Radiohead - In Rainbows - Page 2 - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

Winsor_Pilates · 10-10-2007, 02:37 PM

I'm paying 0, and will buy the discbox at a later date when I have more patience for the slow website.
Right now, I want my new Radiohead album and am jelous of all of you who already have listened to it.

Metro Gnome · 10-10-2007, 02:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by troutman

Wall Street Journal, Oct 3rd (on page C14), there is a write-up about how most people have been paying $10 for the download, and how that, in the paper's opinion, this is actually scamming the consumers.

How is it scamming consumers if that's what people are volunteering to pay? I think if buyers, on average, believe the album is worth about $10 to them, it's immaterial how much it typically costs to produce a CD...

troutman · 10-10-2007, 03:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Metro Gnome

How is it scamming consumers if that's what people are volunteering to pay? I think if buyers, on average, believe the album is worth about $10 to them, it's immaterial how much it typically costs to produce a CD...

Easy fellers - "scamming" was not my word. I was just reporting what music-nerds were posting in another thread:

www.woxy.com

http://woxy.lala.com/boards/showthread.php?t=49336

I think the argument is, when you cut out the middle-man (the record company), a far far greater percentage of the $10/unit ends up in the artist's pockets. Consumers may not care, but it could be quite a windfall for Radiohead. And this could cripple record companies.

I was listening to Radiohead when you were all still in grade school.

Before there were internets.

BlackEleven · 10-10-2007, 03:40 PM

I've listened to it about 5 times now, all the way through. Its my favourite album since Ok Computer. I think its absolutely brilliant.

Winsor_Pilates · 10-10-2007, 03:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by troutman

I think the argument is, when you cut out the middle-man (the record company), a far far greater percentage of the $10/unit ends up in the artist's pockets. Consumers may not care, but it could be quite a windfall for Radiohead. And this could cripple record companies.

I think it's a pretty fair arguement. As much as I love Radiohead, I'm not sure this decision is good for music in the grand scheme of things.

IMO, Radiohead is the best band in the word, and if I don't have to pay for their music why should I pay for anyone elses?
I can see alot of other people having this attitude as well and all in all I think the economic aspect of purchasing music is important.
If people completly stopped paying for music, would it be a good thing? I don't think so

troutman · 10-10-2007, 04:08 PM

Album draws complaints:

http://jam.canoe.ca/Music/2007/10/09/4562458-cp.html

What's a bit rate - will this work on my iPod if I download it?

Bill Bumface · 10-10-2007, 04:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

I think it's a pretty fair arguement. As much as I love Radiohead, I'm not sure this decision is good for music in the grand scheme of things.

IMO, Radiohead is the best band in the word, and if I don't have to pay for their music why should I pay for anyone elses?
I can see alot of other people having this attitude as well and all in all I think the economic aspect of purchasing music is important.
If people completly stopped paying for music, would it be a good thing? I don't think so

They aren't saying you don't have to pay for it, otherwise there wouldn't be the option to pay for it on their site.

I really hope this does cripple record companies, as they've completely lost touch ever since things went digital, and it's time for some record companies who get it to take over from the old boys who are failing miserably, and if anything bringing down the whole music industry with them.

Very good album btw, downloading OK Computer as we speak. For free

(Hey, I decided it was 2 for 1 day, I'm sure Radiohead is okay with my little promotion)

Bill Bumface · 10-10-2007, 04:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by troutman

Album draws complaints:

http://jam.canoe.ca/Music/2007/10/09/4562458-cp.html

What's a bit rate - will this work on my iPod if I download it?

A bit rate is how much digital information is needed to store each second of music. The higher the bit rate, the more information per second, the higher the quality.

It's like megapixels, but for music instead of pictures.

It will work just fine on your iPod. I listened to it before ever checking the bitrate and was surprised to see it at only 160kbps. Apparently I can't tell the difference with my ear.

troutman · 10-10-2007, 04:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hulkrogan

They aren't saying you don't have to pay for it, otherwise there wouldn't be the option to pay for it on their site.

I really hope this does cripple record companies, as they've completely lost touch ever since things went digital, and it's time for some record companies who get it to take over from the old boys who are failing miserably, and if anything bringing down the whole music industry with them.

Very good album btw, downloading OK Computer as we speak. For free

(Hey, I decided it was 2 for 1 day, I'm sure Radiohead is okay with my little promotion)

Some artists need record companies - others will not. Prince went back to the big label after famously losing his name, and trying to distribute his records himself.

Paul Westerburg · 10-10-2007, 04:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hulkrogan

A bit rate is how much digital information is needed to store each second of music. The higher the bit rate, the more information per second, the higher the quality.

It's like megapixels, but for music instead of pictures.

It will work just fine on your iPod. I listened to it before ever checking the bitrate and was surprised to see it at only 160kbps. Apparently I can't tell the difference with my ear.

don't suppose anyone knows why the site is now asking for a password? i've tried repeatedly to get on the site today but it hasn't been working for me. Cool idea they had, but it seems to be coming off rather crappy in practice.

A theory on why they went with 160 over 192:

http://idolator.com/tunes/conspiracy...es/-308783.php

Gravitykillr · 10-10-2007, 05:33 PM

the site just appears to be super busy, probably wait a few dsays myself and then download it.

QuadCityImages · 10-10-2007, 05:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by troutman

Some artists need record companies

Why? As it was said earlier, they're just middlemen. At this point in technology you can record a first album pretty cheaply on your own, post it online, and there you go. Then instead of my money going for lawyers to sue teenagers, its going to the people who actually create the music.

Weiser Wonder · 10-10-2007, 05:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Westerburg

don't suppose anyone knows why the site is now asking for a password? i've tried repeatedly to get on the site today but it hasn't been working for me. Cool idea they had, but it seems to be coming off rather crappy in practice.

A theory on why they went with 160 over 192:

http://idolator.com/tunes/conspiracy...es/-308783.php

I had no idea what the story was talking about. BitTerrorist?

troutman · 10-10-2007, 06:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by QuadCityImages

Why? As it was said earlier, they're just middlemen. At this point in technology you can record a first album pretty cheaply on your own, post it online, and there you go. Then instead of my money going for lawyers to sue teenagers, its going to the people who actually create the music.

Why? Ask Prince.

Marketing and distribution.

QuadCityImages · 10-10-2007, 06:06 PM

For one, I think a lot has changed since the early 2000's. I mean, iPods and iTunes weren't the powerhouse they are now.

However, I was speaking pretty much rhetorically anyway. I was imagining a world where artists released their music and were paid for it without a middleman, or outside marketing. If everyone was on the playing field, people would find the good music without having to be marketed. At least, that's my Utopian belief.

Kipper is King · 10-10-2007, 06:51 PM

I am listening to In Rainbows right now for the first time. I really am enjoying it!

Apparently it will come out as a cd in January. I will buy it then, but that fancy disc box looks sweet too!

Monkey_Fracas · 10-11-2007, 11:33 AM

hmm, I still haven't got my digital download yet, and I ordered on the 7th, should I be worried?

EDIT: Nevermind, it arrived in my junk mail yesterday apparently....

Monkey_Fracas · 10-11-2007, 03:59 PM

It's being reported that Radiohead has sold 1.2 million copies of In Rainbows so far. http://www.gigwise.com/news/37670/exclusive-radiohead-sell-12million-copies-of-in-rainbows

Also of note, in an interview with Rolling Stone, Jonny Greenwood has announced that the band has been discussing a tour.
http://www.rollingstone.com/rockdail...usic-is-worth/

Here's hoping they decide on some Canadian tour dates.

Got Miikka? · 10-11-2007, 04:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Monkey_Fracas

Here's hoping they decide on some Canadian tour dates.

Closest to Cowtown they'd likely get is Vancouver - granting, of course, that they do an extensive tour... otherwise, I figure, you're gonna have to go east. Radiohead is one band that I have no problem shelling out for travelling to see. Their live shows are amazing. I've been listening to most of the material from this new album via concert bootlegs for the last couple of years, and, as per usual, the live cuts blow the studio takes out of the water (although this album is fantastic).

I'll never forgive myself for missing their show at the Max Bell.

Burninator · 10-11-2007, 04:41 PM

No offence to the Radiohead fans, but the lead singer kinda looks like a new born that just came out of the womb. Or at the very least, heavy sedated.

Incidentally, I'll probably be buying this album tonight if their website is working fine.