[DeadDiscoDildo]

Weird fish is better than anything they have done in years.

I don't know where you're coming from though. That's the only thing that matters in how we perceive music.

It's certainly not an angry record.

Maybe you're angry?

I know I didnt dig it in my early twenties when I was full of drugs and testosterone...but now in my mid 20s I listen to t hat record the same way I listen to classical music. To calm my mind when I am stressed.

It's a calming record.

Music has the power of healing, that sort of thing.

[DeadDiscoDildo]

Wait, not weird fish....and for some reason I cant find the song Im thinking of in particular, I'll be back in a second...wtf.

[DeadDiscoDildo]

Ah, it was "Nude".

My mistake.

Except, he kinda sounds like herbert the pervert from Family Guy when he sings that song haha.

But the melody and music and bassline is great.

[EVOLghost]

^ he also sounds like the little mermaid at the end. seroiusly.....watch the clip where she is singing and loses her voice....seriously look it up on youtube....I'd do it but I'm at school. youtube is blocked.

[EVOLghost]

and I can listen to slower music....but I dunno.....that record was just rather disappointing.

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

Originally Posted by DeadDiscoDildo

Weird fish is better than anything they have done in years.
.

yes

Originally Posted by EVOLghost

ps HOuse of Cards is worse than all of Pablo HOney.

sort of, though Pablo Honey has some good shit on there too like You, Anyone Can Play Guitar, and How Do You (I didn't mention creep, that would be sort of cliche wouldn't it?)

Originally Posted by EvdWee

on the record it is weak, sadly.

.

much of the record is weak in comparison to the live versions, especially on the tour in 2006/07 before the recording of the album when the material was most experimental and fresh. I also didn't feel House Of Cards until it marinated on me later, its sort of like a flamenco Morning Bell

Originally Posted by SuperCreep

i think "house of cards" is the only really boring song on that album. it was a bit better live, but still didn't do much for me. the other nine are all fantastic imo, and they could have really hit "nude" and "videotape" out of the park if they sounded like their previous incarnations (as they stand, though, still very good.)

I am still quite pissed off at the release version of Videotape, they took out all of the best parts, gutted it like a Chopper and almost completely ruined it by slowing it down, losing its teeth, and wrecking that ecstatic bridge that the live versions had.. I adore that song live circa 2006, it resonates strongly in my heart and still gives me chills..

the whole album aside from the first four tracks, was simply badly produced, and it sounded way to DIY, way too watered down compared to what those songs had live...

all in all it is still a good record, and truly radiohead is a live band, but their popularity makes it such a fucking phenomenon to get tickets that we are stuck with records and forget the real genius. That's why I go with bootleg DVDs and recordings to get the real radiohead sound..

what always impresses me is the way they can duplicate some of the more complicated, electronic elements of their production albums flawlessly into their stage shows, and even enhance on it! that is radiohead's genius. they are not the greatest thing to come into music, but there are extremely gifted at what they do. If radiohead hadn't gotten all that record industry and magazine hype over the years and remained a largely unknown, underground band, you SYG hipsters would be in divine love with them, I swear!

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

Originally Posted by hipster_bebop_junkie

The prices are outrageous, even for the digital files. I guess you pay for the chance of winning that 12'' record as well.

I'll check this one out at some point, somehow, though.

how is $9 ridiculous prices for the digital download? I mean, sure it is more than a million times higher than the free price I paid for In_Rainbows download, but still, is 110 pesos really that much?

[hipster_bebop_junkie]

Yes.

$9 USD, would suffice to buy "The Chocolate Cities" by Flower-Corsano Duo (random example) from certain online store, and probably having it delivered to my doorstep. The WAV file is even more expensive than some physical releases by other artists, that happen to include artwork, and a nice package. You have different kinds of standards, i guess.


By the way, what happened to the "pay what you want" model that they supposedly implemented (although i can think of some other bands that did pretty much the same thing in the past, but they did not get the cake)? Not that i really care, as it wouldn't suit the ways in which i consume music anyways, but i guess some people can share their thoughts on the subject either way (seems like a related topic that would arise out of this news, but apparently it remains untouched so far in this thread).

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

Originally Posted by hipster_bebop_junkie

By the way, what happened to the "pay what you want" model that they supposedly implemented (although i can think of some other bands that did pretty much the same thing in the past, but they did not get the cake)? Not that i really care, as it wouldn't suit the ways in which i consume music anyways, but i guess some people can share their thoughts on the subject either way (so far it seems like an untouched subject in this thread).

Radiohead never claimed to invent giving out records for free, misguided hipster talking heads from the industry and the magazines said all that shit. Radiohead just wanted to do something cool for their fans, why are you hatin?

Originally Posted by hipster_bebop_junkie

Yes.

$9 USD, would suffice to buy "The Chocolate Cities" by Flower-Corsano Duo (random example) from certain online store, and probably having it delivered to my doorstep. The WAV file is even more expensive than some physical releases by other artists, that happen to include artwork, and a nice package. You have different kinds of standards, i guess.

and the digital download price is the same as any other source, BN.com, Amazon, iTunes, BestBuy.com, etc etc etc its just that radiohead is offering it from their own server directly, skipping out those bogus record company/distributor vampires who rob us fans for decades of commercial music.. I applaud radiohead for having the balls to defy the commercial models, not entirely, but enough to have fun with it.
Didn't we have enough fun hating on good bands just because they are mainstream or popular with Nirvana, that we have to keep these hater torches burning into radiohead's second decade on the covers?Should radiohead suddenly start selling their records for half-price on the shelves too just to appease your sense of entitlement and unnecessarily crass scoffing?

[EVOLghost]

I love radiohead. I just wanted to make that clear.


OK Comp is still a fave record of mine. (No Surprises)

[dazedcola]

I never really got the huge appeal of In Rainbows, besides a few songs (bodysnatchers, nude, house of cards). I think the whole name your price thing completely overshadowed that it wasn't that great of an album altogether. I'm still interested to hear the new one though just to see what they do next.

Btw; i'm pretty sure they alluded to the whole pay what you want idea for in rainbows turned out to be a failure financially and thats why they're not doing it again. A noble experiment into retrospect

[SuperCreep]

i don't see a problem with the digital download price. if you look on amazon, most digital download prices for new albums are about $8.99. if the price bothers you, it isn't like it won't be everywhere on the internet for free within a matter of minutes.

i'll probably torrent it or some shit and buy a less expansive LP when it comes out.

[SonicBebs]

i like cd's so i'll be waiting for the (inevitable) cd release.

and weird fish is the best thing they've done since KidA

[hipster_bebop_junkie]

Originally Posted by SuchFriendsAreDangerous

Radiohead never claimed to invent giving out records for free, misguided hipster talking heads from the industry and the magazines said all that shit. Radiohead just wanted to do something cool for their fans, why are you hatin?

and the digital download price is the same as any other source, BN.com, Amazon, iTunes, BestBuy.com, etc etc etc its just that radiohead is offering it from their own server directly, skipping out those bogus record company/distributor vampires who rob us fans for decades of commercial music.. I applaud radiohead for having the balls to defy the commercial models, not entirely, but enough to have fun with it.
Didn't we have enough fun hating on good bands just because they are mainstream or popular with Nirvana, that we have to keep these hater torches burning into radiohead's second decade on the covers?Should radiohead suddenly start selling their records for half-price on the shelves too just to appease your sense of entitlement and unnecessarily crass scoffing?

I never said Radiohead claimed to have invented anything. I kind of agree with you in that point...

If it was a question of coolness, are you implying Radiohead aren't doing anything cool for their fans this time around by not following the same model?

dazedcola mentions financial failure as a reason for this, but it seems reasonable enough to think that they made money from the digital circulation of "In Rainbows". Surely some fans actually paid money for it. It can be said they avoided the so-called leakage of the album by putting the mp3s on sale. Nine Inch Nails did something similar in terms of distributing their music, How To Destroy Angels are following the same steps, and this leads to believe that doing so would profit after all. Can you guys not think that the physical release of "In Rainbows" didn't sell so well due to the quality of the music it offered? Can we just blame the record industry, the methods of distribution, and assume some kind of blame as fans, while the band, in this case Radiohead, remains untouched?

I've been a fan of Radiohead for years, ever since a good friend of mine hooked me up with a copy of a bootleg called "Paragons of Virtue". I admit i lost a lot of interest in them after "Amnesiac". In fact i consider their last two records, especially "In Rainbows", to be awful. Still, hate is a strong word, i certainly don't hate them. I don't even feel apathy towards them. There's still some interest in them from my part, however brief.

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

Originally Posted by dazedcola

Btw; i'm pretty sure they alluded to the whole pay what you want idea for in rainbows turned out to be a failure financially and thats why they're not doing it again. A noble experiment into retrospect

what did cost them was essentially hosting the free server for download, and obviously they had a lot of traffic. Shit, when they played the hollywood bowl in 2008 they set a Ticketmaster.com record for traffic and almost overloaded their massive international servers so you can only imagine what kind of traffic radiohead.com was maintaining..

According to reports most fans chose to pay nothing to download the album. However, it still generated more money before it was physically released (on December 31) than the total money generated by sales of the band's previous album, 2003's 'Hail To The Thief'.

According to Music Ally, Jane Dyball, head of business affairs at Warner Chappell (the publishing company that oversaw the release of 'In Rainbows'), refused to reveal the average price people were downloading the album for.

However, Dyball, set to speak about the release at the Iceland Airwaves conference later, explained that Warner Chappell and Radiohead's management were monitoring the average price daily, and was prepared to cancel the download facility if the average price became too low.

The download facility was taken down after three months, and the album went to Number One in the UK and USA after being physically released.

Statistics revealed that most fans downloaded the album through file-sharing service BitTorrent, but that this had been anticipated before the release.

The band sold 100,000 copies of the 'In Rainbows' box set, which contained extra songs not available on the standard download or CD release.

Warner Chappell concluded that the new release style was a financial success, but did not reveal whether Radiohead plan to release an album in a similar way in the future.

[DeadDiscoDildo]

Yeah for sure, not low fi at all.

[Torn Curtain]

I hate the drum sounds on In rainbows.

[Glice]

Originally Posted by dazedcola

Btw; i'm pretty sure they alluded to the whole pay what you want idea for in rainbows turned out to be a failure financially and thats why they're not doing it again. A noble experiment into retrospect

I sort of agree with Kim's point on this - it's easy for Radiohead to do these kind of experiments, but it ends up making it harder for smaller bands. Cursory Googling suggests that Ok Computer alone sold 8.5m. It's easy to be noble if you can afford to throw away money.

I think Radiohead, since at least Ok Computer, have been financially very canny. They've managed to continue selling arse-loads while cutting back on heavy commercial presence. 'Enigma' and 'mystique' being bigger selling points than market saturation. If Radiohead say, or allude to the idea that In Rainbows lost money, I'd be very careful: they're discretely very clever marketeers.

I don't particularly care about their records any more, but fair play to them for continuing to be Radiohead.

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

Originally Posted by Glice

bands. Cursory Googling suggests that Ok Computer alone sold 8.5m. It's easy to be noble if you can afford to throw away money.

I think Radiohead, since at least Ok Computer, have been financially very canny. They've managed to continue selling arse-loads while cutting back on heavy commercial presence. 'Enigma' and 'mystique' being bigger selling points than market saturation. If Radiohead say, or allude to the idea that In Rainbows lost money, I'd be very careful: they're discretely very clever marketeers.

propz, though radiohead wish they had that trump change.. selling millions of records is nothing when you are part of the mainstream machine, that shit goes to all the vampires. those dudes are probably relatively broke in mainstream music standards, even as huge as their machine is, such things have immense overhead and are more corrupt than Zimbabwe.

but fair play to them for continuing to be Radiohead

exactly.

Originally Posted by aselfishimpulse

I think OK Computer had a lot better drum sound. I feel like how I often differentiate bands is ultimately their rhythm section, like OK Computer had a bigger "rock" drum sound more akin to John Bonham aka BIG. In Rainbows has a drum sound more typical of post-punk with no big kick and cymbal sound which is way more Gang of Four, to me at least.

Yeah, but they gutted the sound too much on the record (In_Rainbows) it needed a fuller sound like they usually have..

[atsonicpark]

Unless I hear from enough people that this is decent, I'm not even going to bother. IN RAINBOWS is one of the most boring, drab, dull, lifeless records I've heard in my life.


Note, btw, that I consider KID A, AMNESIAC, and HAIL TO THE THIEF great albums.