market, you're wrong.I...don't see how anyone is arguing it is a good thing they released the album in two formats only, one of which costs 80 dollars and the other of which you have to take a shitty quality regardless of what you pay?
anyone who looked around before putting down there money would realise radiohead have stated a standard retail release early next year.
anyone who pays a lot of money for a digital download where no information was given for the quality and then saying GODDAMN YOU RADIOHEAD I EXPECTED LOSSLESS FLAC YOU CUNTS when THEY NEVER PROMISED ANYTHING EXCEPT THAT YOU WOULD GET A DOWNLOAD OF THE ALBUM. if they were that bothered about quality then maybe they should have WAITED to find out what the quality was, or waited for the retail release.
-
There is no 320kbps release, it's just the 160kps release. The 160kbps is the only available format for this album currently
radiohead fans on the internet are the biggest audio dorks on the planet. if you really think a few nerds on forums represent anything but a tiny share of radiohead's market, you're wrong.anyone who looked around before putting down there money would realise radiohead have stated a standard retail release early next year.
anyone who pays a lot of money for a digital download where no information was given for the quality and then saying GODDAMN YOU RADIOHEAD I EXPECTED LOSSLESS FLAC YOU CUNTS when THEY NEVER PROMISED ANYTHING EXCEPT THAT YOU WOULD GET A DOWNLOAD OF THE ALBUM. if they were that bothered about quality then maybe they should have WAITED to find out what the quality was, or waited for the retail release.
you got a sentence fragment!
also uh...the radiohead fans on the internet maybe just maybe are the ones who found out about this? I mean, the ones NOT ON THE INTERNET are not ones who are going to find out about this. also nerds on the internet are a huge part of radiohead's market! I don't see how you can say THEY ARE SMALL when this entire experiment caters to those exact fans that would find out first.
also also your options are paying a price to support the experiment and get a shitty version, paying 80 dollars for a box set, or waiting...what is it, OCTOBER? at least three months of waiting?
that doesn't make this a successful experiment at all, and they fucked up by giving a shitty version for download!
-
also uh...the radiohead fans on the internet maybe just maybe are the ones who found out about this? I mean, the ones NOT ON THE INTERNET are not ones who are going to find out about this. also nerds on the internet are a huge part of radiohead's market! I don't see how you can say THEY ARE SMALL when this entire experiment caters to those exact fans that would find out first.
pretty much every radiohead fan knew about this. hell, it was on BBC news yesterday morning. that's how widespread the release is. it's been picked up by everyone. the entire album was broadcast on XFM at 12pm.
also also your options are paying a price to support the experiment and get a shitty version' date=' paying 80 dollars for a box set, or waiting...what is it, OCTOBER? at least three months of waiting?[/quote']
how about paying nothing for the download which you believe is inadequate, then buying the CD when it comes out?! holy shit what an idea
-
how about not being screwed into buying an inferior version how are you not getting this.
IF YOU WANTED A GOOD VERSON YOU'D WAIT THREE MONTHS OR PAY 80 BUCKS (PS WE DIDN'T MENTION THIS UNTIL AFTER YOU BOUGHT IT).
jesus christ they didn't tell anyone what the bitrate was, it isn't out of bounds to expect it to be good quality.
I honestly don't want to continue this anymore because it seems pretty clear PRECIOUS RADIOHEAD can't make a horrible marketing mistake they are just doing everyone a favor desune @_@ so whatever, you're just being really bullheaded about the fact that their experiment was pretty much the exact opposite of what they were trying to prove and they disappointed a lot of people that were trying to buy the album without ridiculous monetary/time constraints.
but if you can't see that, it's not like I can make you throw up the Radiohead koolaid so.
(http://imgred.com/http://texasholdemblogger.files.wordpress.com/2007/05/charlie_brown_lucy_football.jpg)
(http://imgred.com/http://www.motherjones.com/arts/books/2005/09/ehrenreich_265x400.jpg)
-
This album was pretty boring but I really liked the first song!
-
jesus christ they didn't tell anyone what the bitrate was, it isn't out of bounds to expect it to be good quality.
160kbps is good quality. it's not perfect and it's not terrible. it is stupid to expect it to be great quality when no promises were made or even hinted at. just because you WANT radiohead to release it as perfect quality doesnt mean they SHOULD or HAVE to.
if they had actually said "we will release this at great quality" maybe youd have an argument
-
jesus christ they didn't tell anyone what the bitrate was, it isn't out of bounds to expect it to be good quality.
What are you talking about 160kpbs is hardly BAD.
-
what the fuck are you all complaining about
half my mp3s are 128 and they are not noticeably different
-
what are you talking about.
you got unsalted lima beans but it wasn't shit on a plate, don't complain about thanksgiving dinner.
yeah, they gave you full turkey dinners before but you got this one for free don't complain eat your beans Charlie Brown go for the football!
-
Are you pissed off because you paid for the album or something? Because you seem pretty adamant about getting your point across, which we all get already. . .
Yeah, so I am too lazy to search for a torrent on the second disc but wouldn't it not exists anyway? Also, Videotape is the best closer to any Radiohead album IMO.
-
Everyone I know so far that has bought the album doesn't really give two shits that it's 160 kps
-
Yeah maybe if it was a better album not so many people would be complaining about AUDIO QUALITY :/
-
Everyone I know so far that has bought the album doesn't really give two shits that it's 160 kps
yeah well everyone I know with the exception of myself hates wine.
doesn't mean an appreciation of wine isn't a good thing.
also I guess everyone here has a very slim grasp of what a bait and switch is and thinks that an experiment designed to go over the heads of record labels delivering a product that isn't as good as it would be had it gone through the record labels is still a WONDERFUL SUCCESS.
the cognitive dissonance is so thick you could cut it with a knife...
-
I must admit, when I found out that this was going to be less than CD quality, I was a tad annoyed. However, I don't think that it affects the record at all, and besides, if you were to digitally download an album from iTunes, the quality would be worse than 160kps, wouldn't it?
Oh, and I really like the album. It's very subtle and NICE. The strings really add something. It's unusual because the likes of Ok Computer and Kid A were big statements and this is very subtle, just 10 songs, quite short, but every song is wonderful. It's a wonderful record.
-
here's the deal actually listen to the fucking album because it SOUNDS FINE
-
I'm an idiot, posted this in the wrong topic:
I don't know about you, but I did the "Finding an Ideal Bit Rate" thing on this page (http://knowzy.com/Computers/Audio/Digital_Audio_Files/mp3/Comparing_MP3_Bitrates.htm), and I could barely minutely almost forcibly but NOT REALLY tell a difference between 128 and 256, and that was only in a split-second post-echo vocal reverb thing. All the instruments sounded the same.
everything above 128 sounded exactly the same to me with no difference whatsoever.
-
why is no one realizing this.
this was an experiment to show that fans would be willing to pay money for an album without the record industry's influence, to the degree that they could set their own price. however the experiment was a failure because it did not provide the same quality album one would get via the record industry.
this means the release was a bait-and-switch! almost every other band ever does something similar to this, releasing the album via a myspace stream or something similar in lower quality and forcing you to buy the record industry's version. since this entire experiment was to prove you DIDN'T need the record industry, it was a failure. the fact that it was listenable (and I love the people saying DID YOU LISTEN TO IT or whatever, because no shit and more importantly some of us do notice the pretty striking difference between 192 and 160, when you have decent headphones or a good system, and if you're listening to fucking RADIOHEAD with anything else, I don't know why you would even argue in this topic!) does not excuse the fact that the experiment was to provide a replacement for industry purchasing, and instead gives you this!
also everyone know that iTunes is a fucking ripoff, please don't use it as an example of QUALITY DOWNLOADING or some industry standard (http://media.guardian.co.uk/newmedia/story/0,,1699708,00.html).
in case these analogies are all failing!
(http://imgred.com/http://texasholdemblogger.files.wordpress.com/2007/05/charlie_brown_lucy_football.jpg)
imagine this was for sale. at a distance, you can't notice how bad it is. at a lower resolution, you might not pick up the artifacts.
but the second you view it, you know, HOW IT SHOULD BE, you notice all the mistakes.
you guys are arguing in favor of a shitty product as if it is validated by the free price, when you aren't realizing that not only is it a shittier product (and it is, your personal opinion doesn't matter; I personally have quite a few 160 mP3s, I just don't ever use my headphones for them or really care about their audiofidelity much (LED ZEPPELIN)) but the point was to provide the same product as if the record industry had released it via cd, and when the band made the decision to give less than cd quality, they fucked up their experiment!
-
dangerousned you should probably :shh: you're pissing everyone off. Go ahead and continue if you wish, but really, it doesn't sound like anyone else "here" cares that much (myself included, and I did buy the discbox.) If you wish to argue this, go to a different forum that is concerned with the bit rate. As "here," it doesn't matter if the whole experiment "failed." Who cares? Talk about the album, if you like it or not. As the release is quite a big thing in this album, it's not the music.
-
people need to chill out
128 is enough
and oh yeah, i never listen to music in headphones. that's just not how music is supposed to be [listened ][/listened].
-
as the release is quite a big thing.
so.
instead of discussing the release which you said was quite a big thing.
i should talk about the album.
ok just wanted to point that out!
ps this album was so boring i turned it off halfway through lmao. in all seriousness I am having a dinner party and considering putting some tracks on, any suggestions? most people disagree with my ideas of what is good dinner music and I'd like to try this album out on an audience that isn't radiohead obsessed so.
people need to chill out
128 is enough
and oh yeah, i never listen to music in headphones. that's just not how music is supposed to be.
rofl dont you make club music, which is the one genre that needs absolutely perfect bitrates since it is broadcasted on really expensive bassheavy systems?
-
:(
oh well ive never paid much attention to bitrate differences, I guess I will have to get into that stuff as well
-
however the experiment was a failure because it did not provide the same quality album one would get via the record industry[/b].
except you're wrong because a 160kbps MP3 is better than or equal to the "industry standard" (itunes) quality of 128kbps AAC
notice how i'm comparing a download with a download whereas you are comparing a download with a CD. nobody paid for a CD, they paid for a download.
-
Except Radiohead doesn't like ITunes and isn't on it
but they are on Amazon which is 256kbps DRM-free
pwned
-
yeah well everyone I know with the exception of myself hates wine.
doesn't mean an appreciation of wine isn't a good thing.
Okay your point is valid, but only to a degree. You said yourself that the people who are complaining about the album quality are all nerds. So allow me to rephrase what you have said: not all of the biggest Radiohead fans are obsessed with obtaining the greatest sound quality. A few are pissed, but are they all really huge fans or just some dorks with not much better to do than bitch about the less than stellar bitrate of their album purchase that they may or may not have just purchased for nothing?
I am a pretty big Radiohead fan. I also am obsessed with stellar sound quality. I like to hear everything the music has to offer. My media player is set to rip music at nothing short of 320 kbs. But I don't fall into the last category, the one about me actually really ever noticing a massive difference between 160 kbs and 192 or higher (cd-quality right there), forcing me to care if I don't have a choice between them.
Wait a second. . .this is less than cd-quality. . . Uh oh I think I just proved your point. FUCK WE HAVE ALL BEEN HAD.
Pretty admirable effort anyway on the band's part. They did, after all, admit to the world that the availability of illegal downloads have since given every fan a choice between supporting the band, or not while still being able to enjoy their music.
The question becomes not how much can we bitch about this but why didn't they just release the album in a higher bitrate? well, I don't believe that they did it as a way of baiting and switching, what the fuck man why would they do that to their fans? What would they gain from that? I don't have a developed theory or anything, but like I said, whoever is pissed can and will just download a better version later on when it becomes available. To me, the "choose your own price" was like a humble aside to the fact that you can always download an album illegally, but doing so will not support the band. They were asking for support, there was no fucking scheme, in the eyes of an average big fan, at least.
Unless, of course, there is a huge and seemingly invisible market for fans who feel duped by paying for lower quality audio downloads and then go on to purchase the cd later on out of anger and spite. If you're really just talking about the principle of it though, then I can't really help you because I do not understand why they coudld't release it in cd-quality bitrate, besides either saving money on bandwidth (not good reason) or failing to perceive the entire spectrum of their fan's apparent audio quality needs (better answer).
this was an experiment to show that fans would be willing to pay money for an album without the record industry's influence, to the degree that they could set their own price. however the experiment was a failure because it did not provide the same quality album one would get via the record industry.
The media made this up, dude. They call it an experiment. Radiohead claims it's to bring the band closer to the fans, a way of the future, bridging the gap, experimenting? yes in the first of its kind (sort of) way, and I happen to agree with and see where they are coming from with this.
As a side note congratulations I am now totally pissed off about this and will be throwing my discbox in the trash when it arrives.
-
It's a matter of opinion really. I think this album is definitely something that will grow on you if you listen to it enough.
You know, this would be more convincing if you didn't say it's your new favorite album right after getting it. Not that it doesn't grow on you, I just think it's kinda funny you said this after what you said first.
Anyway, it's definitely a good album, great even, but it's no Kid A or OK Computer, at least not after hearing it twice. I dunno, I feel like it could be more cohesive. It got some very nice songs but also songs I don't really care too much about. Overall it's good stuff but Radiohead can do better. It's better than Hail to the Thief and Amnesiac though.
-
I don't know how convinced I am so far. There really isn't much that has stood out to me musically from this album (the only songs I can think of that I really like are Videotape, House of Cards, and Wierd Fishes). I just kind of feel that it's a little underdeveloped.
I will admit though, I was kind of hoping for something a little more The Bends sounding.
And also, i would be pissed off too with 160 if I had paid for it too
-
You know, this would be more convincing if you didn't say it's your new favorite album right after getting it. Not that it doesn't grow on you, I just think it's kinda funny you said this after what you said first.
Anyway, it's definitely a good album, great even, but it's no Kid A or OK Computer, at least not after hearing it twice. I dunno, I feel like it could be more cohesive. It got some very nice songs but also songs I don't really care too much about. Overall it's good stuff but Radiohead can do better. It's better than Hail to the Thief and Amnesiac though.
I also noticed the lack of authenticity in my post :fogetshh:
With the addition of CD2, i think In Rainbows will be a lot more "full."
-
Heh, pretty funny how you guys said 'no one cares' about the 160kb quality (I thought this too), but just two days ago it was in the daily free newspaper (The Toronto Metro) that there are a lot of people complaining of the 'horrible' quality.
-
Except Radiohead doesn't like ITunes and isn't on it
the only reason they aren't on itunes is because they don't want individual tracks for sale
but they are on Amazon which is 256kbps DRM-free
pwned
this is what is commonly called an "exception"
-
Heh, pretty funny how you guys said 'no one cares' about the 160kb quality (I thought this too), but just two days ago it was in the daily free newspaper (The Toronto Metro) that there are a lot of people complaining of the 'horrible' quality.
yo I think that means I was right hell yea.
the only reason they aren't on itunes is because they don't want individual tracks for sale
this is what is commonly called an "exception"
man what is it like being on their cock so bad.
like, SERIOUSLY. why do you scramble for excuses and not just admit they made a bad decision here and it is a ripoff for anyone who paid?
we have
-evidence that people don't like the quality.
-many many people thought it was a bait and switch to be promised an album and then get something compressed to about 60% what the album should be.
-the band itself being well known for audio quality and that being pretty necessary for enjoying them.
but you keep scrambling for excuses, like Amazon.com is NOT an industry standard but Itunes for some fucking reason is or that the band demands entire albums being sold (which you can do on Itunes, and bands have in the past). christ, let it go; granted, there's not much else to discuss, but I think it's been pretty well established already that this was kind of a gyp for the guys that paid, expecting an album.
-
prefix since when do you use CAPITAL LETTERS.
I just realized this
-
yo I think that means I was right hell yea.
man what is it like being on their cock so bad.
like, SERIOUSLY. why do you scramble for excuses and not just admit they made a bad decision here and it is a ripoff for anyone who paid?
sorry but none of that is "excuses"
-many many people thought it was a bait and switch to be promised an album and then get something compressed to about 60% what the album should be.
they were not promised a cd quality download.
like Amazon.com is NOT an industry standard but Itunes for some fucking reason is
"Opening as the iTunes Music Store on April 28, 2003, it proved the viability of online music sales. As of July 2007, the store has sold 3 billion songs, accounting for more than 80% of worldwide online digital music sales"
do you really think that itunes is anything but the de facto industry standard for online music sales
or that the band demands entire albums being sold (which you can do on Itunes, and bands have in the past).
http://www.macworld.co.uk/ipod-itunes/news/index.cfm?RSS&NewsID=19155
http://blog.wired.com/music/2007/09/radiohead-blows.html
http://www.musicdystopia.com/2007/09/radiohead-abandons-itunes.html
snap
christ, let it go; granted, there's not much else to discuss, but I think it's been pretty well established already that this was kind of a gyp for the guys that paid, expecting an album.
they got an album. it's their own fault for expecting something which was never even hinted at, let alone promised.
-
holy shit they were promised an album. if you are seriously going to quibble with words go the fuck ahead but go ANYWHERE where this album was being discussed (outside of GW because like...three people seem to have cared) and you will see the sudden change.
but I guess MS WORD DOCUMENT was the king of e-detectives and figures this shit out and justifies a shitty experiment releasing a shitty product!!!
GOOD JOB MAN YOU CRACKED THE CODE BEFORE ANYONE ELSE!!!
jesus christ I feel like I am repeating myself over and over, which I am, because you just aren't following the point here that people expected a good release, and did not get it. END. OF. DISCUSSION. just because you think it's good because it's better than iTunes (which you even fucking pointed out Radiohead fans can't use) does not make it so, and the fact that there IS public backlash and people ARE complaining, and the people that DID pay feel ripped off, pretty much makes it so. we're also talking a majority opinion as well, because very few of the people who paid money have come forward to say YEAH I'M HAPPY I GAVE LIKE 10 BUCKS FOR AN ALBUM OF LESSER QUALITY.
-
people need to chill out
128 is enough
and oh yeah, i never listen to music in headphones. that's just not how music is supposed to be [listened to].
Unless, of course, its meant to be, as "In Rainbows" was recorded Binaurally. I thought that was one of the neatest aspects of this album.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binaural_recording
-
Unless, of course, its meant to be, as "In Rainbows" was recorded Binaurally. I thought that was one of the neatest aspects of this album.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binaural_recording
also yeah who the hell listens to Radiohead in a lower quality setting anyways. they do tricks with binaural shit and stuff like that all the time. unless you just uh...like background music I guess?
-
well if they're radiohead they only need radio quality imo
:fogetshrug:
-
also yeah who the hell listens to Radiohead in a lower quality setting anyways. they do tricks with binaural shit and stuff like that all the time. unless you just uh...like background music I guess?
Sounds fine to me champ :) You should really stop being a whiny bitch about it. I really don't care about the point you are trying to prove. I do not care if their marketing scheme failed. I don't care if you go anywhere and people are complaining about the same thing. I am enjoying this album. I will continue to enjoy this album. I do not have $1000000 dollar headphones. I ordered the discbox, a higher quality version will be at my doorstep- and most likely, I still won't hear that much of a difference. and if i do, awesome :)
-
holy shit they were promised an album. if you are seriously going to quibble with words go the fuck ahead but go ANYWHERE where this album was being discussed (outside of GW because like...three people seem to have cared) and you will see the sudden change.
but I guess MS WORD DOCUMENT was the king of e-detectives and figures this shit out and justifies a shitty experiment releasing a shitty product!!!
GOOD JOB MAN YOU CRACKED THE CODE BEFORE ANYONE ELSE!!!
jesus christ I feel like I am repeating myself over and over, which I am, because you just aren't following the point here that people expected a good release, and did not get it. END. OF. DISCUSSION. just because you think it's good because it's better than iTunes (which you even fucking pointed out Radiohead fans can't use) does not make it so, and the fact that there IS public backlash and people ARE complaining, and the people that DID pay feel ripped off, pretty much makes it so. we're also talking a majority opinion as well, because very few of the people who paid money have come forward to say YEAH I'M HAPPY I GAVE LIKE 10 BUCKS FOR AN ALBUM OF LESSER QUALITY.
because the people who bought the album and are happy with the quality aren't huge faggots whining all over the internet
-
so who's the bigger radiohead fan, the guy who thinks they are JUST AS GOOD at worse quality, or the one who thinks everyone who complains is just huge internet faggots?
it's a little like wondering if a tree falls in the forest.
-
this has nothing to do with being "the biggest radiohead fan" and everything to do with huge faggots whining about something as inconsequential as slightly sub-optimal quality when they have no right to whine about it
-
maybe someone just prefers to listen to music out of a stereo set where sound quality isnt as important as with headphones :(
also it's the music that creates the art not the sound quality!!
-
SLIGHTLY SUB OPTIMAL=63% QUALITY
jesus christ.
it's like he's riding backwards on a unicycle with his hands over his ears and his eyes clenched shut, cackling and roaring about how he'll never fall and never stop because he's not actually moving and there is no distance behind or in front of him
-
Free wine bottles discovered to be 37% antifreeze; MS Word Document calls subsequent deaths "faggot killing".
"It tastes just like wine to me!" boasts Lars.
"Besides," said MS Word Document in a press conference, "if they wanted wine, they should have realized that the winery, although they had previously released wine and wine exclusively, had only promised a 'cabernet', which in an obscure context can be taken to mean 'red liquid'"
-
MS Word Document walks into a bar, and orders a beer. The bartender says, "You are in luck sir, for it turns out we have watered our beer down to 63% beer, and the rest water. That's okay sir; because according to you, who apparently lacks even the most rudimentary of brewing facilities or indeed palate for liquor, it will be the same. Of course, even though this bar operates on an example of paying what you can, all patrons will recieve the same product. You will also notice, that regardless of payment, we will be calling it beer, and even though this bar has exclusively dealt in non diluted beer, you shan't be able to hold us accountable or be disgruntled, for in an extraordinarly loose sense of the word, we have not reneged on our original promise, to provide you a beer. Conversely, you can spend 80 dollars on a beer that will have twice the amount of head, but you will recieve it later than everyone else. Or, you could spend the standard amount of money on the beer, in three months, after everyone has already acquired the beer, illegally no doubt.
Conversely, the bar down the street has mixed their beer with sewer water and is popular due to the fact that it is in the main bazaar; you can hold that as a standard, and if anyone complains about the watered down beer here, you can climb on a sense of false superiority, and in fact claim that regardless of money, the concept of purchasing for beer and expecting a product of solid beer is ridiculous, considering the sewer water bar is more popular.
Do not worry sir; despite the fact that this bar is used to dealing with superior clientele with sophisticated tastes, you may still call them faggots, for not being happy with a watered down product they would have never expected otherwise."
-
the taste isnt to wine what sound quality is to music
a lot of the music i listen to is recorded pre-80s and the sound quality is pretty bad at times due to technology, especially songs dating before the second world war (i even had music recorded before the 20th century on my old comp, which was pretty rad but shit soundquality)
that does however not make the music bad in any way! vintage is good!
id say sound quality is to music what the bottle is to wine: it can make it more appealing and have a nice print on it and everything, but it does not change the content in any way. and lets just say, I dont drink wine from the bottle!!
(also if there's anything mainstream production has taught us: good sound quality does not equal great music! so much shitty music with great sound quality playing all the time everywhere which lacks good songwriting and a good soundscape)
seriously steel, SOUND QUALITY != CONTENT!!
-
seriously steel, SOUND QUALITY != CONTENT!!
I tried proving this very subtle-y by saying I like Cody Chesnutts 64kbps album. I agree with you whole heartedly, sound quality does not equal content. In fact, I really like albums recorded on 4track so much I am looking to buy one.
btw, i did not know you were steely. i still think youre cool, and i like your music, but i think youre wrong here. :sad:
-
what is so great about this band? i'm not a big fan of their lead singer to be honest (he sounds like he is very uh FRAIL) and it's all just really experimental and odd. maybe that is just me.
-
the taste isnt to wine what sound quality is to music
a lot of the music i listen to is recorded pre-80s and the sound quality is pretty bad at times due to technology, especially songs dating before the second world war (i even had music recorded before the 20th century on my old comp, which was pretty rad but shit soundquality)
that does however not make the music bad in any way! vintage is good!
id say sound quality is to music what the bottle is to wine: it can make it more appealing and have a nice print on it and everything, but it does not change the content in any way. and lets just say, I dont drink wine from the bottle!!
(also if there's anything mainstream production has taught us: good sound quality does not equal great music! so much shitty music with great sound quality playing all the time everywhere which lacks good songwriting and a good soundscape)
seriously steel, SOUND QUALITY != CONTENT!!
first off, there is not a lot of mainstream music of good sound quality; they've all been using this technique that I can't fucking remember, that artificially increases the levels and tends to drown out the sounds.
secondly part of the issue here isn't whether quality!=content, but whether quality=money spent. if I spend money, unless I know upfront I'm getting a shitty product (and as much as MS Word might want to say otherwise, no one that I've spoken with knew it was 160 until like a day before release, if I remember right), I expect an ALBUM. considering the band had set the standard of 256 previously, it's not suddenly FAGGOTS who are jumping out of the woodwork disappointed. this is a quality mix so low that I don't even think oink will let you upload it because you would get banned.
thirdly, the part that I'm really lost on, is that everyone seems to forget this is RADIOHEAD. if you are listening to, say...Chamillionaire's new album, quality doesn't matter so much; you might not be able to make it as bassheavy as you'd like, but it's Chamillionaire, he's not going to be subtle. Radiohead is all about subtle tricks in audio and about QUALITY AUDIO. it does affect the content; BT's last cd was infinitely better on a 5.1 than on my computer (although they both sucked lol) because he used tricks and you had to pay attention to sounds.
if you want to argue that Radiohead is not about subtleties, that's an entirely different argument, and I'd be willing to fight it because I know I didn't like them until I had a decent set of headphones on and not laptop speakers. but this is a very subtle band, people expected an album and supported the band by paying money for it, and they didn't get it; degrading them as ANGRY NERDS is insulting.
fourthly a lot of people say vinyl preserves audio quality better so I'm not sure why you brought up the older bands.
also Lars I'm going to say this again; what the hell are you doing! club tracks pretty much HAVE to be at the highest quality because of how bass heavy club systems are! don't record in anything that isn't like fucking flac!
it is so surreal to go from an interview with Steven Wilson being incensed at how audio has taken such a huge hit lately to a forum where people are arguing a band should be praised for not holding to their own standards while asking people to pay anything.
what is so great about this band? i'm not a big fan of their lead singer to be honest (he sounds like he is very uh FRAIL) and it's all just really experimental and odd. maybe that is just me.
uh, they are first off pretty talented composers, and honestly I'd suggest you get some headphones and listen. their lyrics are pretty good too.
I usually advise The Bends first, so maybe tackle that?
-
first off, there is not a lot of mainstream music of good sound quality; they've all been using this technique that I can't fucking remember, that artificially increases the levels and tends to drown out the sounds.
The use of various dynamics, including the multiband compressor?
also Lars I'm going to say this again; what the hell are you doing! club tracks pretty much HAVE to be at the highest quality because of how bass heavy club systems are! don't record in anything that isn't like fucking flac!
I'll have to take this into consideration once I actually get stuff spread, rite now fast transfer and fast downloads is more of a priority. (btw digital recording equipment records in wave; you cant record in a certain bitrate since that is an mp3 feature... wave works through bit depth, and I record in 32 bit depth which is studio quality, the problem arises when you export to mp3, so up until that point everything i write has a pretty great sound quality!! but yeah, i consider this a great tip since I was not aware so thanks m8)
(also, in case you know, what's the thing about 44.1kHz?? I can record up to 96kHz but dunno if there's much point............?? currently I'm at 44.1kHz)
Especially since everything I send around isn't very finished these days.
But yeah, I'll remember that once I actually finish my next demo. It'll be pretty amazing compared to the utter crap I've released in the past!!
also not getting into the discussion about radiohead since ive never really listened to them so I might be completely wrong here (and probably is) since I dunno what their music is all about.
-
holy shit, this is how out of touch with GW I am:
So dangerousned is steel?
-
holy shit, this is how out of touch with GW I am:
So dangerousned is steel?
I didn't know either- then again- I do only come a few times a week now.
-
Yeah he's steel
-
why cant we all get along and just laugh at this (http://lucidtv.livejournal.com/49339.html)
-
your analogies are overblown and hilariously incorrect.
your wine analogy would be better like this:
a winery gives out some free wine, but oh my god its only a 1997 wine, when your usual fare is a 1957! goddamnit! give me my 1957 wine, i EXPECT 1957 wine even when not told what year the wine will be! THIS IS AN OUTRAGE
-
My Joy Division disc is worse quality than anything I own. And I still love it.
-
Steel, may I ask why you suggest wearing headphones instead of speakers? Is it to do with general sound quality or does having the music placed directly into your brain enhance the experience?
-
Steel, may I ask why you suggest wearing headphones instead of speakers? Is it to do with general sound quality or does having the music placed directly into your brain enhance the experience?
I used to have a 5.1 but it was my roommates. Headphones use binaural stuff; listening to something like uh...the BT example was good, on my shitty speakers isn't worth it.
my headphones aren't THAT great but I can detect the difference between a 160 and a 192 with them on!
so yeah it's basically stereophonic sound is always better!
-
i'm listening to this right now and it's my first exposure to radiohead other than uh, karma police or whatever else they play on the radio. so far i like this a lot, but i feel like i'm missing something because there is just way too much treble. i think it might be my headphones, so i'll get some new ones tomorrow. or maybe that's just how radiohead does it! so far i like reckoner and all i need the best, but i haven't listened to the whole thing yet.
you know, i don't think it's GREAT though.
-
You know, this would be more convincing if you didn't say it's your new favorite album right after getting it. Not that it doesn't grow on you, I just think it's kinda funny you said this after what you said first.
Anyway, it's definitely a good album, great even, but it's no Kid A or OK Computer, at least not after hearing it twice. I dunno, I feel like it could be more cohesive. It got some very nice songs but also songs I don't really care too much about. Overall it's good stuff but Radiohead can do better. It's better than Hail to the Thief and Amnesiac though.
saying you really, really like an album right off the bat doesn't necessarily preclude thinking that it would also eventually grow on people who didn't like it that much initially, dawg. i don't really see anything too strange about saying, "i like this album a lot, but even if you don't, you should give it a few more chances, because it seems like one of the albums that'll really grow on you over time."
anyway, i'm not really big on radiohead at all, but i got this out of the zoo for the hell of it. i understand what steel is saying about experiment failed or whatever, and i guess it kind of sucks for the supporters who paid for the album, and it's kind of lame that your only options for a higher bitrate version are pay a ridiculous price, or wait three months. buuuuut, on the other hand, i don't really think waiting three months is such a huge fucking deal, and after listening to the album, it sounds perfectly okay in terms of quality to me (auditory philistine..........), so i don't really blame anyone for not especially giving a shit whether or not the experiment technically failed. they DID give you the option of not paying. i think it would've been cooler if they'd kind of labeled this like a pre-release type of deal (or did they?), mentioned that the bitrate might be somewhat lackluster for serious fans, and just put it up to download for free, or not. that way you'd pretty much know what you were walking into, and even if you pay, there're no illusions of top-notch quality, and you're basically just getting a three-month-early copy of the album to suffice until the real thing. i realize this seems unconventional and kind of senseless and why wouldn't you just release the album now, but i just feel like it probably would've lead to less people complaining about how they felt cheated or whatever. as far as the $80 copy thing is concerned, i think that's a viable option to be available too. i don't even know why you guys are still arguing this shit, though.
also i liked it! again, i really don't understand how the quality is being talked about like it's terrible. i am listening through a big pair of headphones, and it sounds fine. not too much treble or anything, at least not that i can notice.
-
they did not do this which is really why i think its kind of gay and yeah, a lot of people did get into it with the idea of it being a serious release.
also pitchfork's review is fucken gay as hell.
also also I thought post said it was THE BEST YET which is a little extreme from one listen!
-
hey steel.
not everyone has to care about this. you and the ERECT FOR RADIOHEAD people can go nuts, but i don't think it's anyone's duty to do so.
anyway DULL DULL DULL i prefer Hail.
-
I kind of really like In Rainbows now
It's not all doom and gloom like the older ones and it's pretty atmospheric now that I got over how minimalist it is compared to the older albums. Also it was a big shock because not that it isn't a type of music Radiohead does, but usually their album stuff is more... whatever while there are a couple of /really/ nice tracks off of singles and stuff like that, like Fog and True Love Waits. In Rainbows is like the mood of either of those tracks, but for WHOLE ALBUM so it's a little bit much to take all at once.
Well some of the tracks are different, like Bodysnatchers is like Paranoid Android x2 and it is awesome. Although I tend to skip to the part where he's like "it's the 21st century" or something like that because it really starts ROCKING OUT at that point.
But some of the tracks do seem too long, or need more progression or something. And those rhythmic/rattling sort of sounds like the ones in Videotape are annoying to me. Anybody know what those are?
Also All I Need totally fulfilled my desire for a funky electronic song and I would totally use the synth parts for a Homeland track
And the bitrate thing is still kind of shit because the bar should be higher than that, but the album still sounds cleaner to me than HttT (which won some award for best produced album or something). But then again In Rainbows has a lot less stuff going on and is more about the vocals
-
I love this album, I made love to this album, and then I listened to Kid A and OK Computer and Amnesiac and made love to those, just because I loved In Rainbows so much.
I was looking forward to this album soooo much, and they really did deliver, I think. I listened to this album a couple dozen times, and fell in love with Jigsaw Falling into Place(I LOVE Thom's vocals on it), Bodysnatchers, Reckoner, and All I Need. I had to have listned to Jigsaw a couple hundred times, no kidding.
Although I do believe the initial shock of the album has finally worn off on me(Or maybe I just really needed more Decemberists in my system after they canceled their tour) I really think this has to be one of the best albums to have come out in recent memory. It's very well done, and even if it doesn't match up to OK Computer or Kid A, it's one of my favourites now beside it.
It really to me makes all of the other current music at the moment look dull, Radiohead is just great, they really have reawaken what I love about music with this album, which is why I'm one to treasure it, even if it's only been a month.
Now I just can't wait to see what they do next, and that EP that comes with the disc box.
Mainly because I really like Down is the New Up, I've been wondering what the studio version will sound like for a while now.
-
Has anyone got the discbox yet?
Or more likely..
has anyone downloaded the second disc yet?
I ordered the discbox when I first heard about it but I still haven't gotten it yet in the mail yet. Hopefully sometime this week, it's hard for me to hold back and wait when I know it's on the internet.
-
I've got the second disc. It's good, but you can tell it's a disc of extras. Most of the tracks aren't very memorable.
-
Word, post doesn't need your opinion he's creaming himself about it whether you diss it or not
-
Word, post doesn't need your opinion he's creaming himself about it whether you diss it or not
:shh:
-
to be honest bangers and mash and down is the new up make it worth it because theyre excellent