930 Forums
=> GENERAL DISCUSSION => Topic started by: Julian, Alleged Computer F**kface on September 30, 2007, 08:36:00 pm
-
WWW.RADIOHEAD.COM (http://WWW.RADIOHEAD.COM)
ENTITLED "IN RAINBOWS"
DOWNLOAD ONLY ON 10/10 FOR $20.
TRACKLISTING:
15 STEP
BODYSNATCHERS
NUDE
WEIRD FISHES/ARPEGGI
ALL I NEED
FAUST ARP
RECKONER
HOUSE OF CARDS
JIGSAW FALLING INTO PLACE
VIDEOTAPE
A "DISKBOX" WITH THE CD, THE DOUBLE VINYL, AND A SECOND CD OF ADDITIONAL TRACKS IS AVAILABLE FOR PREORDER NOW. SHIPS 12/3. $80.
HOLY SHIT!
-
I stand partially corrected:
The Diskbox is $80, firm, but the download is a "suggested" price of $20. You get to set your own price. If you put in $0.00, it works just fine. So basically, they're giving away the album for free download, unless you'd like to give them so cash for the hell of it. It will be interesting to see how this marketing strategy works: album for free to the masses, the hardcore fans can pay $80 for the book/cd/vinyl/singles package.
-
Wow!
-
these guys are so weird.
so, who's going to pay for the DL? i'm definitely down for $10, not sure about $20.
-
Originally posted by sweetcell:
these guys are so weird.
so, who's going to pay for the DL? i'm definitely down for $10, not sure about $20.
I gave them $5 but I'm planning to eventually buy the diskbox if it's any good or (inevitable) retail version.
-
i wonder if they'll do the itunes thing of giving preferential access to tickets to those who order the box set and/or pay for the download.
i'm having trouble ordering the DL. ordered once, got some weird error, and now it tells me my basket is empty, but when i try placing a new DL in it the website informs me that i can only have one DL in my basket (i.e. sometimes it thinks my basket is empty, and sometimes it doesn't. maybe this is thom further toying with me).
-
Originally posted by sweetcell:
i'm having trouble ordering the DL. ordered once, got some weird error, and now it tells me my basket is empty, but when i try placing a new DL in it the website informs me that i can only have one DL in my basket (i.e. sometimes it thinks my basket is empty, and sometimes it doesn't. maybe this is thom further toying with me).
The site is swamped. Try closing Firefox/IE and hitting refresh and starting over, it works for most people.
-
Im giving them nothing.
Ill see them in concert for an ungodly amount of money eventually.
-
Originally posted by DeathFromAbove1979:
Im giving them nothing.
Ill see them in concert for an ungodly amount of money eventually.
the 2006 shows were pretty good.
they weren't an ungodly amount of money. i don't think any radiohead show has been an ungodly amount of money, especially considering bands like coldplay are charging $80+. the 2003 tour tickets were <$45 for amphitheaters if i remember correctly..
-
Originally posted by distance:
the 2003 tour tickets were <$45 for amphitheaters if i remember correctly..
I believe the 2003 show I saw was 49.50, but still that's relatively meager compared to what other bands of that size cost.
-
Originally posted by Julian, good manners AFICIONADO:
Originally posted by distance:
the 2003 tour tickets were <$45 for amphitheaters if i remember correctly..
I believe the 2003 show I saw was 49.50, but still that's relatively meager compared to what other bands of that size cost. [/b]
prices on my tickets:
merriweather: $43
atlanta: $46.50
montreal: $49.50 CDN - i had toronto tickets too but i don't remember the price. i had to return them when i couldn't make the rescheduled date.
none of that is bad at all.
montreal 06 was $65CDN and toronto was $71CDN (the US shows were quite a bit cheaper than the canadian ones for some reason)
2001 was under $40, 1998 was $30 and 97 was $20. the prices have gone up pretty slowly. obviously pre-97 was cheaper but you get the idea. the ticket prices are relatively reasonable.
-
Originally posted by DeathFromAbove1979:
Im giving them nothing.
Ill see them in concert for an ungodly amount of money eventually.
radiohead tickets are cheap. maybe you'll be paying a scalper, but that's not any money the band will be see.
-
My mind is blown. My wallet is ready.
Bring on the tour. Bring it the FUCK on.
OH MY GODDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
Studio versions of 15 Step and Arpeggio!!!!
(Where's Bangers N Mash? That was like, my highlight of 2006!)
Edit: Nevermind, it's on Disc 2!!!!!!!!!
CD two and vinyl:
01 MK 1
02 DOWN IS THE NEW UP
03 GO SLOWLY
04 MK 2
05 LAST FLOWERS
06 UP ON THE LADDER
07 BANGERS AND MASH
08 4 MINUTE WARNING
YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!
-
still no 'big boots' / 'man-o-war'.
they're never going to put that song out.
...still no studio 'true love waits' either.
re: 2006, it was pretty cool to see the first ever performance of 'down is the new up'... and then a couple nights later hear how they'd changed it up.
-
Originally posted by distance:
still no 'big boots' / 'man-o-war'.
I thought Nude was Big Boots! :(
-
Originally posted by Julian, good manners AFICIONADO:
Originally posted by distance:
still no 'big boots' / 'man-o-war'.
I thought Nude was Big Boots! :( [/b]
get out of this thread.
-
Originally posted by distance:
Originally posted by DeathFromAbove1979:
Im giving them nothing.
Ill see them in concert for an ungodly amount of money eventually.
the 2006 shows were pretty good.
they weren't an ungodly amount of money. i don't think any radiohead show has been an ungodly amount of money, especially considering bands like coldplay are charging $80+. the 2003 tour tickets were <$45 for amphitheaters if i remember correctly.. [/b]
Either way, Ill be giving them money.
Got my shit all signed up for and everything. Now.... the wait.
-
Originally posted by distance:
Originally posted by Julian, good manners AFICIONADO:
Originally posted by distance:
still no 'big boots' / 'man-o-war'.
I thought Nude was Big Boots! :( [/b]
get out of this thread. [/b]
Oh crap, I was thinking of Big Ideas.
Major :( :( :( from as excited as I was.
-
also gave nothing for the digital download. Will be spending money on the cd and probably a show.
-
I did 5 pounds and then there was a .45 transaction fee, which comes out to around $11 US. BTW, I really hate this weak-ass dollar, but that is for a different topic.
-
First Smashing Pumpkins and now Radiohead, this place sure has gotten DULL around here...
-
also gave nothing for the digital download. Will be spending money on the cd and probably a show.
there is no mention of a physical CD - it's download or box set. seems to me that "waiting to pay for the CD" amounts to "check is in the mail". no need for excuses tho, radiohead have given permission to pay nothing and they've certainly factored in concert revenue too.
-
Jesus. 21 posts about Radiohead in one night/morning and not a single goddamn post about the Okkervil River show at the Rock and Roll Hotel. What kind of DC music board is this, anyway?
Brian Walalce
-
Radiohead hasn't put out a good album since OK COMPUTER
-
Is this one going to have actual songs on it, like "The Bends"?
Brian
-
Originally posted by kosmo:
First Smashing Pumpkins and now Radiohead, this place sure has gotten DULL around here...
You forgot Queens of the Stone Age and Foo Fighters
-
Originally posted by The Parkers are dead:
Originally posted by kosmo:
First Smashing Pumpkins and now Radiohead, this place sure has gotten DULL around here...
You forgot Queens of the Stone Age and Foo Fighters [/b]
seriously...this place doesnt seem much different from a DC101 message board in terms of bands discussed. (i dont know if there is a DC101 message board)
-
Originally posted by RustyOrgan:
Radiohead hasn't put out a good album since OK COMPUTER
you take that back right now, mr. potty mouth!
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
Originally posted by The Parkers are dead:
Originally posted by kosmo:
First Smashing Pumpkins and now Radiohead, this place sure has gotten DULL around here...
You forgot Queens of the Stone Age and Foo Fighters [/b]
seriously...this place doesnt seem much different from a DC101 message board in terms of bands discussed. (i dont know if there is a DC101 message board) [/b]
oppositional-defiant is the new indie.
-
oh and i am DEFINITELY buying the album.
and please, never EVer EVER EVER compare Radiohead to the complete shite of Smashing Pumpkins, who make the same crappy album over and over again.
or QOTSA/Foo Fighters who are, to me, the same damn band.
radiohead has more talent in their.....than all of those bands combined.
HA! and i wonder when the last time DC101 has played a Radiohead tune.
-
Good. The wife and I haven't fought about Radiohead in some time.
My prediction: she loves it, I hate it, and I end up on the couch.
-
Originally posted by vansmack:
Good. The wife and I haven't fought about Radiohead in some time.
My prediction: she loves it, I hate it, and I end up on the couch.
and then you'll pay through the nose for tickets to the tour, to get back in her good graces?
a modern-day love story if i've ever heard one.
-
Post of the week.
Originally posted by manimtired:
Originally posted by The Parkers are dead:
Originally posted by kosmo:
First Smashing Pumpkins and now Radiohead, this place sure has gotten DULL around here...
You forgot Queens of the Stone Age and Foo Fighters [/b]
seriously...this place doesnt seem much different from a DC101 message board in terms of bands discussed. (i dont know if there is a DC101 message board) [/b]
-
Well it looks like I'm subsidizing some of you deadbeats because I ordered the disc box.
I'll probably gift the 12" because the last thing I need is to get sucked back into collecting vinyl.
I want to encourage this potential sales model of releasing shit when it's ready rather than the artificial release dates and silly marketing strategies that have strangled the industry, well those dumb moves and whack ass releases have done that.
At least they're trying to do some unique shit to keep our interest, and if they're able to keep 60%-70% of the sales price in profit so be it.
Keeping everything in-house,and 100% artist controlled has made Ani D financially viable, so more power to anyone following that example, except of course if the new album sucks, but I'm obviously betting $80 that it won't...
-
finally got my order in late last night, decided to go with $10.
along with ani, don't forget prince as a pioneer of self-releasing (there's a nice visual for ya). while he got his start under a big label, he kept himself in fancy clothes through most of the 90's and early 00's via independent online sales.
by handling ditribution, i'm willing to bet radiohead can do a better job of controlling leaks of the unreleased album.
i have a feeling that this album might be something of a watershed moment in the music industry.
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
Originally posted by The Parkers are dead:
Originally posted by kosmo:
First Smashing Pumpkins and now Radiohead, this place sure has gotten DULL around here...
You forgot Queens of the Stone Age and Foo Fighters [/b]
seriously...this place doesnt seem much different from a DC101 message board in terms of bands discussed. (i dont know if there is a DC101 message board) [/b]
Someone has sand in their vagina.
-
Originally posted by sweetcell:
finally got my order in late last night, decided to go with $10.
along with ani, don't forget prince as a pioneer of self-releasing (there's a nice visual for ya). while he got his start under a big label, he kept himself in fancy clothes through most of the 90's and early 00's via independent online sales.
by handling ditribution, i'm willing to bet radiohead can do a better job of controlling leaks of the unreleased album.
i have a feeling that this album might be something of a watershed moment in the music industry.
I can't imagine that Prince's foray into independent/online releases nearly successful nor lucrative enough to sustain him during the time frame you've indicated.
I applauded his intent, and still got his albums (since I'm pretty sure I have all of them) during this time period and it was almost always after that model failed to a certain extent and he allowed more traditional distribution.
In any case I believe his real cash cow was/is the sporadic and highly controlled touring he has done on a fairly consistent basis, but I'd love to see some numbers that support what you've said, because as you've pointed out elsewhere I'm not ALWAYS right. ;)
Ani however, has been doing from the jump, and the quality of the product (the music) and packaging has always been top notch and reasonably priced, plus she's done alot for area in Buffalo where her studio/performance space/manufacturing etc is located. Prince is one my all time favorites, but Ani wrote the book on how to do this shit right, though a nod to Ian and Fugazi should also be in this discussion.
-
Originally posted by DeathFromAbove1979:
Originally posted by manimtired:
Originally posted by The Parkers are dead:
Originally posted by kosmo:
First Smashing Pumpkins and now Radiohead, this place sure has gotten DULL around here...
You forgot Queens of the Stone Age and Foo Fighters [/b]
seriously...this place doesnt seem much different from a DC101 message board in terms of bands discussed. (i dont know if there is a DC101 message board) [/b]
Someone has sand in their vagina. [/b]
someone must have sand in their ears to swoon over a shitty band like QOTSA
-
Today has just been a great great day, especially because of this news. Seriously, I've been waiting since the end of the 2006 for some news like this, and it's GREAT. They won't disappoint, and I'm fairly confident that 2008 will be a huge year for them on the road.
----
Side note: I understand that people might not like Radiohead, but don't those of you who dislike the music at least appreciate their marketing for this? I love that they're going the DIY route with this one! (Hate the title though, "In Rainbows"...really? REALLY?)
-
i should note that, currently, drudge has 2 links on this topic.
-
Originally posted by ixkpd-bk:
Side note: I understand that people might not like Radiohead, but don't those of you who dislike the music at least appreciate their marketing for this? I love that they're going the DIY route with this one!
I'm just very curious to see how it works out. I'd like to know the average price people are paying for the downloads. It's a ballsy move on their part for sure.
-
Has anyone else had trouble with their credit card on the site?
-
Originally posted by le sonick:
and please, never EVer EVER EVER compare Radiohead to the complete shite of Smashing Pumpkins,
Well since you bring them up... Corgan did beat Radiohead to the "free album online" concept by, oh, 7 years.
-
Originally posted by bnyced0:
I can't imagine that Prince's foray into independent/online releases nearly successful nor lucrative enough to sustain him during the time frame you've indicated.
I applauded his intent, and still got his albums (since I'm pretty sure I have all of them) during this time period and it was almost always after that model failed to a certain extent and he allowed more traditional distribution.
In any case I believe his real cash cow was/is the sporadic and highly controlled touring he has done on a fairly consistent basis, but I'd love to see some numbers that support what you've said, because as you've pointed out elsewhere I'm not ALWAYS right. :)
-
Originally posted by Bombay Chutney:
I'm just very curious to see how it works out. I'd like to know the average price people are paying for the downloads. It's a ballsy move on their part for sure.
It's actually a safer bet then you might think. Artists average about $1/album for traditional major label album sales. Take Radiohead's average for the last few albums as a case study: they sold around 600,000 copies of HTTT (I believe) and probably had 2 million illegally download it. So, they made $600,000 on that record (obviously the $$ is in touring).
Now, you take those same 2.6 million (hypothetical) people and they're all downloading the record, but Radiohead controls the means of distribution. Obviously alot are going to pay nothing as always. But even if you factor in costs for radiohead to run a server at $50,000, to recoup that plus make the 600,000 they would thru traditional sales, they only have to average around 24 cents per download. So my five dollars covered myself plus 19 freeloaders. Sweetcell's 10 spot covered him plus 39 others.
And any diskbox's they sell are just gravy. They're collecting $$ now, but not printing until later so they don't even have to have startup costs to do it. It's a pretty savvy plan.
-
Originally posted by eros:
Has anyone else had trouble with their credit card on the site?
Nope, your credit card worked just fine for my copy. Thanks again!
-
Originally posted by eros:
Has anyone else had trouble with their credit card on the site?
someone here at work was unable to get his credit card to work earlier today, so no you're not alone.
i suspect that the problems are due to volume - i had them last night when the news first broke, you're having them today might be because it's the first day back in the office. i suggest waiting a while and trying again, hopefully they will have patched things up at their end. you have until the 10th :)
-
Originally posted by sweetcell:
Originally posted by eros:
Has anyone else had trouble with their credit card on the site?
someone here at work was unable to get his credit card to work earlier today, so no you're not alone.
i suspect that the problems are due to volume - i had them last night when the news first broke, you're having them today might be because it's the first day back in the office. i suggest waiting a while and trying again, hopefully they will have patched things up at their end. you have until the 10th :) [/b]
I think this is still where the problem lies. Radiohead (or any single entity) themselves don't seem to have the bandwidth capacity to handle a crush like this. I'm writing this as the site is hung up/crashing in another window. If they can't handle the ordering side of it, what's going to happen next week when everyone comes back for their 75 MB download?
Maybe I'll just download a torrent of it so I can still feel all dirty. :D
-
Originally posted by Julian, good manners AFICIONADO:
Originally posted by le sonick:
and please, never EVer EVER EVER compare Radiohead to the complete shite of Smashing Pumpkins,
Well since you bring them up... Corgan did beat Radiohead to the "free album online" concept by, oh, 7 years. [/b]
oh wow, so that makes the pumpkins a better band....even IF you believe that it was actually Corgan himself's idea. which is most probably wasnt. try again.
-
Originally posted by le sonick:
oh wow, so that makes the pumpkins a better band....even IF you believe that it was actually Corgan himself's idea. which is most probably wasnt. try again.
Who said that made the Pumpkins the better band? I simply pointed out that while the entire internet is going, "OMG, unprecedented!" that it's actually quite precedented.
And by all accounts, it was Billy's idea to finish those recording session and release it for free. You think Corgan wanted to release it on a label and Iha stole it from him in the middle of the night, pressed copies, and sent it to places for hosting? Get real.
I seriously don't know where you get half your ad populum ideas from. This ranks right up there with you being "subjected to reunions." :roll:
-
Originally posted by eros:
If they can't handle the ordering side of it, what's going to happen next week when everyone comes back for their 75 MB download?
i PRAY that they've contracted a content distribution network, like akamai, level 3 or edgecast... no single site would be able to handle a surge for that much content.
if they haven't got a CDN onboard, forget about being able to DL the album (legally) on 10/12. it'll be several days before most people can get through, by which time it'll be available elsewhere.
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
Originally posted by DeathFromAbove1979:
Originally posted by manimtired:
Originally posted by The Parkers are dead:
Originally posted by kosmo:
First Smashing Pumpkins and now Radiohead, this place sure has gotten DULL around here...
You forgot Queens of the Stone Age and Foo Fighters [/b]
seriously...this place doesnt seem much different from a DC101 message board in terms of bands discussed. (i dont know if there is a DC101 message board) [/b]
Someone has sand in their vagina. [/b]
someone must have sand in their ears to swoon over a shitty band like QOTSA [/b]
Whatever you say, go hump your Morrissey and National records.
-
for anyone who's heard these tracks...
as someone who hasn't been a fan of the past 10 years, do I stand a chance of liking this? or is it more Kid A - Hail to the Thief...?
-
Originally posted by Julian, good manners AFICIONADO:
Originally posted by le sonick:
oh wow, so that makes the pumpkins a better band....even IF you believe that it was actually Corgan himself's idea. which is most probably wasnt. try again.
Who said that made the Pumpkins the better band? I simply pointed out that while the entire internet is going, "OMG, unprecedented!" that it's actually quite precedented.
And by all accounts, it was Billy's idea to finish those recording session and release it for free. You think Corgan wanted to release it on a label and Iha stole it from him in the middle of the night, pressed copies, and sent it to places for hosting? Get real.
I seriously don't know where you get half your ad populum ideas from. This ranks right up there with you being "subjected to reunions." :roll: [/b]
lets recap.
1. i say, dont compare the pumpkins to radiohead cause the pumpkins suck.
2. Corgan did beat Radiohead to the "free album online" concept by, oh, 7 years.
so youre comment was not really in response and basically in no way related to my original comment.
i just figured since you replied to my post you were sort of answering it or challenging it.
and then went on some rant about precendence and me not liking reunions, which i dont. and since when is that ad populum anyway.
perhaps only because so many shitty bands have been on reunion tours lately.
just because most people agree doesnt mean they are agreeing just to agree, maybe its really true!
and lastly, i never said that Radiohead has done anything "unprecedented"......other than musically blowing every other band on earth out of the studio...
-
Originally posted by Julian, good manners AFICIONADO:
And by all accounts, it was Billy's idea to finish those recording session and release it for free. You think Corgan wanted to release it on a label and Iha stole it from him in the middle of the night, pressed copies, and sent it to places for hosting? Get real.
so would you believe it if you heard that Corgan made his own instruments and carries his own gear, sets up the stage, cooks meals for the bands and drives the tour bus...or do you think he has a busdriver, roadies, cooks, and ...gasp....marketing people to make these sorts of "unprecedented" decisions??
lol. i think you need to get real and get your wee head out from billy's armpit! :)
-
Originally posted by le sonick:
so youre comment was not really in response and basically in no way related to my original comment.
What messageboard have you been on? Easily 97% of my posts on here are only tangentially related to the subject at hand!
-
Originally posted by le sonick:
so would you believe it if you heard that Corgan made his own instruments and carries his own gear, sets up the stage, cooks meals for the bands and drives the tour bus...or do you think he has a busdriver, roadies, cooks, and ...gasp....marketing people to make these sorts of "unprecedented" decisions??
Just so I understand, you want me to believe his marketing people and his agent -- who are in the $ making business -- said, "Billy, go take that record that'd easily go gold like your last 5 and instead of selling it, give it out for free on the internet and accept no money for it"? That's what you want me to believe: that it wasn't the guy who'd already made his millions who said he had enough money and just wanted the music out there, but rather that it was his marketing people?
And this free album was a marketing ploy for what exactly -- to promote the non-existent tour they had in support of it?
-
Originally posted by DeathFromAbove1979:
Originally posted by manimtired:
Originally posted by DeathFromAbove1979:
Originally posted by manimtired:
Originally posted by The Parkers are dead:
Originally posted by kosmo:
First Smashing Pumpkins and now Radiohead, this place sure has gotten DULL around here...
You forgot Queens of the Stone Age and Foo Fighters [/b]
seriously...this place doesnt seem much different from a DC101 message board in terms of bands discussed. (i dont know if there is a DC101 message board) [/b]
Someone has sand in their vagina. [/b]
someone must have sand in their ears to swoon over a shitty band like QOTSA [/b]
Whatever you say, go hump your Morrissey and National records. [/b]
http://www.dc101.com/main.html (http://www.dc101.com/main.html)
-
Originally posted by le sonick:
"Radiohead blows every other band on earth out of the studio."
Originally posted by le sonick:
"Radiohead has more talent than any other band"
Originally posted by sweetcell:
watershed
Originally posted by ixpd-bk:
"mind blowing"
As soon as someone posts something with the word "revolutionary" in it, I'll have five across on my Radiohead-Dweeb-Hyperbole bingo card.
-
Originally posted by ggw?:
As soon as someone posts something with the word "revolutionary" in it, I'll have five across on my Radiohead-Dweeb-Hyperbole bingo card.
I have "Legendary" but I'm too lazy to search the post to see if I've won...
-
absolutely, releasing an album for free, letting fans pay what they want and saying F U to the labels is trite and unworthy of labeling in any way other than "4.6 pitchforks".
aren't y'all going to be late for the clearance sale at american apparel? ironic t-shirts, two-for-one :p
-
i dont use hyperbole when i speak of Radiohead.
:D
-
Originally posted by Julian, good manners AFICIONADO:
Originally posted by le sonick:
so youre comment was not really in response and basically in no way related to my original comment.
What messageboard have you been on? Easily 97% of my posts on here are only tangentially related to the subject at hand! [/b]
perhaps a percentage point better than i
we should have a tiebreaker thread.
-
Originally posted by Julian, good manners AFICIONADO:
Originally posted by le sonick:
and please, never EVer EVER EVER compare Radiohead to the complete shite of Smashing Pumpkins,
Well since you bring them up... Corgan did beat Radiohead to the "free album online" concept by, oh, 7 years. [/b]
yeah, but more than ~20 people have access to the version with the nice packaging.
corgan was also doing it because the label wouldn't do what he wanted. he also did it after announcing that the band was breaking up (the announcement was 1-week before the end of the last US tour so anyone that didn't go got fucked if they didn't then go to the 11/29 or 12/02 shows).
SP relied on other people to get the stuff out and there were multiple tranfers/versions out there. this won't be the case with the RH album. machina2 was also ebayed to hell and lots of people made a lot of money off it. won't be quite the same with the RH album i'm sure.
fuck corgan.
-
Originally posted by distance:
corgan was also doing it because the label wouldn't do what he wanted.
seems to me that going against this is a good thing, no? or labels the bosses around here now?
-
neither spooks nor open pick are on either disc of 'in rainbows'.
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
Originally posted by DeathFromAbove1979:
Originally posted by manimtired:
Originally posted by DeathFromAbove1979:
Originally posted by manimtired:
Originally posted by The Parkers are dead:
Originally posted by kosmo:
First Smashing Pumpkins and now Radiohead, this place sure has gotten DULL around here...
You forgot Queens of the Stone Age and Foo Fighters [/b]
seriously...this place doesnt seem much different from a DC101 message board in terms of bands discussed. (i dont know if there is a DC101 message board) [/b]
Someone has sand in their vagina. [/b]
someone must have sand in their ears to swoon over a shitty band like QOTSA [/b]
Whatever you say, go hump your Morrissey and National records. [/b]
http://www.dc101.com/main.html (http://www.dc101.com/main.html) [/b]
I wish I could hate something I dont listen to. But since I dont listen to dc101 i dont have a problem with it, clearly you do. Get a car adapter and play your music on it dude, seriously.
-
having a problem ordering the album? you're not alone. (http://www.nme.com/news/radiohead/31499)
Radiohead new album: pre-ordering crisis
Jonny Greenwood admits faults with website
With the shock announcement on their official website that the new album 'In Rainbows' will be released in little more than a week, fans have been encountering problems with pre-ordering the album.
As previously reported, the download version will be available on October 10, while the discbox will be ready to ship on or before December 3, exclusively through Radiohead.com.
However, guitarist Jonny Greenwood has said that massive interest in the band's seventh studio album has caused problems with pre-ordering it.
He told the band's official site: "Just to let you know...(official website) w.a.s.t.e are working on the current gear- grinding at inrainbows.com...it's getting busy in there - busier than they expected.
"So, if you please bear with us, it should get cleared out soon. I sound like a bouncer. Get behind the rope. No denim. Thanks for your patience with the site + interest in the record."
The band have not set a price for the download version of the album, leaving the price field blank and letting the customers decide how much to pay for the release.
-
I really didn't have a problem. Of course, I did get it at 5:30am.
-
I didn't have a problem.
-
Speaking of free albums, you can download the new one from Glossary here: http://www.glossary.us/the-better-angels-of-our-nature-free-download (http://www.glossary.us/the-better-angels-of-our-nature-free-download)
-
You people disgust me.
-
Excerpt from an interview conducted last March, released today.....
Q: There is talk of this download single? Is that going to happen?
Thom Yorke: ??I don??t know, it depends. I hope so - it??s just finding something that makes sense. It??s not supposed to be a big deal but it??s difficult not to think like that because that??s how I??m used to thinking about things.?
Colin Greenwood: ??It??s amazing how much conditioning you have from being in a six-album record deal. We were talking about the whole download idea because there??s something about it that??s deeply wrong because it??s something you worked on and you??re giving it away for free, but you want to do something that??s of the moment and immediate and share with people because that??s what you??re excited about now, not next year as part of a full-blown album release, and you want to do something that??s not part of iTunes or something, or corporatisation, turning the internet into a record company. Something that??s direct from us to you. It sounds cheesy.?
Thom Yorke: ??It??s getting away from the preciousness of the whole thing. No fucking song and dance, it??s not a fucking big deal, it??s just a piece of music. We??re not part of this big empire. It??s trying to get away from that because it??s the death of anything creative. And you see it in every artist, it??s the same thing. At some point the monster takes over.?
Q: Which of the new songs would you like to put out as a download?
Colin Greenwood: ??We had a big argument about this last week, so there??s a song we??ve been working on - ??Arpeggi?? - that we really love, and ??Nude?? we love, and there??s ??15 Step?? and ??Bodysnatchers??...?
Thom Yorke: ???Put ??em all out!?
-
RollingStone.com's track-by-track preview (http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/16654550/radioheads_in_rainbows_trackbytrack_preview) has YouTube clips of live performances of most of the tracks on the album.
-
-
...album downloading now. No apparent bandwidth issues on the other end.
-
Originally posted by chaz:
...album downloading now. No apparent bandwidth issues on the other end.
Nope. I got it in about 30 secs with my fios connection. Going to listen on the way in this morning.
-
Files are only 160kbps rips. A bit of a dissapointment. One thing I can say about this means of distribution is they should have told folks the bitrate before they decided how much it was worth to them.
Not bitching, just a thought. It's no sweat for me but if I'd ponied up $10 or more I'd be a little chapped by the low bitrate.
-
No problem getting it for me. So far, it's a really nice listen also.
-
I haven't read what anybody else has to say here yet, because I want to just say my piece first:
I think this is a fucking amazing album.
-
In an odd twist of fate, the email was sent to my junk folder.
I haven't listened to the album yet, but I find this highly dubious.
-
One of the best pieces of work Nigel Godrich has ever done.
-
It's not "bad" but it continues their slide. Nothing after Kid A is as good as Bends,OKC,Kid A. Everything sounds incredibly watered down compared to the live versions.
-
It's good. Also, all these whingers about the 160 kbps - I don't believe you can tell the difference. I really don't.
-
Originally posted by Fadger:
It's good. Also, all these whingers about the 160 kbps - I don't believe you can tell the difference. I really don't.
Listen shit-bird, I practically bent over backwords to say I wasn't whining, but I certainly can see many doing so, esp. if they layed down any serious coin (like $10 +).
And to be sure, I can tell the difference between 160 and 320 or flac or lossless. I'd bet that with some decent cans or some reasonably revealing speakers running on some decent gear even your half-wit ears could tell the difference.
-
Originally posted by chaz:
Originally posted by Fadger:
It's good. Also, all these whingers about the 160 kbps - I don't believe you can tell the difference. I really don't.
Listen shit-bird, I practically bent over backwords to say I wasn't whining, but I certainly can see many doing so, esp. if they layed down any serious coin (like $10 +).
And to be sure, I can tell the difference between 160 and 320 or flac or lossless. I'd bet that with some decent cans or some reasonably revealing speakers running on some decent gear even your half-wit ears could tell the difference. [/b]
I think that's the point of putting out the vinyl as well - if you really want great sound quality, you've got an option where you can go buy something that will sound better than anything digital.
I can understand the annoyance with the bit rate if you're an audiophile, but at the same time...
-
Originally posted by callat703:
Originally posted by chaz:
Originally posted by Fadger:
It's good. Also, all these whingers about the 160 kbps - I don't believe you can tell the difference. I really don't.
Listen shit-bird, I practically bent over backwords to say I wasn't whining, but I certainly can see many doing so, esp. if they layed down any serious coin (like $10 +).
And to be sure, I can tell the difference between 160 and 320 or flac or lossless. I'd bet that with some decent cans or some reasonably revealing speakers running on some decent gear even your half-wit ears could tell the difference. [/b]
I think that's the point of putting out the vinyl as well - if you really want great sound quality, you've got an option where you can go buy something that will sound better than anything digital.
I can understand the annoyance with the bit rate if you're an audiophile, but at the same time... [/b]
I TOTALLY agree with you. I'm cool with it...I'm just sure though that many will complain about the bit-rate.
-
ok, i have listened to one song, the first one.
and i love it, of course.
i wish i could describe how the drums, the guitars/keys and thom's voice blend so perfectly together.
"wont take my eye off the ball again"
its like...this is the same band that wrote that song "Creep"??????
-
Originally posted by le sonick:
ok, i have listened to one song, the first one.
and i love it, of course.
i wish i could describe how the drums, the guitars/keys and thom's voice blend so perfectly together.
"wont take my eye off the ball again"
its like...this is the same band that wrote that song "Creep"??????
No kidding. You're in for a treat if you're just on song one.
-
Originally posted by callat703:
Originally posted by le sonick:
ok, i have listened to one song, the first one.
and i love it, of course.
i wish i could describe how the drums, the guitars/keys and thom's voice blend so perfectly together.
"wont take my eye off the ball again"
its like...this is the same band that wrote that song "Creep"??????
No kidding. You're in for a treat if you're just on song one. [/b]
I have to say after just about 1.5 listens it sounds fairly promising. I don't think the first song is very reprsentative of what comes after though....the album overall seems less electronic and more organic sounding than their last few. Looking forward to delving in a little more.
-
For an album that I think is maybe Radiohead's most "song-based," in that a lot of songs really stand on their own merits, I think the flow of the album is very impressive.
-
Originally posted by Julian, good manners AFICIONADO:
It's not "bad" but it continues their slide. Nothing after Kid A is as good as Bends,OKC,Kid A. Everything sounds incredibly watered down compared to the live versions.
I agree completely with this. It's okay, nothing that great. Where are the melodies? Just seems like it's all atmospherics and clever "vibe" but it's just not compelling. Kid A was great because it had an experimental edge to it, but songs like National Anthem, Optimistic and How to Disappear still had great tunes underneath those bleeps and twikkies. Would it kill them to have something - anything - that resembles a chorus, riff or hook?
-
Originally posted by Relaxer:
Originally posted by Julian, good manners AFICIONADO:
It's not "bad" but it continues their slide. Nothing after Kid A is as good as Bends,OKC,Kid A. Everything sounds incredibly watered down compared to the live versions.
I agree completely with this. It's okay, nothing that great. Where are the melodies? Just seems like it's all atmospherics and clever "vibe" but it's just not compelling. Kid A was great because it had an experimental edge to it, but songs like National Anthem, Optimistic and How to Disappear still had great tunes underneath those bleeps and twikkies. Would it kill them to have something - anything - that resembles a chorus, riff or hook? [/b]
didnt smashing pumpkins just put out a new CD?
-
Originally posted by le sonick:
didnt smashing pumpkins just put out a new CD?
See, sonick, one of the differences between you and I is that when someone doesn't suck my favorite bands' dicks with the vigor I do, I don't get sand in my vagina over it. :roll:
-
Originally posted by Julian, good manners AFICIONADO:
Originally posted by le sonick:
didnt smashing pumpkins just put out a new CD?
See, sonick, one of the differences between you and I is that when someone doesn't suck my favorite bands' dicks with the vigor I do, I don't get sand in my vagina over it. :roll: [/b]
sand in my vagina? oh, i was making fun of YOU because you were getting sand in your vagina when ppl were aweing at Radiohead and not at the Pumpkins.
you seem to easily forget. so it seems, the difference between you and me , is that you DO get sand in your vagina and i dont. lol.
cant believe i reeled you in that easily!
-
I wish I had still had the link to the 8-foot vinyl Coldplay banner that sonick bought on eBay.
-
in other news. Tracks 1-5 have been listened to, and i really know i must say this everytime i hear a new record by these guys
its amazing, i love it, it seems like part OK / part Kid A with a little HTTT in it to me.
track 2 and 5 are my favourites as of now....
-
Originally posted by ggw?:
I wish I had still had the link to the 8-foot vinyl Coldplay banner that sonick bought on eBay.
Do you know how I know you're gay?
-
Originally posted by le sonick:
sand in my vagina? oh, i was making fun of YOU because you were getting sand in your vagina when ppl were aweing at Radiohead and not at the Pumpkins.
The problem with this statement is this never happened. No one on here has ever went "the Smashing Pumpkins suck" and I've flipped out in the least or argued with their opinion. It makes no difference to me whether you or anyone else likes SP. Just because you say something happened enough doesn't make it true.
On the other hand, no less then a week ago when I dared to challenge that Radiohead giving away the album for free "was revolutionary" on a pure factual basis, you did throw a hissy-fit and started attacking other bands, which had nothing to do with anything, and so I didn't dignify your ad populum with a response. You're just acting utterly ridiculous. You're like one of those 14 year olds who defend Good Charlotte or Fall Out Boy with arguments consisting of "yer gay!" Only at 30, the band is now Radiohead (who are my 2nd favorite band, btw). Grow up for heavens sake. :roll:
-
Hint: check his MySpace page ;)
Originally posted by ggw?:
I wish I had still had the link to the 8-foot vinyl Coldplay banner that sonick bought on eBay.
-
Originally posted by nkotb:
Hint: check his MySpace page :)
-
this album is OK at best. nothing special at all.
-
That layout gave me a minor seizure.
Originally posted by nkotb:
Hint: check his MySpace page ;)
Originally posted by ggw?:
I wish I had still had the link to the 8-foot vinyl Coldplay banner that sonick bought on eBay.
[/b]
-
Originally posted by Julian, good manners AFICIONADO:
Originally posted by le sonick:
sand in my vagina? oh, i was making fun of YOU because you were getting sand in your vagina when ppl were aweing at Radiohead and not at the Pumpkins.
The problem with this statement is this never happened. No one on here has ever went "the Smashing Pumpkins suck" and I've flipped out in the least or argued with their opinion. It makes no difference to me whether you or anyone else likes SP. Just because you say something happened enough doesn't make it true.
On the other hand, no less then a week ago when I dared to challenge that Radiohead giving away the album for free "was revolutionary" on a pure factual basis, you did throw a hissy-fit and started attacking other bands, which had nothing to do with anything, and so I didn't dignify your ad populum with a response. You're just acting utterly ridiculous. You're like one of those 14 year olds who defend Good Charlotte or Fall Out Boy with arguments consisting of "yer gay!" Only at 30, the band is now Radiohead (who are my 2nd favorite band, btw). Grow up for heavens sake. :roll: [/b]
what are you talkin about? you have me confused, and you are obviously really upset cause where did Fall out boy come into this conversation?
heres what happened:
1. people were like "ooh Radiohead is putting out an album online"
2. someone compared Radiohead to the Pumpkins/QOTSA/Foo Fighters as DC101 bands.
3. i proclaimed Radiohead as better than all of those crappy bands.
4. you brought up something about Billy Corgan beating Radiohead to releasing an album online
5. i said, it was probably some record label marketing guys idea anyway.
6. you broke out "ad populum"
then later:
7. someone says they want hooks in the Radiohead songs
8. i say buy a SP record.
9. you call me a Fall Out Boy fan and say i have sand in my vagina.
really. the smashing pumpkins arent even a band to me anymore, so why would i get all mad about them? i'm bored with this and i am sorry i brought up the Pumpkins again...i should've known better...jeez.
-
Originally posted by ggw?:
That layout gave me a minor seizure.
Originally posted by nkotb:
Hint: check his MySpace page ;)
Originally posted by ggw?:
I wish I had still had the link to the 8-foot vinyl Coldplay banner that sonick bought on eBay.
[/b]
[/b]
someone bitches about that every single day.
seriously, i just dont feel like changin it.
-
Your timetable is hilarious. The reason I brought up SP's free album was because you and others were going on about how Radiohead releasing the album in this manner was "unprecedented" and "would destroy the music industry" and I pointed out that it was not without precedent as SP -- along with easily 10 other established acts (Bowie, Stars, Dandy Warhols) -- have done similar things. Your response to this factual correction? "NONE OF THOSE BANDS MATTER!" There's a mature response.
Someone points out what they dislike about the album in this thread and what's your response? Backhanded digs at other bands that are completely off-topic. Most adults I know can discuss their impressions on a piece of work without randomly trashing bands that the viewing audience (as a whole) find distasteful just to score cheap points. Seriously, act like an adult as I know you can as opposed to a 15 year old fanboy.
-
some thoughts on this record, and new records in general.
as is probably clear, I love the album. But in reading the lukewarm responses here, it has prompted me to think a bit about records as a whole...
It is interesting - I feel sorry for somebody who doesn't love this as much as I do. It has made for a great day of listening to music for me - and I'm certain that this will be an album that I'll get great pleasure out of for a long time. I'm looking forward to how this will sound after having it for a week, a month, three years from now - because that's what I love about Radiohead. Their albums sit very well with me.
One of the best parts of music to me is the ability to share it with other people - that's the reason we argue about all of these frivolous little things on here all of the time. And when a great record comes along, part of the fun is being able to talk with your friends about how great it is, and why its great, and picking apart the little nuances that make it great. It hasn't diminished the appeal of the record to me that some of you don't seem to dig it as much - but at the same time, I kind of wish you did so we could all geek out about how good it is. And I wonder what that says about records and albums as a community experience.
I don't really care if the general sentiment here is sort of "meh." I just think its too bad for you if you aren't as giddy about the record as I am. Because I'm sure enjoying it.
-
I think you and Sonick need to get together and pick the sand out of each other's respective vaginas.
Originally posted by Julian, good manners AFICIONADO:
Your timetable is hilarious. The reason I brought up SP's free album was because you and others were going on about how Radiohead releasing the album in this manner was "unprecedented" and "would destroy the music industry" and I pointed out that it was not without precedent as SP -- along with easily 10 other established acts (Bowie, Stars, Dandy Warhols) -- have done similar things. Your response to this factual correction? "NONE OF THOSE BANDS MATTER!" There's a mature response.
Someone points out what they dislike about the album in this thread and what's your response? Backhanded digs at other bands that are completely off-topic. Most adults I know can discuss their impressions on a piece of work without randomly trashing bands that the viewing audience (as a whole) find distasteful just to score cheap points. Seriously, act like an adult as I know you can as opposed to a 15 year old fanboy.
-
Originally posted by Julian, good manners AFICIONADO:
Your timetable is hilarious. The reason I brought up SP's free album was because you and others were going on about how Radiohead releasing the album in this manner was "unprecedented" and "would destroy the music industry" and I pointed out that it was not without precedent as SP -- along with easily 10 other established acts (Bowie, Stars, Dandy Warhols) -- have done similar things. Your response to this factual correction? "NONE OF THOSE BANDS MATTER!" There's a mature response.
first of all, quit confusing me with other ppl.
the conversation you are referring to is in the "arcade fire doesnt like being upstaged by Radiohead" thread, right?
the ONLY post i made on that thread was
"but Radiohead is clearly the BEST band to do it, so they get the credit.
just like many other bands were annoying whiners before Smashing Pumpkins.... "
that neither said "radiohead is unprecedented" OR "none of these bands matter"
so the rest of your little argument was not even with me. so shut the fuck up and move along, pumpkin boy.
-
Originally posted by ggw?:
I think you and Sonick need to get together and pick the sand out of each other's respective vaginas.
No no, I find this much more entertaining than the new Radiohead album...
-
Originally posted by callat703:
some thoughts on this record, and new records in general.
as is probably clear, I love the album. But in reading the lukewarm responses here, it has prompted me to think a bit about records as a whole...
It is interesting - I feel sorry for somebody who doesn't love this as much as I do. It has made for a great day of listening to music for me - and I'm certain that this will be an album that I'll get great pleasure out of for a long time. I'm looking forward to how this will sound after having it for a week, a month, three years from now - because that's what I love about Radiohead. Their albums sit very well with me.
One of the best parts of music to me is the ability to share it with other people - that's the reason we argue about all of these frivolous little things on here all of the time. And when a great record comes along, part of the fun is being able to talk with your friends about how great it is, and why its great, and picking apart the little nuances that make it great. It hasn't diminished the appeal of the record to me that some of you don't seem to dig it as much - but at the same time, I kind of wish you did so we could all geek out about how good it is. And I wonder what that says about records and albums as a community experience.
I don't really care if the general sentiment here is sort of "meh." I just think its too bad for you if you aren't as giddy about the record as I am. Because I'm sure enjoying it.
I wouldn't exert to much energy pitying us who "don't get it." I could just as easily say, I feel sorry for anyone who thinks THAT is great.
Hey, did you see the thread on the other new releases that came out yesterday? There's lots of them! Lots and lots and lots of new records, of which Radiohead's is one. If Rainbows was the only record released in 2007, I might be a little disappointed. But it wasn't! Yay! Choice! No need for lockstep agreeance!
I don't understand why people aren't ejaculating over the Gallows, Jay Reatard and Witchcraft records, but I make a big mess over those things all day every day. Do I feel sad? Hell no! Slightly superior and a little hungry? Hell yes!
And besides, when me and my music buddies all agree on the merits of a record, that conversation lasts about a minute and a half. When we disagree on a record, that conversation will drag on for months and months, and to me, that's more fun and stimulating.
-
Originally posted by vansmack:
Originally posted by ggw?:
I think you and Sonick need to get together and pick the sand out of each other's respective vaginas.
No no, I find this much more entertaining than the new Radiohead album... [/b]
quite frankly, i am slightly entertained as well, no ones ever called me a fanboy before :p
-
Originally posted by callat703:
It is interesting - I feel sorry for somebody who doesn't love this as much as I do.
the part that bothers me, is i think some ppl, not necessarily ppl on here though, actually refuse to enjoy it just because its a Radiohead album.
-
Originally posted by le sonick:
quite frankly, i am slightly entertained as well, no ones ever called me a fanboy before :p
If the panties fit...
-
Originally posted by Julian, good manners AFICIONADO:
Originally posted by le sonick:
quite frankly, i am slightly entertained as well, no ones ever called me a fanboy before :D
-
Originally posted by TheDirector217:
You're not exhibiting very good manners right now, my friend. I'm just saying . . . :D
That only comes across as rude if you think cross-dressing is unsavory. So who's the racist now?
-
Originally posted by Julian, good manners AFICIONADO:
Originally posted by le sonick:
quite frankly, i am slightly entertained as well, no ones ever called me a fanboy before :p
If the panties fit... [/b]
at the very least, you have to agree that you throw just as much of a hissy fit, when the pumpkins credibility is questioned as i do with Radiohead. which would make you a fanboy as well.
-
as i have listen to all but the last 2 songs, i will say that 6,7 & 8 may take more listening to.
the first half was strong though.
-
Originally posted by le sonick:
at the very least, you have to agree that you throw just as much of a hissy fit, when the pumpkins credibility is questioned as i do with Radiohead. which would make you a fanboy as well.
I admit my Pumpkins fanboy-dom, but I don't think I throw a hissy fit when people question the band's credibility or quality, because I don't care. When people start making ridiculously illogical and factual inaccurate statements, that's different, but people can say they stink, etc, all they like.
-
Originally posted by Julian, good manners AFICIONADO:
You're like one of those 14 year olds who defend Good Charlotte or Fall Out Boy with arguments consisting of "yer gay!"
You know, I have a NAME!
And here it is,
Brian
P.S. Radiohead? The Smashing Pumpkins? Both are in love with the smell of their own farts.
-
Originally posted by Brian Wallace:
Radiohead? The Smashing Pumpkins? Both are in love with the smell of their own farts.
You know, when faced with an actual 14 year old, I feel the need to retract any comments likening Sonick to one. My apologies.
-
Originally posted by Brian Wallace:
Originally posted by Julian, good manners AFICIONADO:
You're like one of those 14 year olds who defend Good Charlotte or Fall Out Boy with arguments consisting of "yer gay!"
You know, Brian has a NAME!
And here it is,
Brian
And here it is again,
Brian
P.S. Radiohead? The Smashing Pumpkins? Brian? All are in love with the smell of their own farts. As is Brian.
With love,
Brian
Brian
[/b]
Your post was awesome. I made it awesomer.
-
Originally posted by Relaxer:
I wouldn't exert to much energy pitying us who "don't get it." I could just as easily say, I feel sorry for anyone who thinks THAT is great.
Hey, did you see the thread on the other new releases that came out yesterday? There's lots of them! Lots and lots and lots of new records, of which Radiohead's is one. If Rainbows was the only record released in 2007, I might be a little disappointed. But it wasn't! Yay! Choice! No need for lockstep agreeance!
I don't understand why people aren't ejaculating over the Gallows, Jay Reatard and Witchcraft records, but I make a big mess over those things all day every day. Do I feel sad? Hell no! Slightly superior and a little hungry? Hell yes!
And besides, when me and my music buddies all agree on the merits of a record, that conversation lasts about a minute and a half. When we disagree on a record, that conversation will drag on for months and months, and to me, that's more fun and stimulating.
I don't mean to imply that something is wrong with not liking it. I just think that music as a unifying factor is part of the fun of it - it is a way of finding some common grounds with people. The ability to share the experience is something that is very powerful. Yes, that can also be true when people vehemently disagree about something - strong reactions generally provide for the best discussions. But finding you have something in common with other people that you might otherwise never identify with? That's a powerful thing, and for me, music is often where I find that commonality.
I think Radiohead is as close as we'll ever get to a band like the Beatles, where the world essentially stopped when they put out a new album. Everybody took an hour and listened to it to see what they thought. Everybody is paying attention.
And again, I don't mean to imply there is a NEED for "lockstep agreeance." But aren't the albums that everybody can admit are great the best? For example, I've said before that I'm not a Velvet Underground fan, but I can admit the importance and greatness of an album like their debut.
I don't know. Maybe it is campy to wish for a piece of art that listeners can unanimously appreciate on some level. But I feel like the one band right now that is capable of that is Radiohead.
-
Originally posted by Relaxer:
Originally posted by Brian Wallace:
Originally posted by Julian, good manners AFICIONADO:
You're like one of those 14 year olds who defend Good Charlotte or Fall Out Boy with arguments consisting of "yer gay!"
You know, Brian has a NAME!
And here it is,
Brian
And here it is again,
Brian
P.S. Radiohead? The Smashing Pumpkins? Brian? All are in love with the smell of their own farts. As is Brian.
With love,
Brian
Brian
[/b]
Your post was awesome. I made it awesomer. [/b]
It's only Wednesday, & we may have a post of the week.
-
Originally posted by callat703:
I think Radiohead is as close as we'll ever get to a band like the Beatles, where the world essentially stopped when they put out a new album. Everybody took an hour and listened to it to see what they thought.
Damn. I see the greenery around your way is SUPER high grade, fam. Your connect must make a fuckin' fortune . . .
-
Originally posted by TheDirector217:
Originally posted by callat703:
I think Radiohead is as close as we'll ever get to a band like the Beatles, where the world essentially stopped when they put out a new album. Everybody took an hour and listened to it to see what they thought.
Damn. I see the greenery around your way is SUPER high grade, fam. Your connect must make a fuckin' fortune . . . [/b]
Call it as I see it. I think in terms of global reach and appeal across genre and age, Radiohead is pretty universally intriguing to people.
You seen any other album releases lately that made the front page of the Drudge Report, CNN, Time, etc?
-
Originally posted by callat703:
You seen any other album releases lately that made the front page of the Drudge Report, CNN, Time, etc?
Besides Britney Spears?
And when did it becomes acceptable to list Drudge next to CNN and Time?
-
Originally posted by vansmack:
Originally posted by callat703:
You seen any other album releases lately that made the front page of the Drudge Report, CNN, Time, etc?
Besides Britney Spears? [/b]
Related to the actual music, as opposed to the celebrity.
Drudge is pretty well respected, like it or not. And he also has one of the largest news sites in the world.
-
Originally posted by callat703:
Related to the actual music, as opposed to the celebrity.
Oh really? And not the method of distribution?
-
Just finished listening to it
I was kind of distracted but nothing jumped out at me. Some things are nice, but like most albums I need to listen to it a few more times.
Jigsaw Falling Into Place was a bit $$$ though.
-
Originally posted by vansmack:
Originally posted by callat703:
Related to the actual music, as opposed to the celebrity.
Oh really? And not the method of distribution? [/b]
Sure - method of distribution is still about the music itself. This goes back to the argument that Julian was having - sure, bands have done it before, but NEVER anybody with the reach, market power, or reputation that Radiohead has. If it isn't Radiohead, that story isn't on the front page of ANY of those news sites.
-
Originally posted by callat703:
Drudge is pretty well respected, like it or not.
By whom, Newt Gingrich? No one who has ever even considered -- even for a second -- voting for a Non-Republican considers Drudge a "reputable" source.
-
This goes back to the argument that Julian was having - sure, bands have done it before, but NEVER anybody with the reach, market power, or reputation that Radiohead has. If it isn't Radiohead, that story isn't on the front page of ANY of those news sites. [/QB]
I'll agree with that. SP's freebie was on yahoo news and a few others, but nowhere near the media blitz In Rainbows has caused.
-
Originally posted by callat703:
Sure - method of distribution is still about the music itself.
How on earth does anybody make that connection?
Well, you did call Drudge respected, so it makes a little sense.
-
Originally posted by vansmack:
Originally posted by callat703:
Sure - method of distribution is still about the music itself.
How on earth does anybody make that connection? [/b]
I think that's a pretty elementary connection.
I'm not saying its an article about what the music sounds like, but how they are going to distribute the music is pretty inextricably linked to the music itself. You can't write that story without talking about the album at length, as opposed to a story about Britney Spears where you can get through the entire story about her kids, life, party experiences, etc and there is a tag at the end about her new album.
-
I think the point that Smackie is making is that if it was released as a normal in stores CD, none of those places even mention they have a CD out. The newsworthy element of the story is not "Radiohead's music" but "Radiohead's marketing plan."
-
Originally posted by Julian, good manners AFICIONADO:
Originally posted by callat703:
Drudge is pretty well respected, like it or not.
By whom, Newt Gingrich? No one who has ever even considered -- even for a second -- voting for a Non-Republican considers Drudge a "reputable" source. [/b]
That's a debate for another thread.
-
Originally posted by callat703:
I think that's a pretty elementary connection.
I think the definition of "itself" is fairly elementary.
"with respect to its inherent nature"
So how deoes the ditrubution of the music relate to the inherent nature of the music? At all?
-
Originally posted by Julian, good manners AFICIONADO:
I think the point that Smackie is making is that if it was released as a normal in stores CD, none of those places even mention they have a CD out. The newsworthy element of the story is not "Radiohead's music" but "Radiohead's marketing plan."
Yes, I understand that. But without the relevance and global impact of Radiohead's music, Radiohead's marketing plan is not newsworthy.
EDIT: To further clarify, the only reason that Radiohead is newsworthy, I'm contending, is due to their music. They aren't celebrities, they don't make a great deal of public commentary, they aren't dating models...they're just a band putting out a record.
-
Originally posted by callat703:
Yes, I understand that. But without the relevance and global impact of Radiohead's music, Radiohead's marketing plan is not newsworthy.
Without the relevance and global impact of Britney's back catalog, Britney's antics are not newsworthy.
-
Originally posted by Julian, good manners AFICIONADO:
Originally posted by callat703:
Yes, I understand that. But without the relevance and global impact of Radiohead's music, Radiohead's marketing plan is not newsworthy.
Without the relevance and global impact of Britney's back catalog, Britney's antics are not newsworthy. [/b]
Sure - but her story became about something else, completely unrelated to music. You're going to argue that crotch shots and gossip rags covering her custody battles and then mentioning at the end that she's got a new record is akin to CNN doing an I-Report on how much listeners will pay for the new Radiohead record?
-
Originally posted by Julian, good manners AFICIONADO:
Originally posted by callat703:
Yes, I understand that. But without the relevance and global impact of Radiohead's music, Radiohead's marketing plan is not newsworthy.
Without the relevance and global impact of Britney's back catalog, Britney's antics are not newsworthy. [/b]
dude, get over it, did Radiohead kill your dog or something? jesus h christ
-
Look if any relatively large band, well say Red Hot Chili Peppers, released an album in this manner, it'd get the same amount of coverage. If Justin Timberlake did it, it probably gets MORE coverage. Radiohead being on CNN is not some affirmation of the universalness of their music. That's a fanboy wank statement, my friend.
-
Originally posted by Julian, good manners AFICIONADO:
Originally posted by Brian Wallace:
Radiohead? The Smashing Pumpkins? Both are in love with the smell of their own farts.
You know, when faced with an actual 14 year old, I feel the need to retract any comments likening Sonick to one. My apologies. [/b]
that was an actual LOL-er. a few of them actually.
-
Originally posted by callat703:
CNN doing an I-Report on how much listeners will pay for the new Radiohead record?
Again, that's not about the music itself, that's about the record industry and Radiohead's attempt to change the status quo. But for their attempt to change the status quo, Radiohead's music itself is not newsworthy to CNN, Time, etc.
-
Originally posted by Julian, good manners AFICIONADO:
Originally posted by callat703:
Drudge is pretty well respected, like it or not.
By whom, Newt Gingrich? No one who has ever even considered -- even for a second -- voting for a Non-Republican considers Drudge a "reputable" source. [/b]
Drudge links to CNN and Time all the time so what the fuck are you talking about?
-
Originally posted by le sonick:
dude, get over it, did Radiohead kill your dog or something? jesus h christ
No, like I said earlier, Radiohead are my second favorite band. I just find it ridiculous the levels some of you are taking some of this. Radiohead is not the biggest band in the world, nor does media coverage over a detail only tangentially related to their musical output constitute an affirmation that they're the modern day Beatles. If I ever said any of this nonsense, I'd get flamed so quickly your head would spin.
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
Drudge links to CNN and Time all the time so what the fuck are you talking about?
Let me know when it's vice versa, and not just the Republicans using Drudge as a tool for their smear campaigns. That is why he's not respected.
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
Drudge links to CNN and Time all the time so what the fuck are you talking about?
Not all of Drudge's "articles" are links to a reputable news source. In the past election cycle he reported a "guarantee" the Hillary Clinton was running in 2004, and also revealed the John Kerry had slept with an intern and paid her off. That's reputable journalism, for sure.
-
Originally posted by Julian, good manners AFICIONADO:
Look if any relatively large band, well say Red Hot Chili Peppers, released an album in this manner, it'd get the same amount of coverage. If Justin Timberlake did it, it probably gets MORE coverage. Radiohead being on CNN is not some affirmation of the universalness of their music. That's a fanboy wank statement, my friend.
Fair enough, that was a simplified way of pointing out the interest in the band. I don't mean to imply that media coverage on that scale is indicative, by itself, of universal interest.
It was meant as an example of a larger point - the one that I'm trying to get at - the ONLY thing that has ever driven interest in Radiohead is their music. People want to HEAR what they are going to do. With almost every other musical entity on their level, it is about something in addition to music - be it celebrity or something else.
I'll be fascinated to see how many downloads they end up with from the official site.
-
Originally posted by vansmack:
Originally posted by manimtired:
Drudge links to CNN and Time all the time so what the fuck are you talking about?
Let me know when it's vice versa, and not just the Republicans using Drudge as a tool for their smear campaigns. That is why he's not respected. [/b]
vast right wing conspiracy:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Julian, good manners AFICIONADO:
Look if any relatively large band, well say Red Hot Chili Peppers, released an album in this manner, it'd get the same amount of coverage. If Justin Timberlake did it, it probably gets MORE coverage. Radiohead being on CNN is not some affirmation of the universalness of their music. That's a fanboy wank statement, my friend.
Radiohead being the best fucking band on the planet is affirmation enough, don't you think?
see, personally i feel that JT and co are popular cause they are on all the new channels.
however, i feel Radiohead is on all the news channels cause they're popular.
i know i am wrong, but dont prove me that way, a fanboy needs his delusions.
-
Originally posted by Julian, good manners AFICIONADO:
Originally posted by manimtired:
Drudge links to CNN and Time all the time so what the fuck are you talking about?
Not all of Drudge's "articles" are links to a reputable news source. In the past election cycle he reported a "guarantee" the Hillary Clinton was running in 2004, and also revealed the John Kerry had slept with an intern and paid her off. That's reputable journalism, for sure. [/b]
then i suppose you dont consider CBS a reputable news source either? whatever dudes..the radiohead album is a snoozefest. carry on.
-
Originally posted by Julian, good manners AFICIONADO:
Originally posted by le sonick:
dude, get over it, did Radiohead kill your dog or something? jesus h christ
No, like I said earlier, Radiohead are my second favorite band. I just find it ridiculous the levels some of you are taking some of this. Radiohead is not the biggest band in the world, nor does media coverage over a detail only tangentially related to their musical output constitute an affirmation that they're the modern day Beatles. If I ever said any of this nonsense, I'd get flamed so quickly your head would spin. [/b]
See, I disagree with you. I would contend that Radiohead is the biggest band in the world.
-
Originally posted by callat703:
Originally posted by Julian, good manners AFICIONADO:
Originally posted by le sonick:
dude, get over it, did Radiohead kill your dog or something? jesus h christ
No, like I said earlier, Radiohead are my second favorite band. I just find it ridiculous the levels some of you are taking some of this. Radiohead is not the biggest band in the world, nor does media coverage over a detail only tangentially related to their musical output constitute an affirmation that they're the modern day Beatles. If I ever said any of this nonsense, I'd get flamed so quickly your head would spin. [/b]
See, I disagree with you. I would contend that Radiohead is the biggest band in the world. [/b]
I agree. wholeheartedly.
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
vast right wing conspiracy:rolleyes:
Give it a read:
<img src="http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/I/210KHV29R9L._AA180_.jpg" alt=" - " />
If you're not a reader, just go to the library and flip through the index and look for the pages that include Ken Mehlman.
-
Originally posted by callat703:
See, I disagree with you. I would contend that Radiohead is the biggest band in the world.
Bigger than U2?
-
Originally posted by vansmack:
Originally posted by callat703:
See, I disagree with you. I would contend that Radiohead is the biggest band in the world.
Bigger than U2? [/b]
surely.
but i think album sales and concert sales arent the end of the story.
do you think more aspiring musicians are trying to emulate Thom Yorke or Bono?
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
then i suppose you dont consider CBS a reputable news source either?
CBS ran with one bad story, and when they found out, ran massive retractions and de facto fired their host. When Drudge runs an intentional smear story he never prints any retraction whatsoever, nor does he step down from his blogo-empire. Prove my hypothesis: have you ever voted for a non-republican?
-
Mark Halperin? no thanks.
-
Originally posted by le sonick:
do you think more aspiring musicians are trying to emulate Thom Yorke or Bono?
That doesn't mean they're bigger. Perhaps more influential (again, a plausible separate argument), but not bigger.
-
Originally posted by Julian, good manners AFICIONADO:
Originally posted by manimtired:
then i suppose you dont consider CBS a reputable news source either?
CBS ran with one bad story, and when they found out, ran massive retractions and de facto fired their host. When Drudge runs an intentional smear story he never prints any retraction whatsoever, nor does he step down from his blogo-empire. Prove my hypothesis: have you ever voted for a non-republican? [/b]
Yep. I've never voted for a Republican.
-
Originally posted by le sonick:
but i think album sales and concert sales arent the end of the story.
Yeah, heavens forbid an argument on what musician is the "biggest in the world" be based on any quantifiable, verifiable facts.
You're right, it's best to go with gut feelings like "who feels like the biggest band" or "who do you think kids most want to emulate?" This is about on par with how Georgie W. took us into Iraq.
-
Originally posted by Julian, good manners AFICIONADO:
Originally posted by manimtired:
then i suppose you dont consider CBS a reputable news source either?
CBS ran with one bad story, and when they found out, ran massive retractions and de facto fired their host. When Drudge runs an intentional smear story he never prints any retraction whatsoever, nor does he step down from his blogo-empire. Prove my hypothesis: have you ever voted for a non-republican? [/b]
i worked at the CBS News Washington bureau for 7 years when this was taking place. there was great protest to the firing of mr. rather and only due to conservative pressure stepped down..dan still goes by the fact that the docs arent fake by the way. have you ever voted for a non-democrat?
-
Originally posted by vansmack:
Originally posted by le sonick:
do you think more aspiring musicians are trying to emulate Thom Yorke or Bono?
That doesn't mean they're bigger. Perhaps more influential (again, a plausible separate argument), but not bigger. [/b]
well, thats what i am saying, i think "bigger" has more to do with album sales, commercials, merchandising sales or concert ticket sales.
but to be honest using "big" to describe a band isnt something i would ever really do.
Radiohead, to me, is the Velvet underground of our time.
Now, obviously VU was never as big as Radiohead while alive (or ever) but that cant happen in todays age, no secret is kept for long anymore.
i wrote a paper on it, 6 pages actually, and no, i cant post it cause its on an old computer that i may never be able to start again.
but to sum it up
Music = art
all artists embraced the VU, as they do Radiohead.
Radiohead = art for the artistic.
-
Originally posted by vansmack:
Originally posted by le sonick:
do you think more aspiring musicians are trying to emulate Thom Yorke or Bono?
That doesn't mean they're bigger. Perhaps more influential (again, a plausible separate argument), but not bigger. [/b]
Actually, at this point? I think Radiohead could equal U2 in ticket sales.
But you're absolutely right - I think U2 is the only other band you can include in that discussion. Bruce & The E Street are more about Bruce than they are the "band."
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
dan still goes by the fact that the docs arent fact by the way.
I don't understand this sentence.
Originally posted by manimtired:
have you ever voted for a non-democrat?
Never on the national level, but yes within the state/local sphere.
-
Originally posted by Julian, good manners AFICIONADO:
Originally posted by manimtired:
dan still goes by the fact that the docs arent fact by the way.
I don't understand this sentence.
Originally posted by manimtired:
have you ever voted for a non-democrat?
Never on the national level, but yes within the state/local sphere. [/b]
its been edited.
-
Originally posted by callat703:
Actually, at this point? I think Radiohead could equal U2 in ticket sales.
Extremely doubtful. In the US, I don't think they could equal Dave Matthews Band. When Radiohead plays amphitheaters, correct me if I'm wrong, but the lawns don't usually sell out, right?
-
Originally posted by Julian, good manners AFICIONADO:
Originally posted by callat703:
Actually, at this point? I think Radiohead could equal U2 in ticket sales.
Extremely doubtful. In the US, I don't think they could equal Dave Matthews Band. When Radiohead plays amphitheaters, correct me if I'm wrong, but the lawns don't usually sell out, right? [/b]
The last time this happened was almost what, six or seven years ago?
And my understanding is that Radiohead sells out anything they play in the States at this point. Hence why their headlining roles at Coachella and Bonnaroo were such big deals.
-
Originally posted by Julian, good manners AFICIONADO:
Originally posted by callat703:
Actually, at this point? I think Radiohead could equal U2 in ticket sales.
Extremely doubtful. In the US, I don't think they could equal Dave Matthews Band. When Radiohead plays amphitheaters, correct me if I'm wrong, but the lawns don't usually sell out, right? [/b]
U2 aint playin Stadiums anymore either, though.
-
Originally posted by Julian, good manners AFICIONADO:
Extremely doubtful. In the US, I don't think they could equal Dave Matthews Band. When Radiohead plays amphitheaters, correct me if I'm wrong, but the lawns don't usually sell out, right?
Bull Run sold out, didn't it?
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
its been edited.
Well then, Rather's an idiot. On of the advantages of getting your news from a respectable source that has some infrastructure is when someone acts like an idiot and their ego/politics cloud their views, they're usually fired/step down/removed as Rather was. Drudge, in his infinite megalomania, has no such checks and balances within the blogosphere so he's never held accountable for his numerous absurd "stories."
-
Originally posted by le sonick:
U2 aint playin Stadiums anymore either, though.
By choice.
-
Originally posted by Julian, good manners AFICIONADO:
Originally posted by manimtired:
its been edited.
Well then, Rather's an idiot. On of the advantages of getting your news from a respectable source that has some infrastructure is when someone acts like an idiot and their ego/politics cloud their views, they're usually fired/step down/removed as Rather was. Drudge, in his infinite megalomania, has no such checks and balances within the blogosphere so he's never held accountable for his numerous absurd "stories." [/b]
Isn't it important to note that Drudge ALMOST NEVER writes content? I'd say 99% of what appears on his site is just a collection of other stories.
-
Julian, did you ignore my voting record because it disproves your hypothesis?
-
Originally posted by Julian, good manners AFICIONADO:
Originally posted by manimtired:
its been edited.
Well then, Rather's an idiot. On of the advantages of getting your news from a respectable source that has some infrastructure is when someone acts like an idiot and their ego/politics cloud their views, they're usually fired/step down/removed as Rather was. Drudge, in his infinite megalomania, has no such checks and balances within the blogosphere so he's never held accountable for his numerous absurd "stories." [/b]
agreed..but i'm sure there are no other heavily traveled politcal sites that spin hard to the left. after all, its the interweb.
-
Originally posted by callat703:
The last time this happened was almost what, six or seven years ago?
And my understanding is that Radiohead sells out anything they play in the States at this point. Hence why their headlining roles at Coachella and Bonnaroo were such big deals.
The last time they played US ampitheatres was 2003, I think. And if I remember correctly -- and again, someone correct me because I could very well be inaccurate -- neither their NJ nor Merriweather show sold out the lawn. On the other hand, if DMB (who are terrible, btw) play an ampitheatre, the lawn sells out in a day. U2 can do 2 nights at Verizon and both sell out instantly; I doubt Radiohead could do the same.
And as for Coachella, the Radiohead Coachella of 2005 did not sell out. This year's with Rage Against The Machine (again, terrible) did. Although, since those are multi-band events, it's apples and oranges. I do not believe Radiohead's Bonnaroo show sold out in '06 either.
Again, I could be wrong on some of those details, but I don't think so. I don't chart Radiohead ticket sales, that's just my recollections as a fan.
-
Originally posted by vansmack:
Originally posted by le sonick:
U2 aint playin Stadiums anymore either, though.
By choice. [/b]
oh no, we got the U2 fan into it now. :D
-
Originally posted by callat703:
Isn't it important to note that Drudge ALMOST NEVER writes content? I'd say 99% of what appears on his site is just a collection of other stories.
If you want to use Drudge as a meta-news site, more power to you. When he has any "original" news, it often turns out to be bunk.
Originally posted by callat703:
Julian, did you ignore my voting record because it disproves your hypothesis?
I ignored it because I didn't see it in the page flip.
Originally posted by manimtired:
agreed..but i'm sure there are no other heavily traveled politcal sites that spin hard to the left. after all, its the interweb.
The difference is, no one cites mediamatters as an objective "news" site. Even democrats acknowledge that much of it's propaganda. (Obviously, mediamatters or drudge use verifiable facts/stats from time to time.)
-
Originally posted by Julian, good manners AFICIONADO:
And as for Coachella, the Radiohead Coachella of 2005 did not sell out. This year's with Rage Against The Machine (again, terrible) did. Although, since those are multi-band events, it's apples and oranges. I do not believe Radiohead's Bonnaroo show sold out in '06 either.
Radiohead played Coachella in 2004.
and actually, the day Radiohead played was the very first day Coachella ever sold out.
course Kraftwerk and the Pixies played that night, but still. just sayin, it sold out.
in fact, one could argue that after Radiohead played, Coachella was never the same and sold out regularly after that.
-
Originally posted by Julian, good manners AFICIONADO:
Originally posted by callat703:
Actually, at this point? I think Radiohead could equal U2 in ticket sales.
Extremely doubtful. In the US, I don't think they could equal Dave Matthews Band. When Radiohead plays amphitheaters, correct me if I'm wrong, but the lawns don't usually sell out, right? [/b]
If you randomly picked 100 Americans who described themselves as music lovers and asked them to name a Radiohead song, the great majority would say "what was that song with the *chunka* *chunka* guitar part?" If you asked a similar group to name a U2 song, you'd get about 5 or 6 responses.
Radiohead is a fine band that is very successful, but U2 long ago reached (and has remained on) that level of fame that only Michael, Bruce, and Madonna are on. The average person couldn't hum any Radiohead song except Creep, but the average person could surely hum Pride, Streets Have No Name, W/ or W/O You, Mysterious Ways, Beautiful Day, Vertigo, and probably several more.
-
Originally posted by le sonick:
oh no, we got the U2 fan into it now. :D
All I'm saying is U2 chose to not play stadiums in America. Their Australia and New Zealand shows (and many UK shows) were at 60,000+ Stadiums. Do some homework before making a blanket statement like that, that's all I'm saying.
And I've been here from the beginning.
-
Originally posted by le sonick:
Radiohead played Coachella in 2004.
and actually, the day Radiohead played was the very first day Coachella ever sold out.
course Kraftwerk and the Pixies played that night, but still. just sayin, it sold out.
Then I stand corrected on that fact.
But it still doesn't affect my overall contention that Radiohead is not the "number one" concert draw in a world with DMB, Madonna, Bruce Springsteen, and U2. Definitely not in North America, at least. The case could be made for Europe, I suppose.
EDIT: Heck, I'd bet just for giggles that the next Radiohead tour doesn't sell as quickly as the Hannah Montana tour just did. :D
-
i think Drudge IS a meta-news site 99.9% of the time...i think i'll check it now b/c i cant deal with anymore radiohead talk.
-
Originally posted by vansmack:
Originally posted by le sonick:
oh no, we got the U2 fan into it now. :)
-
I'll do Daft Punk homework. *drumfill*
-
Originally posted by Relaxer:
Originally posted by Julian, good manners AFICIONADO:
Originally posted by callat703:
Actually, at this point? I think Radiohead could equal U2 in ticket sales.
Extremely doubtful. In the US, I don't think they could equal Dave Matthews Band. When Radiohead plays amphitheaters, correct me if I'm wrong, but the lawns don't usually sell out, right? [/b]
If you randomly picked 100 Americans who described themselves as music lovers and asked them to name a Radiohead song, the great majority would say "what was that song with the *chunka* *chunka* guitar part?" If you asked a similar group to name a U2 song, you'd get about 5 or 6 responses.
Radiohead is a fine band that is very successful, but U2 long ago reached (and has remained on) that level of fame that only Michael, Bruce, and Madonna are on. The average person couldn't hum any Radiohead song except Creep, but the average person could surely hum Pride, Streets Have No Name, W/ or W/O You, Mysterious Ways, Beautiful Day, Vertigo, and probably several more. [/b]
This is a good point. If you want to go purely by these tangibles, then I'm sure you're right - there are bands that would generate greater name recognition or song recognition than Radiohead.
My contention is more along the lines of sonick's, where there are intangibles to be debated. Influence being one of the biggest.
-
Originally posted by le sonick:
i dont need to do "U2 homework", thats what you're hear for. :p
Fine by me, but change your moniker to Matt Drudge.
-
the average american "music lover" also bought tickets to the Puddle of Mudd / Saliva show too.
please.
poll 100 americans and no matter what, you get a stupid answer.
-
Originally posted by vansmack:
Originally posted by le sonick:
i dont need to do "U2 homework", thats what you're hear for. :p
Fine by me, but change your moniker to Matt Drudge. [/b]
hey, i thought we were talking "american shows" here. since julian was referencing local shows too.
-
The Lawn was packed at the 2003 Merriweather show.
-
Originally posted by le sonick:
you have those stats mr. ticket sales? :)
You've come a long way from your first statement that ticket sales and album sales aren't a good measure....
-
Originally posted by vansmack:
Originally posted by le sonick:
you have those stats mr. ticket sales? :)
You've come a long way from your first statement that ticket sales and album sales aren't a good measure.... [/b]
not even CLOSE
but as long as you're droppin all this knowledge of venue sizes of tours across the world, i just thought you might have info on Radiohead too. its not really much of a discussion if we only know about one of the bands.
it would be like assuming Boston had a shaky bullpen just because you know yours is damn good.
-
Originally posted by Mobius:
The Lawn was packed at the 2003 Merriweather show.
i am mostly sure it was sold out, seth can tell us i imagine.
-
Originally posted by le sonick:
but as long as you're droppin all this knowledge of venue sizes of tours across the world, i just thought you might have info on Radiohead too. its not really much of a discussion if we only know about one of the bands.
You're the Radiohead fanboy. Why do I have to do your HW to prove that Radiohead are dwarfs of their once big selves? You should have to discover that on your own. The rest of us already have....
-
Originally posted by vansmack:
Originally posted by le sonick:
but as long as you're droppin all this knowledge of venue sizes of tours across the world, i just thought you might have info on Radiohead too. its not really much of a discussion if we only know about one of the bands.
You're the Radiohead fanboy. Why do I have to do your HW to prove that Radiohead are dwarfs of their once big selves? You should have to discover that on your own. The rest of us already have.... [/b]
damn. i am sorry. i like their music not their ticket sales.
i keep forgetting what really counts here! :(
-
Originally posted by le sonick:
in fact, one could argue that after Radiohead played, Coachella was never the same and sold out regularly after that.
I'm sure the Pixies reunion had nothing to do with that. Absolutely nothing.
-
Originally posted by vansmack:
Originally posted by le sonick:
in fact, one could argue that after Radiohead played, Coachella was never the same and sold out regularly after that.
I'm sure the Pixies reunion had nothing to do with that. Absolutely nothing. [/b]
read my whole post next time smackie. i mentioned that both the Pixies and Kraftwerk played. all i was doing correcting that the show sold out when Radiohead headlined.
and btw, there wasnt nearly as many ppl over at that stage while the Pixies were on. barely half.
-
Originally posted by le sonick:
read my whole post next time smackie.
I read it. I just wasn't approving of your dismissive attitude towards the thought of the Pixies being an add-on to the great life altering event that was Radiohead at Coachella.
Since then, the organizers have made a point to have reunited bands on every bill of Coachella culminating in constant reunion rumors about the only broken up band that still matters - The Smiths. I think the reunion think worked for ticket sales more than you're alluding to.
-
Originally posted by vansmack:
I just wasn't approving of your dismissive attitude towards the thought of the Pixies being an add-on to the great life altering event that was Radiohead at Coachella.
Since then, the organizers have made a point to have reunited bands on every bill of Coachella culminating in constant reunion rumors about the only broken up band that still matters - The Smiths. I think the reunion think worked for ticket sales more than you're alluding to.
I do know 2 people who went to that Coachella almost entirely for the Pixies. Not that they're representative of the entire group there, but I'm sure the Pixies did alot for ticket sales.
-
Originally posted by vansmack:
Originally posted by le sonick:
read my whole post next time smackie.
I read it. I just wasn't approving of your dismissive attitude towards the thought of the Pixies being an add-on to the great life altering event that was Radiohead at Coachella.
[/b]
i mentioned it, i dont know what more you wanted. personally, i thought more ppl came for Kraftwerk than the Pixies. you were there werent you? you couldnt even get into the Kraftwerk tent and i went to the restroom and came back to my exact spot, pretty close to the stage..all during "here comes your man" which was the ONLY song anyone anywhere near me seemed to actually know the words to.
-
only the Talking Heads reunion will ever get me back to the cali-teen festival that coachella has become.
i felt so old typing that. but if JAMC didnt get me there, i dont know what will.
-
Originally posted by vansmack:
Originally posted by callat703:
See, I disagree with you. I would contend that Radiohead is the biggest band in the world.
Bigger than U2? [/b]
Ummmmm . . . Fuck no.
Originally posted by callat703:
This goes back to the argument that Julian was having - sure, bands have done it before, but NEVER anybody with the reach, market power, or reputation that Radiohead has. If it isn't Radiohead, that story isn't on the front page of ANY of those news sites.
Before I proceed to berate you, I will state that I like Radiohead & when it's all said & done, they're a lock for a legendary band. Even in spite of the incorrigible bullshit they've released for the past 7 years. Now I will proceed to give you what you need . . .
You must be out of your fuckin' mind. The reason Smashing Pumpkins didn't get as much hype for releasing their online LP is two reasons & two only:
1) This was 7+ years ago, when file-sharing wasn't ANYwhere near as big as it is now & online sales & bootlegging were more or less nonexistent
AND
2) We did not live in the 24-hour information era that we live in now. That era really dawned upon us roughly 2-3 years ago with more homes having access to high-speed internet & the explosion of blogging.
I respect that you love your band, & Radiohead are true artists. But please get your head out of your ass.
Originally posted by callat703:
I think that's a pretty elementary connection . . .
I'm not saying its an article about what the music sounds like, but how they are going to distribute the music is pretty inextricably linked to the music itself. You can't write that story without talking about the album at length, as opposed to a story about Britney Spears where you can get through the entire story about her kids, life, party experiences, etc and there is a tag at the end about her new album.
How about you write that she has the #1 selling song on iTunes two weeks running prior to her even having a video out & following the most disastrous performance in MTV VMA history???
In no way am I articulating as to the artistic merit of Britney Spears, but SOMEone's buying the bullshit she's shoveling.
Originally posted by Julian, good manners AFICIONADO:
I just find it ridiculous the levels some of you are taking some of this. Radiohead is not the biggest band in the world, nor does media coverage over a detail only tangentially related to their musical output constitute an affirmation that they're the modern day Beatles. If I ever said any of this nonsense, I'd get flamed so quickly your head would spin. [/QB]
Furthermore, for you to even claim that Radiohead is ANYwhere near the level of the Beatles is completely fuckin' asinine. And, for the record, I:
1) Think The Beatles are overrated
2) Listen to Radiohead more than The Beatles
With that being said, it may do Thom Yorke some good to take actual SONGwriting tutelage from Lennon & McCartney's back catalog because Thom will NEVER be as great a songwriter as either one of them. I'm not even a Beatles fan per se, but cot damn you're trying to compare Sprewell to Jordan. Please. Seriously.
Originally posted by le sonick:
do you think more aspiring musicians are trying to emulate Thom Yorke or Bono?
You don't read enough magazines/artist interviews. Bono. By far. The man had a fuckin' tribute to him by The Roots (If those aren't musicians, I don't know what is) at the fuckin' NAACP Awards, man. That's waaaaaaaay outside the rock dempgraphic, fam.
Furthermore, U2's DNA is so in Radiohead it's ridiculous. Hmmmmmm. Sweeping, atmospheric guitars over ambiguous lyrics questioning religion, the existence of man, & alienation. Does it sound a little fuckin' familiar??? Nah. Not at all. Never been done.
It's like pre-OK Computer they were making versions of Achtung Baby. Post-OK Computer, they were trying to make hybrids of Zooropa & Pop. U2 did it once & moved on. Unfortunately, Radiohead didn't fuckin' stop.
Originally posted by callat703:
Actually, at this point? I think Radiohead could equal U2 in ticket sales.
What the fuck are you smoking??? U2's Vertigo Tour just broke the record for highest gross ever, only to be broken by The Stones Bigger Bang Tour which just ended in August. This for 2 reasons:
1) The Stones had higher average ticket prices
2) U2 underplayed EVERY market they went to. WITHOUT a corporate sponsor, I mind you. They did 2 dates here in D.C., when they EASILY could have done 5. And I think 8 total dates @ MSG, when EASILY would sold out 15 on both North American legs, if not 20.
Furthermore, Radiohead has NEVER been a big-selling band. OK was their biggest seller (U.S.) which Soundscanned under 2 million. No album since that passed platinum. And it was Kid A by the way. Hardly, barn-burner numbers. Unfortantely, bands (I use that term loosely here) like Limp Bizkit & Poison have outsold Radiohead leaps & bounds. That's WITH UK numbers by the way. Now in NO way does that speak to Radiohead's unquestioned true artistry - but I reiterate. Get your head out your ass.
Originally posted by le sonick:
U2 aint playin Stadiums anymore either, though.
Wrong again. I was AT the closing Vertigo tour show in Honolulu. There's NO way Radiohead would sell that out. 50,000 people were there. Radiohead's not on that level anywhere outside the U.K. And it wouldn't be a stretch to say that Radiohead wouldn't sell out Wembley, O2, or any of those other stadiums around there unless it's part of a festival package.
-
Originally posted by TheDirector217:
Post-OK Computer, they were trying to make hybrids of Zooropa & Pop.
Originally posted by TheDirector217:
And it wouldn't be a stretch to say that Radiohead wouldn't sell out Wembley, O2, or any of those other stadiums around there unless it's part of a festival package.
These are the only two sentences I disagreed with.
-
Originally posted by TheDirector217:
It's like pre-OK Computer they were making versions of Achtung Baby. Post-OK Computer, they were trying to make hybrids of Zooropa & Pop. U2 did it once & moved on. Unfortunately, Radiohead didn't fuckin' stop.
although there are like 20 pointless comments in your post. i'll take this one to discredit everything else in it.
you sir, need your head out of your ass!!!!!
and would everyone quit talking about fucking concert sales = musical talent!!!!!!!!!!!
ITS
NOT
RELEVANT
if ticket sales meant shit in the grand scheme of ART, then the Velvet Underground and the Sex Pistols, Ramones and countless other timeless acts would be seen less worthy than Blink 182.
just stop it.
U2's nothing but a super bowl halftime show anymore!
Radiohead kicks U2's ass and until Thom Yorke makes friends with Oprah Winfrey, you won't be able to change my mind!
-
Originally posted by callat703:
I think Radiohead is as close as we'll ever get to a band like the Beatles, where the world essentially stopped when they put out a new album. Everybody took an hour and listened to it to see what they thought. Everybody is paying attention.
Nothing personal, but that's just such a stupid fucking statement (not that you are the only one to make it).
The Beatles were not only a massive cultural phenomenon (to which Radiohead does not even come approach), but they also shaped the way other bands recorded and produced their albums. Other than Muse - who are a joke - and perhaps Clinic, what other bands have really been shaped by the way Radiohead makes music.
If you want a good analogy, try Lemmy's take on Motorhead: "We may not have had a huge amount of fans, but those that we had would murder for us. And that's saying a lot."
-
and FYI
Bonnaroo DID sell out the year Radiohead played.
in case you were still wondering (http://www.billboard.com/bbcom/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002651660)
but as Vansmack will point out, they werent the only band to play that year....
-
Originally posted by ggw?:
Other than Muse - who are a joke - and perhaps Clinic, what other bands have really been shaped by the way Radiohead makes music?
Travis. Coldplay. Keane.
-
Originally posted by ggw?:
Originally posted by callat703:
I think Radiohead is as close as we'll ever get to a band like the Beatles, where the world essentially stopped when they put out a new album. Everybody took an hour and listened to it to see what they thought. Everybody is paying attention.
Nothing personal, but that's just such a stupid fucking statement (not that you are the only one to make it).
The Beatles were not only a massive cultural phenomenon (to which Radiohead does not even come approach), but they also shaped the way other bands recorded and produced their albums. Other than Muse - who are a joke - and perhaps Clinic, what other bands have really been shaped by the way Radiohead makes music.
If you want a good analogy, try Lemmy's take on Motorhead: "We may not have had a huge amount of fans, but those that we had would murder for us. And that's saying a lot." [/b]
so we've finally stopped the Coldplay comparison?
thank god!
-
Originally posted by le sonick:
so we've finally stopped the Coldplay comparison?
thank god!
Spoke too soon! ^^
-
Originally posted by Julian, good manners AFICIONADO:
Originally posted by le sonick:
so we've finally stopped the Coldplay comparison?
thank god!
Spoke to soon! ^^ [/b]
i hate you.
and you better stop posting or this thread will be longer than the pumpkins thread, and you dont want that do you?
well, at least the Pumpkins thread was first! :)
-
Originally posted by le sonick:
well, at least the Pumpkins thread was first! :)
Well, yeah, but Radiohead is the only thread that matters!
-
Originally posted by ggw?:
Originally posted by callat703:
I think Radiohead is as close as we'll ever get to a band like the Beatles, where the world essentially stopped when they put out a new album. Everybody took an hour and listened to it to see what they thought. Everybody is paying attention.
Nothing personal, but that's just such a stupid fucking statement (not that you are the only one to make it).
The Beatles were not only a massive cultural phenomenon (to which Radiohead does not even come approach), but they also shaped the way other bands recorded and produced their albums. Other than Muse - who are a joke - and perhaps Clinic, what other bands have really been shaped by the way Radiohead makes music.
If you want a good analogy, try Lemmy's take on Motorhead: "We may not have had a huge amount of fans, but those that we had would murder for us. And that's saying a lot." [/b]
Because the Director's post is so long that I haven't had time to properly look at it or try and respond...I will try and get back to that.
Great Lemmy quote.
I have no way of backing this statement up with fact, apart from saying you could troll MySpace pages and look at that little "influence" section, but I think you'd find a HUGE number of musicians who have been influenced and shaped by the way Radiohead has chosen to make records and define themselves as artists. I honestly do think that they have a level of artistic influence that justifies a Beatles comparison.
Please also note I have never said that Radiohead is as influential as the Beatles, or as important as the Beatles. My direct point was:
"I think Radiohead is as close as we'll ever get to a band like the Beatles, where the world essentially stopped when they put out a new album. Everybody took an hour and listened to it to see what they thought. Everybody is paying attention."
I still don't think this is untrue. No, its not the same as it was for the Beatles - but I do think Radiohead proves to be the best comparison.
-
Quick point for the Director - I'll rescind my speculation that Radiohead could match U2 in ticket sales. You're certainly correct on that point.
But I'm not ready to concede on those other points yet...
And you know, with the exception of Brian Wallace, I have yet to treat any of these discussions with some of the vitriol that you all seem to. It isn't that hard to disagree and still be polite.
-
Originally posted by callat703:
It isn't that hard to disagree and still be polite.
I have pure battery acid running through my veins! I spit alkaline and alcohol! I sweat lighter fluid! And you don't even want to know what my ejaculate consists of!
-
I haven't read all 200 posts, but I haven't seen anyone mention Wilco. YHF was a free release that got coverage in all the big press and, the album itself was a huge critical darling.
-
Sorry, I fell asleep listening to the new Radiohead album. What were we talking about again?
-
Originally posted by le sonick:
and would everyone quit talking about fucking concert sales = musical talent!!!!!!!!!!!
ITS
NOT
RELEVANT
You made it so. You said earlier that Radiohead is AND I QUOTE, " . . . the best fucking band in the world." Fine. As a man, it is your God-given fucking right to believe that. Believe it. Just remember, you can't get a chick pregnant standing up as well.
Seriously, had you stopped there I have no issues with that. 703's comments were completely erroneous, though. But you chose to concur. Don't take my word for it. Here:
Originally posted by le sonick:
Originally posted by callat703:
See, I disagree with you. I would contend that Radiohead is the biggest band in the world.
I agree. wholeheartedly. [/b]
I sure didn't post that. And my name is The Director - not David Blaine.
Originally posted by Julian, good manners AFICIONADO:
Originally posted by ggw?:
Other than Muse - who are a joke - and perhaps Clinic, what other bands have really been shaped by the way Radiohead makes music?
Coldplay. [/b]
I file that under wrong. Please note below quote by none other than Chris Martin, frontman of said band who whines in front of a piano & has a child named after a fruit:
I don't buy weekend tickets to Ireland and hang out in front of their gates, but U2 are the only band whose entire catalog I know by heart. The first song on The Unforgettable Fire, "A Sort of Homecoming," I know backward and forward -- it's so rousing, brilliant and beautiful. It's one of the first songs I played to my unborn baby.
The first U2 album I ever heard was Achtung Baby. It was 1991, and I was fourteen years old. Before that, I didn't even know what albums were. From that point, I worked backward -- every six months, I'd get to buy a new U2 album. The sound they pioneered -- the driving bass and drums underneath and those ethereal, effects-laden guitar tracks floating out from above -- was nothing that had been heard before. They may be the only good anthemic rock band ever. Certainly they're the best.
What I love most about U2 is that the band is more important than any of their songs or albums. I love that they're best mates and have an integral role in one another's lives as friends. I love the way that they're not interchangeable -- if Larry Mullen Jr. wants to go scuba diving for a week, the rest of the band can't do a thing. U2 -- like Coldplay -- maintain that all songs that appear on their albums are credited to the band. And they are the only band that's been around for twenty years with no member changes and no big splits.
It's amazing that the biggest band in the world has so much integrity and passion in their music. Our society is thoroughly screwed, fame is a ridiculous waste of time, and celebrity culture is disgusting. There are only a few people around brave enough to talk out against it, who use their fame in a good way. And every time I try, I feel like an idiot, because I see Bono actually getting things achieved. While everyone else is swearing at George Bush, Bono is the one who rubs Bush's back and gets a billion dollars for Africa. People can be so cynical -- they don't like do-gooders -- but Bono's attitude is, "I don't care what anybody thinks, I'm going to speak out." He's accomplished so much with Greenpeace, in Sarajevo, at the concert to shut down the Sellafield nuclear plant, and he still runs the gantlet. When the time came for Coldplay to think about fair trade, we took his lead to speak out regardless of what anyone may think. That's what we've learned from U2: You have to be brave enough to be yourself.
- Chris Martin, Lead Singer Of U2 Tribute Band Minus Guitars Plus Piano - Coldplay (another band that sells far more than Radiohead)
Back to Sonick. Comb over my statements. Sales of tickets & records will never speak to Radiohead's place in history. That e-avalanche occured because of you agreement they're the biggest band out. As I said, they are true artists & future legends. But for you & 703 to say they are the biggest band in the world is completely erroneous. Also, drawing a parallel between The Pixies & Velvet Underground with Radiohead in terms of influence is off as well. Pixies & Velvet were special & earned a place in rock's pantheon, in the fact they:
1) Were waaay ahead of their time, and had MANY bands emulate them. i.e. The Pixies quiet-LOUD-quiet song format (Nirvana, anyone?)
2) Those 2 bands sold very few units, but the ones that did buy them pretty much all went out & started a band.
Radiohead has their own lane, I will concede, & I respect that to the utmost but their sphere of influence does not stretch nearly that far. They've been making "Fuck You" albums for years now, & only get a pass on that because of Pablo, Bends, & OK. Remember, that's the same shit that sunk R.E.M.'s boat post-New Adventures In Hi-Fi. They went from (arguably) best band out to "Who gives a fuck?", which I'm quite sure Radiohead knew hence "genius" marketing/distribution campaign. Credit though, cause my dissertation length posts are proof it's working.
That's all for now, cause I personally am quite tired of talking about Radiohead. I'll give their new album a chance. Again. Before I decide if their new album's yet another audio equivalent of getting first date head without a swallow (disappointing & unmemorable).
Again. :D
-
Originally posted by TheDirector217:
Back to Sonick. Comb over my statements. Sales of tickets & records will never speak to Radiohead's place in history. That e-avalanche occured because of you agreement they're the biggest band out.
ahh, see but because you only chose to read some of my posts and not all is why you are feeling this way.
once vansmack responded to the biggest band comment, i said that ...wait let me quote
"well, thats what i am saying, i think "bigger" has more to do with album sales, commercials, merchandising sales or concert ticket sales.
but to be honest using "big" to describe a band isnt something i would ever really do."
heres 2 points, bro
1) i wouldnt use the word "Big" because i dont think the word "Big" addequately describes the goal of any artist, nor is it really a tangible thing....just something you can argue about, and some bands are bigger than others for different reasons, yadda yadda yadda, so big, is too vague. but since someone already said it, and they are , to me, better than every band who ever plugged in an instrument...i agreed.
2) did you see the "i think" in that quote.
this whole thing goes back to opinion, not fact, there are not "big band" stats.....so for you to call my and calla703's opinions "completely erroneous" ....well, is just completely erroenous.
dont geek out on me man, my favourite band just ripped out a new record, and imma be happy about it and say that Thom Yorke could kick John Lennon's ass.....and you can play with Bono.
but remember, next time U2 releases another album, or Ipod commercial, whichever comes first, i'll be the first to piss on the parade :)
-
U2...Radiohead...Smashing Pumpkins. Y'all need to pull your heads out of your asses. They're all too precious.
I'm making a note to never take anything "Le Sonick" and "Call at 703" say seriously ever again. You are SO drinking the Kool-Aid with Radiohead.
They're just dull, now. They make masturbatory, self-indulgent, BORING music that only over-educated, under-employed thirty-somethings who wear "ironic" eyewear (and t-shirts), treasure their Transformers from their childhoods and can't throw a football to save their lives like. Do both of you live in New York City and have a blog? Oh, I forgot. Washington D.C. is the East Coast New York City. I mean, if you think what they're doing now is more creative and original than what, say, the Flaming Lips or the Super Furry Animals are doing, you are clearly mistaken.
Hey, if Radiohead want to become the British Sonic Youth, more power to 'em. But just know that no one under the age of 17 cares what Radiohead does.
Brian
-
Originally posted by le sonick:
there are not "big band" stats.....so for you to call my and calla703's opinions "completely erroneous" ....well, is just completely erroenous.
Well...Surely some things can be used as a gauge. You can't claim that someone is the "biggest band in the world", then completely discount things like record sales, ticket sales, public recognition, etc. According to callat703, those things are irrelevant. Those may not be absolute, determining factors, but they need to be taken into consideration.
I think some folks are underestimating Radiohead's draw, but others are a bit over-the-top in how they think the rest of the world views them.
Biggest band in the world? To your fellow Radiohead fans maybe - but not to most people. The world stopped yesterday while everyone took an hour to listen? Ummm....no. It's grandiose statements like that that make people roll their eyes and discount the rest of your arguments.
"Biggest" and "best/favorite" are completely different things. "Biggest" is at least partially quantifiable. "Best/Favorite" is 100% opinion.
-
Originally posted by Brian Wallace:
I'm making a note to never take anything "Le Sonick" and "Call at 703" say seriously ever again. You are SO drinking the Kool-Aid with Radiohead.
so we're finally on even ground then i suppose!
-
can everyone please go back and read my statement.
i agreed with callat703 about Radiohead being the biggest band, then made this statement:
"i think "bigger" has more to do with album sales, commercials, merchandising sales or concert ticket sales.......using "big" to describe a band isnt something i would ever really do."
I backed out of calling Radiohead (or any other band for that matter) big almost immediately after it was said.
jeeeesuss. it like selective reading time around here.
-
Uh, have you looked at a map recently?
Originally posted by Brian Wallace:
Oh, I forgot. Washington D.C. is the East Coast New York City.
-
Originally posted by nkotb:
Uh, have you looked at a map recently?
Originally posted by Brian Wallace:
Oh, I forgot. Washington D.C. is the East Coast New York City.
[/b]
hahahaha. LOL. too funny.
-
Originally posted by le sonick:
can everyone please go back and read my statement.
I read your statements. You said:
Originally posted by le sonick:
there are no "big band" stats....
and
"i think "bigger" has more to do with album sales, commercials, merchandising sales or concert ticket sales......."
I was just disagreeing with the first statement and agreeing with the second. :)
-
cause you're a good reader. :)
what did you think of the new disc, mr. chutney?
-
Originally posted by le sonick:
what did you think of the new disc, mr. chutney?
I haven't heard it. I'll just say "I don't get it" when it comes to Radiohead and leave it at that.
I'll probably download it though (and pay a small amount), just to support their distribution experiment.
-
I think the new album is really wonderful. It's not the "Radiohead rock" I was hoping for, but I still think it's great.
I went to Coachella in 2004 for the Pixies, Radiohead and all the other wonderful bands who played that year were added bonuses for me.
I don't understand why people "don't get" them. They have a style that's different from most stuff that's out there. All of the subtle nuances in their music is unlike most bands out there.
And their live show is one of the best I've ever seen. Better than Wilco. Better than pretty much anyone.
There is no Radiohead Kool Aid. They're just a great band. Certainly better than most of the mediocre crap pitchfork is spoon-feeding most readers these days, that's for sure.
-
Originally posted by K8teebug:
I don't understand why people "don't get" them.
Because people have different tastes in music. That's really all it comes down to. People like different things.
Certainly better than most of the mediocre crap pitchfork is spoon-feeding most readers these days
ummm...Have you seen Pitchfork this week? It's a friggin' Radiohead love-fest.
-
Originally posted by Bombay Chutney:
ummm...Have you seen Pitchfork this week? It's a friggin' Radiohead love-fest.
as it should be. i hope Thom and co. haunt your dreams for months to come.
(thats a collective "your" not just you, sir skeeter)
-
Originally posted by ggw?:
If you want a good analogy, try Lemmy's take on Motorhead: "We may not have had a huge amount of fans, but those that we had would murder for us. And that's saying a lot."
I just caught a visual of ggw? playing a mean ass air guitar & starting a one-man mosh pit to "Ace Of Spades".
I'm so sad I can't turn that thought into an avatar or the most priceless YouTube clip of all time.
*sigh*
Sometimes I wish life was like The Jetsons. I bet Rosie & Elroy could make that shit happen . . .
Originally posted by le sonick:
but remember, next time U2 releases another album, or Ipod commercial, whichever comes first, i'll be the first to piss on the parade ;)
I love that. That shit made me laugh.
To add-on to what you were saying though, I don't think Radiohead was ever anywhere near mainstream. I would hardly call songs about weirdos & karma cops "accessible."
Nor am I a hater, I like Radiohead. Nowhere near the levels of yourself, but I like them. I just wish they'd get over this overlong ambient trance/jungle phase they're on & get the fuckin' guitars back out. That's all. I personally think "Airbag" (my favorite joint by them) is one of the meanest basslines this side of "Another One Bites The Dust", various Flea joints, & "Cannonball".
But we'll chop it up over some brews on that another day . . .
P.S. Haven't finished listening, but "Weird Fishes" is kinda hot.
-
Radiohead have some massive anthems like Street Spirit and the Bends which are conducive to 50,000 person sing a longs, so I could see where a Radiohead discussion could lead to U2 comparisons, but they are very different. For one U2 'found themselves' in mega-success, embraced it, and flourished in it. Radiohead lost themselves in it and were taken in another direction.
Radiohead are more like modern artists than a rock band. That's not a pretentious statement. That's what they are. Using sound instead of paint. And they're really good and when light is added in their live shows they're even better.
Not sure about the Beatles comparison. Pink Floyd would work better (and used to be common), but would still hit a wall quickly (no pun intended). As far as influence, Beatles inspired a lot of followers b/c they made it look easy to emulate them. Not sure anyone listens to OK Computer and says "I can do that, I'm going to start a band!"
Their influence is best served to inspire other bands to approach rock/electronic music as an art form rather than simply commerce (rather than just inspiring Coldplay to water-down their latest release).
-
Originally posted by Mobius:
Radiohead have some massive anthems like Street Spirit and the Bends which are conducive to 50,000 person sing a longs, so I could see where a Radiohead discussion could lead to U2 comparisons, but they are very different. For one U2 'found themselves' in mega-success, embraced it, and flourished in it. Radiohead lost themselves in it and were taken in another direction.
Radiohead are more like modern artists than a rock band. That's not a pretentious statement. That's what they are. Using sound instead of paint. And they're really good and when light is added in their live shows they're even better.
Not sure about the Beatles comparison. Pink Floyd would work better (and used to be common), but would still hit a wall quickly (no pun intended). As far as influence, Beatles inspired a lot of followers b/c they made it look easy to emulate them. Not sure anyone listens to OK Computer and says "I can do that, I'm going to start a band!"
Their influence is best served to inspire other bands to approach rock/electronic music as an art form rather than simply commerce (rather than just inspiring Coldplay to water-down their latest release).
I more or less agree with that.
-
perfectly said, Mobius.
i sometimes wish i didnt suck at writing.
-
Radiohead is the second coming of Jesus Christ, our Lord. Their songs are parables that will lead us out of the darkness of our existential angst and into the light of eternal salvation.
-
Yikes...I guess I should've paid more than $2 for the download, then :eek:
Originally posted by ggw?:
Radiohead is the second coming of Jesus Christ, our Lord. Their songs are parables that will lead us out of the darkness of our existential angst and into the light of eternal salvation.
-
I am thoroughly disappointed to find out that so many ppl on here want their bands to be celebrities who play their hook and chorus laden songs at sold out stadium shows across the world.
-
Originally posted by ggw?:
Radiohead is the second coming of Jesus Christ, our Lord. Their songs are parables that will lead us out of the darkness of our existential angst and into the light of eternal salvation.
That's one way to look at it.
Are you sure you're not thinking of Justin Timberlake?
-
Originally posted by le sonick:
perfectly said, Mobius.
i sometimes wish i didnt suck at writing.
You're a good writer. Why the self-doubt? Have you been listening to Radiohead or something?
-
Originally posted by Mobius:
Originally posted by le sonick:
perfectly said, Mobius.
i sometimes wish i didnt suck at writing.
You're a good writer. Why the self-doubt? Have you been listening to Radiohead or something? [/b]
i guess i still haven't found what i'm looking for...
-
jesus, i should know better than to just make a half-assed, half thought out, hyperbolic statement on this board. Next time I'll look up Chris Martin quotes first and take a couple hours off work to post... ;)
But I do think Mobius said it well.
-
Originally posted by callat703:
jesus, i should know better than to just make a half-assed, hyperbolic statement on this board. Next time I'll look up Chris Martin quotes first ;)
the radiohead haters were in very bad moods yesterday. must not have been enough Britney news to keep them distracted.
-
LEAVE BRITNEY ALONE!!!!!! :mad:
Originally posted by le sonick:
the radiohead haters were in very bad moods yesterday. must not have been enough Britney news to keep them distracted.
-
for sake of including this in the discussion - I took a look at the national charts for Last FM for last week (September 30 - October 7):
1. The Beatles - 71,978 listeners | 830,175 plays
2. Radiohead - 68,904 listeners | 805,049 plays
3. Red Hot Chili Peppers - 63,947 listeners | 487,228 plays
That's before the album came out. I guarantee you that Radiohead is number one this week, far and away. This at least provides some gauge of whether or not my grandiose "stopped to listen for an hour" statement was at all true.
And for the record, U2 did not make the top ten. In fact, U2 came in at number 22. Right behind the Smashing Pumpkins at 21 ;)
-
Nay. For though JT has the visage of a cherub and the chords of an angel, he is but the spawn of Satan. Thom Yorke, he of the gaunt frame and lazy eye, doth show us that within the imperfect can blossom the psalms of eternal bliss. Johnny Greenwood doth bear his instrument like the harp of the archangel. And when they join their other disciples to perform their transcendent ceremonies, their stage lights doth illuminate our path to glory. Forever and ever. Amen.
Originally posted by Mobius:
Originally posted by ggw?:
Radiohead is the second coming of Jesus Christ, our Lord. Their songs are parables that will lead us out of the darkness of our existential angst and into the light of eternal salvation.
That's one way to look at it.
Are you sure you're not thinking of Justin Timberlake? [/b]
-
Originally posted by callat703:
for sake of including this in the discussion - I took a look at the national charts for Last FM for last week (September 30 - October 7):
1. The Beatles - 71,978 listeners | 830,175 plays
2. Radiohead - 68,904 listeners | 805,049 plays
3. Red Hot Chili Peppers - 63,947 listeners | 487,228 plays
That's before the album came out. I guarantee you that Radiohead is number one this week, far and away. This at least provides some gauge of whether or not my grandiose "stopped to listen for an hour" statement was at all true.
And for the record, U2 did not make the top ten. In fact, U2 came in at number 22. Right behind the Smashing Pumpkins at 21 ;)
I totally added to the Radiohead last.fm numbers last night.
-
Originally posted by callat703:
I took a look at the national charts for Last FM for last week (September 30 - October 7):
[sarcasm]Now that's not a select group or anything. It's great that Last FM has left the zone of audiophiles only and reached the masses[/sarcasm]
I bet if you looked at my charts for next week Radiohead would be ahead of U2. But not if you looked at my overall charts.
And I bet the week U2 comes out with a new album, and arguably the week before, U2 will be ahead of Radiohead. So your point is?
-
Originally posted by vansmack:
Originally posted by callat703:
I took a look at the national charts for Last FM for last week (September 30 - October 7):
[sarcasm]Now that's not a select group or anything. It's great that Last FM has left the zone of audiophiles only and reached the masses[/sarcasm]
I bet if you looked at my charts for next week Radiohead would be ahead of U2. But not if you looked at my overall charts.
And I bet the week U2 comes out with a new album, and arguably the week before, U2 will be ahead of Radiohead. So your point is? [/b]
yawn
-
Originally posted by le sonick:
yawn
Oh, you're listening to In Rainbows too?
-
Originally posted by vansmack:
Originally posted by le sonick:
yawn
Oh, you're listening to In Rainbows too? [/b]
Oh, Stapp!
-
Originally posted by vansmack:
Originally posted by callat703:
I took a look at the national charts for Last FM for last week (September 30 - October 7):
[sarcasm]Now that's not a select group or anything. It's great that Last FM has left the zone of audiophiles only and reached the masses[/sarcasm]
I bet if you looked at my charts for next week Radiohead would be ahead of U2. But not if you looked at my overall charts.
And I bet the week U2 comes out with a new album, and arguably the week before, U2 will be ahead of Radiohead. So your point is? [/b]
I didn't make any claim as far as what that represented. I'm just including it in the discussion. But you're right, we probably don't want to use people who really like music as any kind of gauge...
Last.fm's charts don't go back to 2004 when U2 released their last (awful) album. Otherwise I'd check for you.
But look at any given week - I've cycled through probably 10-12 at this point - and I have yet to see one where U2 is ahead of Radiohead.
-
Originally posted by callat703:
And Last.fm doesn't go back to 2004 when U2 released their last (awful) album. Otherwise I'd check for you.
But look at any given week - I've cycled through probably 10-12 at this point - and I have yet to see one where U2 is ahead of Radiohead.
As if I didn't cehck on my own...
With the exception of new album week, you likely won't find one because Last.FM does not represent the masses. It represents audiophiles, and there is no doubt in my mind that Radiohead are oogled by audiophiles to a much greater level than U2.
-
For the record, by the way, I like U2. I thought HTDAAB was fucking awful, but I do like U2.
-
Originally posted by vansmack:
Originally posted by le sonick:
yawn
Oh, you're listening to In Rainbows too? [/b]
no.
watching the replays of the Angels at bat in Fenway Park last week.
-
Originally posted by le sonick:
Originally posted by vansmack:
Originally posted by le sonick:
yawn
Oh, you're listening to In Rainbows too? [/b]
no.
watching the replays of the Angels at bat in Fenway Park last week. [/b]
ZING!
-
Originally posted by vansmack:
Originally posted by callat703:
And Last.fm doesn't go back to 2004 when U2 released their last (awful) album. Otherwise I'd check for you.
But look at any given week - I've cycled through probably 10-12 at this point - and I have yet to see one where U2 is ahead of Radiohead.
As if I didn't cehck on my own...
With the exception of new album week, you likely won't find one because Last.FM does not represent the masses. It represents audiophiles, and there is no doubt in my mind that Radiohead are oogled by audiophiles to a much greater level than U2. [/b]
then argument is over!!
people who love music love Radiohead, people who dont, love U2 or Puddle of Mudd, or Boys Like Girls.
-
by the way, screw the masses, its art for god sakes, not a fucking corporation.
-
Originally posted by vansmack:
there is no doubt in my mind that Radiohead are oogled by audiophiles to a much greater level than U2.
Any idea who is more googled by pedophiles?
-
Originally posted by le sonick:
Originally posted by Mobius:
Originally posted by le sonick:
perfectly said, Mobius.
i sometimes wish i didnt suck at writing.
You're a good writer. Why the self-doubt? Have you been listening to Radiohead or something? [/b]
i guess i still haven't found what i'm looking for... [/b]
New contender for post of the week.
-
Just another thought - how much of this debate is generational as well?
I'm 24 - I feel like Radiohead is probably more significant to my generation than U2 is, just by virtue of what we've grown up with.
-
Originally posted by le sonick:
Originally posted by vansmack:
Originally posted by callat703:
And Last.fm doesn't go back to 2004 when U2 released their last (awful) album. Otherwise I'd check for you.
But look at any given week - I've cycled through probably 10-12 at this point - and I have yet to see one where U2 is ahead of Radiohead.
As if I didn't cehck on my own...
With the exception of new album week, you likely won't find one because Last.FM does not represent the masses. It represents audiophiles, and there is no doubt in my mind that Radiohead are oogled by audiophiles to a much greater level than U2. [/b]
then argument is over!!
people who love music love Radiohead, people who dont, love U2 or Puddle of Mudd, or Boys Like Girls. [/b]
That's a low ass blow. For Christ's sake, please don't mention U2 & Puddle Of Mudd/Boys Like Girls in the same sentence.
Ever.
Do you go to the lot & see Yugos sold alongside an Infiniti or Ferrari???? Me thinks not.
BTW, G.G.Dubya - The Director doth thinketh thou is fire today with your divine postings . . .
-
Originally posted by TheDirector217:
That's a low ass blow.
Don't sweat it. I can smell desperation a mile away...
-
Originally posted by callat703:
Just another thought - how much of this debate is generational as well?
I'm 24 - I feel like Radiohead is probably more significant to my generation than U2 is, just by virtue of what we've grown up with.
That's fine. I'm good with that. That's your opinion. Just don't spit out any more warped ass points of view you state as fact & we're good. ;)
-
Originally posted by vansmack:
Originally posted by TheDirector217:
That's a low ass blow.
Don't sweat it. I can smell desperation a mile away... [/b]
Blood in the water, baby.
I'm lovin' the united front here. You're a great man.
-
Originally posted by TheDirector217:
Originally posted by callat703:
Just another thought - how much of this debate is generational as well?
I'm 24 - I feel like Radiohead is probably more significant to my generation than U2 is, just by virtue of what we've grown up with.
That's fine. I'm good with that. That's your opinion. Just don't spit out any more warped ass points of view you state as fact & we're good. ;) [/b]
Ha! I don't know that I ever stated them as fact - I'm pretty careful to make statements on music fairly subjective. But fair enough - I'll keep my hyperbole to myself.
-
Originally posted by TheDirector217:
I'm lovin' the united front here. You're a great man.
I know. The doors are closing on my plane here and I will be in LA for the next couple of days. You're on your own here for the rest of the weekend. God speed to you, mate.
-
Originally posted by vansmack:
Originally posted by TheDirector217:
I'm lovin' the united front here. You're a great man.
I know. The doors are closing on my plane here and I will be in LA for the next couple of days. You're on your own here for the rest of the weekend. God speed to you, mate. [/b]
I won't let you down, coach. In the clutch, I'm gonna make a play.
-
Originally posted by vansmack:
Originally posted by TheDirector217:
That's a low ass blow.
Don't sweat it. I can smell desperation a mile away... [/b]
:p
maybe you guys need one of these
<img src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/ee/Rally_Monkey.jpg" alt=" - " />
-
Originally posted by le sonick:
Originally posted by callat703:
It is interesting - I feel sorry for somebody who doesn't love this as much as I do.
the part that bothers me, is i think some ppl, not necessarily ppl on here though, actually refuse to enjoy it just because its a Radiohead album. [/b]
oppositional defiant hipsters on this bboard? knee-jerk reactions to anything known to the mainstream? i'm shocked.
-
Originally posted by vansmack:
Originally posted by callat703:
CNN doing an I-Report on how much listeners will pay for the new Radiohead record?
Again, that's not about the music itself, that's about the record industry and Radiohead's attempt to change the status quo. [/b]
wow, seems that people other than 930 bboardees are qualifying the release of this album as "revolutionary".
paging ggw...
-
Originally posted by sweetcell:
Originally posted by vansmack:
Originally posted by callat703:
CNN doing an I-Report on how much listeners will pay for the new Radiohead record?
Again, that's not about the music itself, that's about the record industry and Radiohead's attempt to change the status quo. [/b]
wow, seems that people other than 930 bboardees are qualifying the release of this album as "revolutionary".
paging ggw... [/b]
Popular media also engaging in hyperbole..?!!??
I'm shocked. Shocked, I tell you....
-
Make it sound like "Nice Dream" (http://www.nme.com/news/radiohead/31743)
Radiohead new album: 'In Rainbows' remixes hit the web
Remixers are already tackling Thom Yorke and co's new stuff
Remixes of tracks from 'In Rainbows', the new Radiohead album released yesterday (October 10), have started to appear online.
Dance producer Mojib has remixed 'Videotape', the final track of 'In Rainbows'.
Maybe, they can get someone to remix the album so they sound like actual songs. You know? Those things with hooks? Middle eights? Choruses? Melodies?
Brian
-
i like to listen to pablo honey every once in a while. just sayin'.
-
Again, yawn.
Originally posted by sweetcell:
oppositional defiant hipsters on this bboard? knee-jerk reactions to anything known to the mainstream? i'm shocked.
-
Originally posted by sweetcell:
Originally posted by vansmack:
Originally posted by callat703:
CNN doing an I-Report on how much listeners will pay for the new Radiohead record?
Again, that's not about the music itself, that's about the record industry and Radiohead's attempt to change the status quo. [/b]
wow, seems that people other than 930 bboardees are qualifying the release of this album as "revolutionary".
paging ggw... [/b]
i'm starting to think this board is the polar opposite!!!
all this talk of ticket sales and melodies is beginning to make me wonder.
-
Originally posted by thatguy:
i like to listen to pablo honey every once in a while. just sayin'.
i listen to Apetite for Destruction once a week easily.
good, i feel better now!
-
You know, sometimes I think you're completely off your rocker, sonick.
Then you post something like that, and I remember why I always liked you. :D
Originally posted by le sonick:
i listen to Apetite for Destruction once a week easily.
good, i feel better now!
-
me thinks radiohead fans should checkout The Hollies "The Air That I Breathe", would have to guess a young Thom Yorke heard this one...
Slightly creepy music video version
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZMA5oRzMj0 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZMA5oRzMj0)
TV studio band performance.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Ru1rr8SwHw (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Ru1rr8SwHw)
-
Originally posted by kosmo:
me thinks radiohead fans should checkout The Hollies "The Air That I Breathe", would have to guess a young Thom Yorke heard this one...
Slightly creepy music video version
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZMA5oRzMj0 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZMA5oRzMj0)
TV studio band performance.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Ru1rr8SwHw (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Ru1rr8SwHw)
oh come on, how old is that???
in fact, didnt Hammond even end up getting some of the royalties?
clever, kosmo but about 15 years late. (where's that ancient.gif?)
-
so Radiohead's biggest hit turns out to be ripoff of another song... nice :) it puts them in the same league at Vanilla Ice
-
Originally posted by kosmo:
so Radiohead's biggest hit turns out to be ripoff of another song... nice :) it puts them in the same league at Vanilla Ice
here we go with "biggest hit" now.
add that to the "930 board defines what makes a good band list":
1. sold out shows
2. hooks
3. melodies
anything else?
how about:
4. commercial endorsements.
5. appearances on SNL
6. superbowl halftime shows
7. rolling stone/spin cover shots
8. kids bop remake songs
i dunno. i mean, we've got real merit working here.
besides everyone seemed to like Radiohead when they were ripping of the Hollies and apparently U2. so we can add
9. ripping off other bands
-
it's a joke... I only in the last couple of years heard the Hollies song for the first time and then thought how it was interesting that it must have had some influence on Radiohead... aren't they a bit "hip" to having been influenced by the Hollies? Not that there is anything wrong with the Hollies, I quite like their material. It wasn't till today that I found out about the lawsuit and sharing of royalties for "Creep", apologizes for not being a scholar of Radiohead history.
-
Originally posted by kosmo:
it's a joke... I only in the last couple of years heard the Hollies song for the first time and then thought how it was interesting that it must have had some influence on Radiohead... aren't they a bit "hip" to having been influenced by the Hollies? Not that there is anything wrong with the Hollies, I quite like their material. It wasn't till today that I found out about the lawsuit and sharing of royalties for "Creep", apologizes for not being a scholar of Radiohead history.
i like the hollies a lot, too! go figure.
but for all the Pink Floyd references they always get, i dont see much floyd in their music at all!
-
Originally posted by le sonick:
Originally posted by kosmo:
so Radiohead's biggest hit turns out to be ripoff of another song... nice :) it puts them in the same league at Vanilla Ice
here we go with "biggest hit" now.
add that to the "930 board defines what makes a good band list":
1. sold out shows
2. hooks
3. melodies
anything else?
how about:
4. commercial endorsements.
5. appearances on SNL
6. superbowl halftime shows
7. rolling stone/spin cover shots
8. kids bop remake songs
i dunno. i mean, we've got real merit working here.
besides everyone seemed to like Radiohead when they were ripping of the Hollies and apparently U2. so we can add
9. ripping off other bands [/b]
Well all you gotta do say my name, playboy! It's TheDirector, homey. The. Director.
You can't say "Creep" wasn't their biggest hit. That's not even an argument. It's not their best song, just their biggest.
I believe I can speak for most people (except for Brain Walalce, as if anyone really quantifies his musical opinion, - who had the nerve to say Radiohead should emulate The Flaming Lips. Wow. Pause.) when I say I think the animosity/disappointment towards Radiohead stems from the fact that they are a ROCK band that has for years now, eschewed guitars. I don't necessarily need any hooks. Just leave the fuckin' ambient trance thing alone & fuckin' rawk already. Like I said earlier, I don't mind bands making "Fuck You" albums, but it's like they don't/haven't stopped. I don't mind when an artist pushes the envelope ala "Speakerbox/The Love Below", Dylan going electric, or something like that. Because it works. I actually like it when artists push the envelope. Had they stopped with Kid A, it'd be all good. But it just keeps gettin' fuckin' worse. This is simply opinion here, but I don't think they're going left in the name of artistry. It's like they're doing it just to fuckin' do it. They won't probably ever move platinum units again (not that that is a measure of greatness) but Radiohead full knows they got fanboys like you drinking that Jim Jones & the cult will follow regardless. If it weren't for what I've been told were their marvelous live performances, I doubt aside of this online marketing scheme anyone would give a fuck. They don't gotta give me anthems or hooks. Just leave the R2D2 blips away, get rid of the trance, & pick up some fuckin' guitars and rock. Please. Tell 'em The Director sent you.
P.S. Far as the Pink Floyd thing, it's because OK is kinda akin to a modernized Dark Side Of The Moon. Concept album, alienation, etc. I'm just saying.
-
Why does a band that was a rock band once have to remain a rock band? And why do you have to have a guitar in a rock band?
David Bowie was pretty successful at releasing a string of albums that sounded nothing like one another, and were pretty experimental in nature for the time they were released.
For me, Radiohead wasn't nearly as interesting when it was just OK Computer, The Bends and Pablo Honey. I think Kid A, Amnesiac, Hail to the Thief, and now, In Rainbows, are what makes them as relevant and important as I believe them to be.
-
Its true it may make more sense in the live setting. At the Tower Theatre show I saw last year they played the Bends and it rocked . . . but the straightforward two-guitar rock song also felt quaint and provincial in the context. It felt somewhat out of place and I'd say songs like The National Anthem and Idioteque rocked harder and were more interesting. And all the new stuff sounded great.
Also, I think the 'I Might Be Wrong' live release displays more life to songs from Kid A and Amnesiac than is on record.
Haven't heard In Rainbows yet. But I think part of the perception that Amnesiac and HTTT were drop-offs were that they weren't unified wholes like Kid A, Ok Computer and the Bends. They both have a lot of quality songs, but don't tie together.
-
Originally posted by Mobius:
but the straightforward two-guitar rock song also felt quaint and provincial in the context.
From what province did it feel like?
-
Originally posted by Mobius:
Haven't heard In Rainbows yet.
No need to. This thread is more interesting than In Rainbows.
-
Originally posted by 6949:
Originally posted by Mobius:
Haven't heard In Rainbows yet.
No need to. This thread is more interesting than In Rainbows. [/b]
I'm six songs in, and not particularly in a hurry to finish hearing the other six. I believe I spent more time posting about the album once I actually started listening to it. Theory proven.
True story.
;)
-
Originally posted by TheDirector217:
Originally posted by 6949:
Originally posted by Mobius:
Haven't heard In Rainbows yet.
No need to. This thread is more interesting than In Rainbows. [/b]
I'm six songs in, and not particularly in a hurry to finish hearing the other six. I believe I spent more time posting about the album once I actually started listening to it. Theory proven.
True story.
;) [/b]
Interesting - my copy only has ten tracks on it. I like pretty much all of them. In fact some of them are superb in my view.
On a related note, I think that a lot of people on this thread need to lie back, have a deep breath and contemplate having a wank.
It might release some of the obvious pent up geekatonic tension that a four year wait for a new Radiohead record has caused.
I still want to know when the last time anyone felt that their enjoyment of a song that they were listening to was comprised by it being a mere 160kbps . . . don't criticize me, all i ask is that you convince me it makes a difference that it is 160 Vs say 320 or 128kbps Zzzzzzzzz
-
agreed.
-
Originally posted by TheDirector217:
You can't say "Creep" wasn't their biggest hit. That's not even an argument. It's not their best song, just their biggest.
my argument is who gives a flying fuckski what ppls bigget hit is!!!
who gives a shit, not me, sir, not me.
-
Fuck this pretentious bullshit.
Isn't 'All I Need' the BEST!?!
Seriously, I am in LOVE with it.
-
Radiohead are pretentious? :)
Originally posted by ixkpd-bk:
Fuck this pretentious bullshit.
Isn't 'All I Need' the BEST!?!
Seriously, I am in LOVE with it.
-
Originally posted by ixkpd-bk:
Fuck this pretentious bullshit.
Isn't 'All I Need' the BEST!?!
Seriously, I am in LOVE with it.
as i mentioned earlier, bodysnatchers and all i need are definite favourites!
-
well i find that 128kps encoded mp3s sound flat in comparison to 192kps... and wondering how much is actually missing in the encoding process, given that after listening to a 192kps encoded track several times then hearing the actual CD and noticing distinct differences between the two.
-
Originally posted by ixkpd-bk:
Fuck this pretentious bullshit.
you rang?
-
Originally posted by Fadger:
I still want to know when the last time anyone felt that their enjoyment of a song that they were listening to was comprised by it being a mere 160kbps . . . don't criticize me, all i ask is that you convince me it makes a difference that it is 160 Vs say 320 or 128kbps Zzzzzzzzz
There's a HUGE difference. 160 does nothing for me. I swear by EAC/LAME, as it's all I rip with or will listen to if I have a choice. The rips of these songs for In Rainbows are horrible. I don't tend to listen to anything in CBR either. Straight VBR for me. There's an extremely noticable difference. Rips in EAC/LAME have been proven to sound better than those God-awful 128 AAC ("lossless") rips that iTunes gives out. It's noticalble even on something like iPod with standard/factory headphones. But I'm something of an audiophile, so don't use me as a standard.
With that being said, "Weird Fishes", "Reckoner", & "Jigsaw Falling Into Place" are fuckin' bonkers. I'm lovin that.
Rest of the album . . . . .
-
Originally posted by ixkpd-bk:
Fuck this pretentious bullshit.
Isn't 'All I Need' the BEST!?!
Seriously, I am in LOVE with it.
fuck it two times.
and yes it is. when that dirty ride cymbal comes in towards the end.. lovely.
-
15 Step brings back lovely memories of Bonnaroo '06
-
Bodysnatchers is great, though it could easily have been written by Pearl Jam (that's not an insult, BTW).
I have to say that tune and "Jigsaw" are my faves, so place me firmly in the verse/chorus/verse camp.
-
Originally posted by ggw?:
Originally posted by Mobius:
but the straightforward two-guitar rock song also felt quaint and provincial in the context.
From what province did it feel like? [/b]
All of them. I thought this Board looked down on the provinces. No? Just me?
-
Originally posted by Mobius:
Originally posted by ggw?:
Originally posted by Mobius:
but the straightforward two-guitar rock song also felt quaint and provincial in the context.
From what province did it feel like? [/b]
All of them. I thought this Board looked down on the provinces. No? Just me? [/b]
careful.
-
Ok. Cut the BS. Do you have to be drunk, stoned and/or high as a kite to enjoy this album?
Brian
P.S. Follow-up. Are the drugs you have to take to enjoy this album mainly ones that will keep you awake?
-
I have been enjoying it while driving my car around this week...sober.
-
Originally posted by le sonick:
Originally posted by Mobius:
From what province did it feel like?
All of them. I thought this Board looked down on the provinces. No? Just me? [/b]
careful. [/b]
a province is just a state with the metric system and colourful money.
-
Originally posted by Brian Wallace:
Ok. Cut the BS. Do you have to be drunk, stoned and/or high as a kite to enjoy this album?
Brian
P.S. Follow-up. Are the drugs you have to take to enjoy this album mainly ones that will keep you awake?
whenever i read your posts, i can picture you saying them out loud, in one of those adolescent voices thats ever going from squeaky to deep and then back again. puberty is a tough time my friend...
-
Quick - somebody tell me the last album to go platinum on the day it was released?
http://www.gigwise.com/news/37670/exclusive-radiohead-sell-12million-copies-of-in-rainbows (http://www.gigwise.com/news/37670/exclusive-radiohead-sell-12million-copies-of-in-rainbows)
Gigwise Exclusive:
Radiohead Sell 1.2 Million Copies of "In Rainbows"
Gigwise has learnt that Radiohead have sold an amazing 1.2million copies of their seventh album ??In Rainbows.??
The band and their long-term management company Courtyard Management have remained tight lipped about the exact sales figures, seemingly in a bid to add to keep a mysterious air around the album.
But speaking to a source close to the band last night, we??ve discovered that the Oxford band have achieved this monumental sales figure.
Even if every person who downloaded the album paid just 10 pence, the band will still rake in a massive £120,000. That figure is likely to be higher, with many speculating the average figure will even out at around the £1 mark.
With growing media hype around the release of ??In Rainbows??, these unprecedented sales figures look certain to keep on rising. If they finally announce a world tour, audience figures are expected to be higher too.
Thom Yorke and co. will cash in again when the payments clear for the ??In Rainbows?? box set which are on sale for £40 a go.
As expected, Radiohead are the clear victors of this radical way of releasing their album. Their success should prompt other big names to follow suit.
-
Originally posted by callat703:
Quick - somebody tell me the last album to go platinum on the day it was released?
It use to happen when awards were based on the number of units shipped, but not actually sold... They have since then changed the rules to allow for things like actual sales numbers to be reported, returns, etc.
-
Originally posted by callat703:
Quick - somebody tell me the last album to go platinum on the day it was released?
Calm down, man. First off, it wasn't all in one day. Furthermore, there's no regualted price NOR is there ANY way these numbers have been or can be confirmed. The album's been available for more or less two weeks. Plus these downloads have been available WORLDWIDE. That averages out to, even assuming these numbers are anything close to accurate - which I'm quite sure they aren't, 600,000 copies a week. Kanye scanned 900,000 copies in the U.S. alone his first week out (9/11/07) with Graduation. If you really wanna get techinical WORLDWIDE, 50 Cent's new Curtis LP just moved 2 million copies worldwide in the 1st week of release. That's not shipped, that's actual soundscan numbers/units sold. This shit is hardly unprecendented. Just to answer your question.
*50 Cent's The Massacre was the last album to go platinum in 1 week. 1.1 Soundscanned copies in the 1st week of release. 2005, I believe.* (Norah Jones did it, too, but with her second album in '04.)
Can you please start doing some research before you shoot off these unfactual, biased, fanboy fantasies of yours??? I admire your loyalty to your favorite group & all. It's as heartwarming as a Disney movie. Plus I will concede even in disagreement & delusion, you are quite polite.
Just, facts man. They're real important. Facts, homey.
-
Originally posted by TheDirector217:
Just, facts man. They're real important. Facts, homey.
you act like all you ever speak is facts.
puhllleazzeee!!!
-
Originally posted by TheDirector217:
Can you please start doing some research before you shoot off these unfactual, biased, fanboy fantasies of yours??? I admire your loyalty to your favorite group & all. It's as heartwarming as a Disney movie. Plus I will concede even in disagreement & delusion, you are quite polite.
Just, facts man. They're real important. Facts, homey.
Dude, again, I didn't make ANY claim at all. I asked a question, which you answered. Calm yourself.
If you'd read my posts, as opposed to reading into them, you'd recognize that with maybe one exception (and even in that case - related to Radiohead's ticket sales compared to U2 - I didn't claim it to be fact) on this thread, I haven't claimed anything that I've said is "fact."
-
Friday is known in these parts as Grump Day :)
-
Originally posted by callat703:
Originally posted by TheDirector217:
Can you please start doing some research before you shoot off these unfactual, biased, fanboy fantasies of yours??? I admire your loyalty to your favorite group & all. It's as heartwarming as a Disney movie. Plus I will concede even in disagreement & delusion, you are quite polite.
Just, facts man. They're real important. Facts, homey.
Dude, again, I didn't make ANY claim at all. I asked a question, which you answered. Calm yourself.
If you'd read my posts, as opposed to reading into them, you'd recognize that with maybe one exception (and even in that case - related to Radiohead's ticket sales compared to U2 - I didn't claim it to be fact) on this thread, I haven't claimed anything that I've said is "fact." [/b]
Originally posted by callat703:
Sure - method of distribution is still about the music itself. This goes back to the argument that Julian was having - sure, bands have done it before, but NEVER anybody with the reach, market power, or reputation that Radiohead has. If it isn't Radiohead, that story isn't on the front page of ANY of those news sites.
Market power, reach, & reputation. Very important. I already told you why the Pumpkins didn't get this much attention for it back on page 6. But I will speak to these 3 above factors I just named:
Market Power & Reach: The Pumpkins moved far more units than Radiohead & Mellon Collie/Siamese Dream spawned plenty of imitators that decade. Even to this day. One of my personal favorite new rock bands happens to sound kinda like The Pumpkins actually, I doubt it's deliberate (only because I know them personally) - but it is what it is.
Reputation: Siamese Dream has been referred to by some boardies here & several critics as THE seminal 90s rock album. The Pumpkins in the 90s enjoyed a high level of critical AND commercial success which is quite rare. It's usually one or the other. Moreso, critical for Radiohead, as a decent amount of critics fawn over them as well - though nowhere near the level of you.
Originally posted by callat703:
Originally posted by Julian, good manners AFICIONADO:
No, like I said earlier, Radiohead are my second favorite band. I just find it ridiculous the levels some of you are taking some of this. Radiohead is not the biggest band in the world, nor does media coverage over a detail only tangentially related to their musical output constitute an affirmation that they're the modern day Beatles. If I ever said any of this nonsense, I'd get flamed so quickly your head would spin.
See, I disagree with you. I would contend that Radiohead is the biggest band in the world. [/b]
Julian, an admitted Radiohead fan, said you were wrong. You "contend" the opposite. Sounds like a fact to me.
Originally posted by callat703:
But I'm not ready to concede on those other points yet...
Right after you admitted you were wrong about the U2 ticket sales argument. Again. Something you stated as fact.
Originally posted by callat703:
Quick - somebody tell me the last album to go platinum on the day it was released?
http://www.gigwise.com/news/37670/exclusive-radiohead-sell-12million-copies-of-in-rainbows (http://www.gigwise.com/news/37670/exclusive-radiohead-sell-12million-copies-of-in-rainbows)
You specifically said, "tell me the LAST album to go platinum the day it was released," IMPLYING the last album BEFORE this one. I already shot down that one. Go back & read it again. You started with that sentence, then provided a link. Would that not constitute something you believe to be fact??? I speak OK English, so I'll draw a parallel with imperative sentences.
e.g. If Momma 703, says "Take out the trash," That implies an imperative sentence. Now it doesn't say (You) Take out the trash, but it is already implied & known. Much like the off base statement you make saying Radiohead went platinum in one day. Which in post was perceived to be factual by way of your wording. But it seems you are now backtracking, as you have with the rest of your statements you made this week. The two words "I think" are very powerful. It's one thing if you're like sonick, & you're all "I THINK Radiohead's the best, you can't tell me shit. End of story." Then that's cool. But you're talking about they'd sell more tix than U2, their "market reach" is unparalleled, & all this other shit. And without an "in my opinion" & "I think", henceforth one would believe you think them as fact. You seem like a nice guy, but a little out of touch. Think of me as a distributor of reality.
I'll be quite honest & say if not for your presence here in this thread, I wouldn't have popped up so much. Probably not at all. Having opinions are great. It's the reason we even have a board like this. But it's like, again by way of your wording, it's as if you believe a lotta this shit you type to be gospel truth. One or two woulda been bearable, but you just kept going. Nothing personal at all, it's just I want you to have correct information combined with the fact you take fanboy to a whole 'nother realm. I simply took it upon myself to give you some actual facts about the situation. But I shot down so many of your facts, it's to the point that I lost count . . .
;)
-
Jesus.
For one, the only statement you just quoted that could be interpreted as a factual statement is the one about the free release. And I think you're absolutely wrong to say the Pumpkins were as big or bigger when they released MACHINA II. The Pumpkins are my favorite band of all time, and you're wrong if you believe they were bigger in 2000 than Radiohead is now. Plain and simple. You can't argue that moving more albums is indicative of being "bigger" comparing sales in the '90s to today. It isn't a relevant gauge anymore. You want to debate that, fine - I'll get back to you on it when I have the time to look at numbers. I don't right now.
And I would "contend" that Radiohead is the biggest band in the world. There is no "factual" way of determining that. Hence "contend," which would imply that there is contention, which would imply that there are multiple ways of defining or determining "the biggest." There is no factual, correct answer to the question, "Who is the biggest band in the world?" I also went on to say that I think U2 would be the other band in the discussion. Look at the thread:
"Actually, at this point? I think Radiohead could equal U2 in ticket sales.
But you're absolutely right - I think U2 is the only other band you can include in that discussion. Bruce & The E Street are more about Bruce than they are the "band.""
I never said "Radiohead outsells U2," which would be how one phrases a fact. I went on to say you were right. And you're right - "I think" and "in my opinion" are strong clarifications. That's why I've used them in almost every post I've made on this subject.
And finally, I'm fed up. You have the nerve to say something like:
"But it's like, again by way of your wording, you believe a lotta this shit you type to be gospel truth. One or two woulda been bearable, but you just kept going. Nothing personal at all, it's just I want you to have correct information combined with the fact you take fanboy to a whole 'nother realm."
Fuck off. You're twisting what I've written in two minute breaks at work to indict my level of knowledge of or attention to the music industry? And then claiming some holier than thou "distributor of reality?" Get over yourself. You a) don't have a clue what I know and what I don't, because this is a distraction for me, rather than something I'm going to spend a half an hour researching and writing up for some wanker like you to tear apart, and b) don't have any more credibility than I do. You're a name on a message board. You've seen a lot of shows and you dig the Police. You think I know a damn thing about what you know and what you don't when it comes to music?
Maybe the point here is that I don't take myself NEARLY as seriously as you do. Calm the fuck down and back the fuck off.
-
When Smashing Pumpkins released Machina II on the internet, it was the equivalent of a straight-to-DVD movie release. The band was dead. Credibility w/ fans rapidly deteriorated from '96 on and was non-existant by 2000. Machina I tanked and I think they had trouble finding a label to release Machina II.
Now let's talk about how Kanye went from the future to tedius in 3 easy steps. He was a breath of fresh air and now he's no different from 50 - like the Times Square of hip-hop; hip-hop for tourists.
-
Originally posted by TheDirector217:
Originally posted by callat703:
Originally posted by TheDirector217:
Can you please start doing some research before you shoot off these unfactual, biased, fanboy fantasies of yours??? I admire your loyalty to your favorite group & all. It's as heartwarming as a Disney movie. Plus I will concede even in disagreement & delusion, you are quite polite.
Just, facts man. They're real important. Facts, homey.
Dude, again, I didn't make ANY claim at all. I asked a question, which you answered. Calm yourself.
If you'd read my posts, as opposed to reading into them, you'd recognize that with maybe one exception (and even in that case - related to Radiohead's ticket sales compared to U2 - I didn't claim it to be fact) on this thread, I haven't claimed anything that I've said is "fact." [/b]
Originally posted by callat703:
Sure - method of distribution is still about the music itself. This goes back to the argument that Julian was having - sure, bands have done it before, but NEVER anybody with the reach, market power, or reputation that Radiohead has. If it isn't Radiohead, that story isn't on the front page of ANY of those news sites.
Market power, reach, & reputation. Very important. I already told you why the Pumpkins didn't get this much attention for it back on page 6. But I will speak to these 3 above factors I just named:
Market Power & Reach: The Pumpkins moved far more units than Radiohead & Mellon Collie/Siamese Dream spawned plenty of imitators that decade. Even to this day. One of my personal favorite new rock bands happens to sound kinda like The Pumpkins actually, I doubt it's deliberate (only because I know them personally) - but it is what it is.
Reputation: Siamese Dream has been referred to by some boardies here & several critics as THE seminal 90s rock album. The Pumpkins in the 90s enjoyed a high level of critical AND commercial success which is quite rare. It's usually one or the other. Moreso, critical for Radiohead, as a decent amount of critics fawn over them as well - though nowhere near the level of you.
Originally posted by callat703:
Originally posted by Julian, good manners AFICIONADO:
No, like I said earlier, Radiohead are my second favorite band. I just find it ridiculous the levels some of you are taking some of this. Radiohead is not the biggest band in the world, nor does media coverage over a detail only tangentially related to their musical output constitute an affirmation that they're the modern day Beatles. If I ever said any of this nonsense, I'd get flamed so quickly your head would spin.
See, I disagree with you. I would contend that Radiohead is the biggest band in the world. [/b]
Julian, an admitted Radiohead fan, said you were wrong. You "contend" the opposite. Sounds like a fact to me.
Originally posted by callat703:
But I'm not ready to concede on those other points yet...
Right after you admitted you were wrong about the U2 ticket sales argument. Again. Something you stated as fact.
Originally posted by callat703:
Quick - somebody tell me the last album to go platinum on the day it was released?
http://www.gigwise.com/news/37670/exclusive-radiohead-sell-12million-copies-of-in-rainbows (http://www.gigwise.com/news/37670/exclusive-radiohead-sell-12million-copies-of-in-rainbows)
You specifically said, "tell me the LAST album to go platinum the day it was released," IMPLYING the last album BEFORE this one. I already shot down that one. Go back & read it again. You started with that sentence, then provided a link. Would that not constitute something you believe to be fact??? I speak OK English, so I'll draw a parallel with imperative sentences.
e.g. If Momma 703, says "Take out the trash," That implies an imperative sentence. Now it doesn't say (You) Take out the trash, but it is already implied & known. Much like the off base statement you make saying Radiohead went platinum in one day. Which in post was perceived to be factual by way of your wording. But it seems you are now backtracking, as you have with the rest of your statements you made this week. The two words "I think" are very powerful. It's one thing if you're like sonick, & you're all "I THINK Radiohead's the best, you can't tell me shit. End of story." Then that's cool. But you're talking about they'd sell more tix than U2, their "market reach" is unparalleled, & all this other shit. And without an "in my opinion" & "I think", henceforth one would believe you think them as fact. You seem like a nice guy, but a little out of touch. Think of me as a distributor of reality.
I'll be quite honest & say if not for your presence here in this thread, I wouldn't have popped up so much. Probably not at all. Having opinions are great. It's the reason we even have a board like this. But it's like, again by way of your wording, it's as if you believe a lotta this shit you type to be gospel truth. One or two woulda been bearable, but you just kept going. Nothing personal at all, it's just I want you to have correct information combined with the fact you take fanboy to a whole 'nother realm. I simply took it upon myself to give you some actual facts about the situation. But I shot down so many of your facts, it's to the point that I lost count . . .
:D
-
Let me ammend my previous statement. (In addition to U2, The Smashing Pumpkins and Radiohead...) The Director, Le Sonick, Call At 703 and Julian also enjoy the smell of their own farts.
It's going to be a fantastic, cool, crisp weekend on the East Coast, boys. Go outside, take a hike (maybe even take Radiohead's "The Rainbow Connection" along on your Walkman!), breathe some fresh air, go fishing, throw a football...relax...chill out. You're taking this "internet" thing WAY too seriously.
Brian
-
Callat703 should probably consult his doctor about that hard-on he's been sportin' for the last four days.
-
Originally posted by callat703:
Jesus.
For one, the only statement you just quoted that could be interpreted as a factual statement is the one about the free release. And I think you're absolutely wrong to say the Pumpkins were as big or bigger when they released MACHINA II. The Pumpkins are my favorite band of all time, and you're wrong if you believe they were bigger in 2000 than Radiohead is now. Plain and simple. You can't argue that moving more albums is indicative of being "bigger" comparing sales in the '90s to today. It isn't a relevant gauge anymore. You want to debate that, fine - I'll get back to you on it when I have the time to look at numbers. I don't right now.
And I would "contend" that Radiohead is the biggest band in the world. There is no "factual" way of determining that. Hence "contend," which would imply that there is contention, which would imply that there are multiple ways of defining or determining "the biggest." There is no factual, correct answer to the question, "Who is the biggest band in the world?" I also went on to say that I think U2 would be the other band in the discussion. Look at the thread:
"Actually, at this point? I think Radiohead could equal U2 in ticket sales.
But you're absolutely right - I think U2 is the only other band you can include in that discussion. Bruce & The E Street are more about Bruce than they are the "band.""
I never said "Radiohead outsells U2," which would be how one phrases a fact. I went on to say you were right. And you're right - "I think" and "in my opinion" are strong clarifications. That's why I've used them in almost every post I've made on this subject.
And finally, I'm fed up. You have the nerve to say something like:
"But it's like, again by way of your wording, you believe a lotta this shit you type to be gospel truth. One or two woulda been bearable, but you just kept going. Nothing personal at all, it's just I want you to have correct information combined with the fact you take fanboy to a whole 'nother realm."
Fuck off. You're twisting what I've written in two minute breaks at work to indict my level of knowledge of or attention to the music industry? And then claiming some holier than thou "distributor of reality?" Get over yourself. You a) don't have a clue what I know and what I don't, because this is a distraction for me, rather than something I'm going to spend a half an hour researching and writing up for some wanker like you to tear apart, and b) don't have any more credibility than I do. You're a name on a message board. You've seen a lot of shows and you dig the Police. You think I know a damn thing about what you know and what you don't when it comes to music?
Maybe the point here is that I don't take myself NEARLY as seriously as you do. Calm the fuck down and back the fuck off.
Your politeness just went out the window. I'm shocked. F-bombs??? You're giving me the Walalce treatment now. NOW who takes themselves seriously?? It IS just a board right? If I had low self-esteem issues & weren't so holier than thou, I'd actually be offended. :D
Originally posted by Mobius:
When Smashing Pumpkins released Machina II on the internet, it was the equivalent of a straight-to-DVD movie release. The band was dead. Credibility w/ fans rapidly deteriorated from '96 on and was non-existant by 2000. Machina I tanked and I think they had trouble finding a label to release Machina II.
Now let's talk about how Kanye went from the future to tedius in 3 easy steps. He was a breath of fresh air and now he's no different from 50 - like the Times Square of hip-hop; hip-hop for tourists.
Your assessments are quite on point. I was speaking more on a whole, as opposed to late 90s. But Machina II was a little more widely bootlegged than you think, & original copies (there aren't many) go for nice coin. Otherwise, on point.
Far as 'Ye, his production is still genius level. It's also still a breath of fresh air from all these ringtone rappers. He speaks on some good shit the average person can relate with. "Big Brother" was some real shit far as the new album. I think it's not accurate he gets labeled as a "conscious" rapper. He's about as materialistic as the next rapper, but he's stepped his rhyme game up leaps & bounds from "College Dropout". Overall, that whole him vs. 50 thing was great for hip-hop. Don't forget what he did for Common on the Be & Finding Forever albums. He's doing a lot for hip-hop. Lord knows us hip-hop heads need it. I think Common's new joint is better than Graduation, but that's just my "holier than thou" opinion. :D
Originally posted by manimtired:
HA! HA! HA! :D
Tell Andy, Sting, & Stewart I said what up! Hahahahahaha.
Never had a chance to see 'em . . . ;)
-
Originally posted by ggw?:
Callat703 should probably consult his doctor about that hard-on he's been sportin' for the last four days.
Hope everthing's in it's right place . . .
<img src="http://www.biotech-weblog.com/50226711/images/viagra_sildefanil.jpg" alt=" - " />
VIVAAAAAAAA VIAGRA!
-
Originally posted by TheDirector217:
But Machina II was a little more widely bootlegged than you think, & original copies (there aren't many) go for nice coin. Otherwise, on point.
There are 20, I believe. Vinyl only.
The other substantial difference of note was that the Pumpkins did NOT release the album online. They gave fan sites, radio stations, and friends of the band (including the Metro, which still has the album available for download on their website) vinyl editions of the record and told them to distribute them as they saw fit. Obviously this meant digitally, but the band itself did not release the album via the web.
-
Originally posted by callat703:
Originally posted by TheDirector217:
But Machina II was a little more widely bootlegged than you think, & original copies (there aren't many) go for nice coin. Otherwise, on point.
There are 20, I believe. Vinyl only.
[/b]
25 acetates were made.
cd stuff is probably the q101 versions which were given away by the radio station.
-
I'm not even going to attempt to read the 2-3 pages of this thread that've popped-up since I've been gone. But suffice to say, it's mere continuation only proves you all need to get ahold of your lives.
-
Originally posted by Julian, good manners AFICIONADO:
I'm not even going to attempt to read the 2-3 pages of this thread that've popped-up since I've been gone. But suffice to say, it's mere continuation only proves you all need to get ahold of your lives.
dude, when i left wednesday morning for ohio, it was on page 2. when i got back there were 8. i'm not fucking reading any of it.
-
Originally posted by distance:
when i left wednesday morning for ohio,
Oh yeah? Whaddya go to Ohio for?
-
Originally posted by Julian, good manners AFICIONADO:
Originally posted by distance:
when i left wednesday morning for ohio,
Oh yeah? Whaddya go to Ohio for? [/b]
explosions in the sky.
-
Originally posted by TheDirector217:
Nah, but I'm fucking with you, man. I made it a point to commend you on your politeness earlier. Normally I wouldn't dignify shit like this with a response, cause opinions outside my "circle" mean less than nothing to me. I think you're a polite guy, so I'll say I think you mistook my sarcasm/confidence for me trying to roast you. Not at all. Plus how can you get mad at a post with The Count? I thought everyone loved Muppets?! Oh, well . . . Just the holier than thou in me, I assume.
Just make sure you & sonick save me a spot in line at the next Radiohead show. :D
Having meet the Director while reading this post I heard his voice inside my head... True Story :p
-
Originally posted by kosmo:
Originally posted by TheDirector217:
Nah, but I'm fucking with you, man. I made it a point to commend you on your politeness earlier. Normally I wouldn't dignify shit like this with a response, cause opinions outside my "circle" mean less than nothing to me. I think you're a polite guy, so I'll say I think you mistook my sarcasm/confidence for me trying to roast you. Not at all. Plus how can you get mad at a post with The Count? I thought everyone loved Muppets?! Oh, well . . . Just the holier than thou in me, I assume.
Just make sure you & sonick save me a spot in line at the next Radiohead show. :D
Having meet the Director while reading this post I heard his voice inside my head... True Story :p [/b]
So . . . we all agree then - it's a pretty good album, the best of it is brilliant, the worst of it is ok.
We also agree that there are a bunch of audio snob bose speaker masturbaters out there who sit in a bar and condemn the music that they are being forced to listen to for being only 128 kbps or whatever the fuck . . .
I may be missing some details here, but I think this summary may be helpful as this thread has now become so painful that it needs to be wrapped up. . . .
-
fyi
bose speakers = nickleback
and i dont understand why a band would spend months in a studio crafting an album only to release in primarily a compressed format... perhaps they been spending to much listening to their ipods
-
Originally posted by TheDirector217:
Just make sure you & sonick save me a spot in line at the next Radiohead show. :D
hey leave me out of this. because while you've been acting like a pompous asshole the last 2 pages, i have not been even posting on this thread.
i met you once, and you seemed cool. but you're a real fucking dickhead on here.
you kiss some ppls asses relentlessly (ggw, vansmack) and then to others you are like "ha, i am callin you out, and disproving your facts" like some kind of internet dectective or something.
and then you're like "oh NAH, i'm just joking around" very diplomatic, yet quite not-believable. and sorta lame.
-
Originally posted by kosmo:
fyi
bose speakers = nickleback
and i dont understand why a band would spend months in a studio crafting an album only to release in primarily a compressed format... perhaps they been spending to much listening to their ipods
here you go , kosmo:
from ateaseweb.bom
Jonny Greenwood talked to Rolling Stone about the upcoming performance in New York of his Superhet Popcorn Receiver. The magazine also asked him about ??In Rainbows??.
Why did you choose to release the album this way?
Partly just to get it out quickly, so everyone would hear it at the same time, and partly because it was an experiment that felt worth trying, really.
Why the variable pricing?
It??s fun to make people stop for a few seconds and think about what music is worth, and that??s just an interesting question to ask people.
How would you respond to complaints about the sound quality ?? that 160 isn??t a high enough bitrate?
I don??t know, we talked about it and we just wanted to make it a bit better than iTunes, which it is, so that??s kind of good enough, really. It??s never going to be CD quality, because that??s what CD does.
What goals did you have for the album itself?
I suppose we wanted to get back slightly to Kid A in that we were spending longer experimenting and trying stuff out ?? it wasn??t so much of a performance-based thing, like Hail to the Thief. Other than that, it??s the usual thing of turning up with these songs and the pressure is, ??Don??t fuck it up, don??t record them badly, don??t do bad arrangements of them, and do them justice.? So that??s what we??ve done.
What are your touring plans?
That??s exactly what we finally started talking about. Now that the album??s out, we can get together exactly how and where we??re going to tour.
-
how lame is slightly better than itunes how about equal to emusic where one can get yorke`s solo effort in superior 192 lame vbr
the concepts cool just lacking in execution
-
Originally posted by kosmo:
how lame is slightly better than itunes how about equal to emusic where one can get yorke`s solo effort in superior 192 lame vbr
the concepts cool just lacking in execution
yeah, i dont quite understand all their is to that sort of stuff. would it be extra cost in making them a higher bitrate?
i realize the files would be larger but digitally, dont see how it would necessarily cost more. but that must be part of it.
perhaps because they are allowing ppl to pay what they want, they dont want to offer it at such a larger (and i guess more expensive) bitrate.
but with some of their audiophile fans, seems like they could offer it at 192 or higher, for a higher perhaps fixed price.
i dont know enough to really speculate. and i am half fuckin' deaf so the 160kbps is ok for me, for now!
-
I don't think anyone here actually even complained about the bitrate. I just speculated that people would.
And that Bose comment really shows what you know about quality audio......
No highs, no lows, must be Bose.
-
As promised:
Last.fm Charts, week of October 7 - October 14
1. Radiohead - 118,836 listeners - 3,308,175 plays
2. The Beatles - 73,373 listeners - 844,600 plays
3. Red Hot Chili Peppers - 64,502 listeners - 498,031 plays
And the top ten tracks of the week are the ten tracks from In Rainbows. Coincidentally, I believe the track order also corresponds to their ranking in the top ten.
-
Originally posted by le sonick:
you kiss some ppls asses relentlessly (ggw, vansmack)
Well, in my defense, I feel I've earned it.
-
Originally posted by callat703:
As promised:
Last.fm Charts, week of October 7 - October 14
1. Radiohead - 118,836 listeners - 3,308,175 plays
2. The Beatles - 73,373 listeners - 844,600 plays
3. Red Hot Chili Peppers - 64,502 listeners - 498,031 plays
And as promised (and predicted):
Vansmack's Top Artists this Week (but closer than I thought)
7 Oct 2007 ?? 14 Oct 2007
1 Radiohead 47
2 Peter Bjorn and John 45
-
Are you also acknowledging that the Red Hot Chili Peppers are the third greatest band ever?
Originally posted by callat703:
As promised:
Last.fm Charts, week of October 7 - October 14
1. Radiohead - 118,836 listeners - 3,308,175 plays
2. The Beatles - 73,373 listeners - 844,600 plays
3. Red Hot Chili Peppers - 64,502 listeners - 498,031 plays
And the top ten tracks of the week are the ten tracks from In Rainbows. Coincidentally, I believe the track order also corresponds to their ranking in the top ten.
-
Originally posted by TheDirector217:
You don't read enough magazines/artist interviews. Bono. By far. The man had a fuckin' tribute to him by The Roots (If those aren't musicians, I don't know what is) at the fuckin' NAACP Awards, man. That's waaaaaaaay outside the rock dempgraphic, fam.
i included the first sentence cause its funny. apparently just liking the art itself isnt enough! :)
but the reason i resurrect this is that upon listening to the Roots' Game Theory, i heard a "You and Whose Army" sample.....so i guess the Roots like em both, eh?
-
Originally posted by le sonick:
Originally posted by TheDirector217:
You don't read enough magazines/artist interviews. Bono. By far. The man had a fuckin' tribute to him by The Roots (If those aren't musicians, I don't know what is) at the fuckin' NAACP Awards, man. That's waaaaaaaay outside the rock dempgraphic, fam.
i included the first sentence cause its funny. apparently just liking the art itself isnt enough! :)
but the reason i resurrect this is that upon listening to the Roots' Game Theory, i heard a "You and Whose Army" sample.....so i guess the Roots like em both, eh? [/b]
I gotta check on that & get back to you. But ?uestlove is a Radiohead fan, if I remember correctly. Pretty cool cat as well. Bumped into him a couple of times here & there.
I like your diversity, my Canadian brethren.
-
werd. check track 12, "Atonement"
-
****PAGING SONICK & 703****
Radiohead Returning To The Road In 2008
October 18, 2007, 11:40 AM ET
Lars Brandle, London
Radiohead will embark on a rare international tour starting next spring, Billboard.com can reveal. Although details are still sketchy, expect the British alternative rock band to play multiple markets, in sizeable venues.
"We plan to tour next year, starting in May through to probably the end of the year. With lots of holidays in that period," says Bryce Edge of Courtyard Management, the firm that manages the band.
"At the moment we are talking with our agents in North America and for the rest of the world, trying to get a schedule which works for the band and works financially," he adds.
An extended run will be a treat for dedicated fans who missed Radiohead's summer 2006 dates, which landed in a handful of European and north American markets.
"They toured last summer almost for creative reasons, definitely not for financial reasons. And I think they quite enjoyed it," explains Edge. "The next set of touring will be slightly larger-scale venues."
Frontman Thom Yorke is anything but a fan of international treks and, in the past, the singer has raised concerns over the effects of touring on climate change.
"He likes to do shows, but the whole business of schlepping around the world is not top of his list of favorite things to do," adds Edge. "He really enjoys playing to the fans -- it's just the process of how to do that which is the pain in the neck (for Yorke). They're not road dogs. They never have been."
Radiohead tore up the industry manual when they allowed fans to name their price to download its latest album, "In Rainbows," released Oct. 10. To date, representatives for the band have remained tight-lipped on the sales performance of the studio set. Edge downplayed as "exaggerated" reports that "In Rainbows" had shifted more than 1.2 million copies, but admitted the average price paid was "probably pretty close" to £4 ($8).
"We haven't analyzed the data yet," he explains. "The servers are still functioning on delivering the records to people. When that calms down a bit, we will have a moment to analyze and drag the data off. "
And he was philosophical on reports that the illegal platforms have delivered millions of units. "The fact of the matter is, as soon as a record goes into manufacture, or advance copies are released to the press, it goes onto BitTorrent," he says. "That is the fact. What we are dealing with is a situation that we always dealing with."
A label deal has yet to be struck for the physical release of the album, a spokesperson for the band says.
-
Is Bryce Edge related to The Edge?
-
Will tickets be "pay what you want"?
-
Originally posted by le sonick:
Originally posted by TheDirector217:
You don't read enough magazines/artist interviews. Bono. By far. The man had a fuckin' tribute to him by The Roots (If those aren't musicians, I don't know what is) at the fuckin' NAACP Awards, man. That's waaaaaaaay outside the rock dempgraphic, fam.
i included the first sentence cause its funny. apparently just liking the art itself isnt enough! :)
but the reason i resurrect this is that upon listening to the Roots' Game Theory, i heard a "You and Whose Army" sample.....so i guess the Roots like em both, eh? [/b]
from reading his posts on the roots message board, ?uest is a very big radiohead fan (kid a, especially). originally the track for atonement was supposed to be used on the 'exit music: music for radioheads' comp., got scrapped.. sample was already cleared so they used it on game theory.
-
Allright. I've decided I don't like this album and I don't really like Radihead anymore. The Bends, OK Computer and Kid A were a brilliant trifecta, but it's been all down hill from there.
Not dissing them or anything, but it dawned on me that this band is really just not my cup of tea anymore and it makes me a little bummed. Everytime they have a new record I want to like it but I listen a few times and it just goes on the shelf to collect dust.
OK Computer rocked my world so hard, but wasn't that about 10 years ago? I've changed. I've moved on. Really, it's not you, it's me. I hope we can still be friends.
-
I've listened to it thrice now, and I have to admit In Rainbows hasn't really grabbed me. It's certainly good, but I'm not hooked on it the way I was with Hail to the Thief. I'll take "2+2=5" over any track on In Rainbows, and I strongly disagree with chaz that Hail to the Thief was downhill from anything, although I recognize I may be in the minority on that view.
-
**Paging Call @ 703 & Le Sonick **
Radiohead Albums Boxed In Time For Christmas
November 05, 2007, 10:05 AM ET
Lars Brandle, London
A Radiohead boxed set, spanning the British band's first six studio albums plus a live record, will be available from Dec. 10 via the band's Web site.
The seven-CD limited edition sets will comprise the band's Parlophone albums "Pablo Honey" (1993), "The Bends" (1995), "OK Computer" (1997), "Kid A" (2000), "Amnesiac" (2001), "Hail to the Thief" (2003) and the live album "I Might Be Wrong" (2001). Purchasers will also have access to stream special footage.
On the same day, the alternative rock outfit will release for pre-order a limited edition USB stick, shaped in the band's iconic "bear" image. The 4GB memory stick will contain Radiohead's entire catalog in WAV files together with digital artwork. Both formats will be available only from Radioheadstore.com.
A digital bundle of all seven albums will also be available from Dec. 10 as DRM-free MP3 files, together with digital artwork.
"We are particularly excited about the USB stick," comments Parlophone's managing director Miles Leonard, "which gives fans an easy and portable way to carry the box set and provides another way of bridging the world between on-line and off-line content."
U.K. charts compiler the Official U.K. Charts Company recently made tweaks to its criteria, allowing the USB format to quality for the album chart.
Radiohead split with Parlophone in 2005 and recently struck a deal enabling indie label XL Recordings to handle the physical release of its new album, "In Rainbows."
That deal is expected to cover territories outside North America, leaving the band free to sign a separate deal there, but no further details have yet been made available.
-
Data On Radiohead Experiment: 38 Percent Of Downloaders Choose To Pay
By Robert Andrews - Mon 05 Nov 2007 02:13 PM PST
The first concrete analysis of Radiohead??s innovative pay-what-you-like plan for latest album In Rainbows shows thirty-eight percent of those who downloaded the title indeed chose to pay something, while 62 percent kept their change in their pocket. ComScore (NSDQ: SCOR) data (via release) shows 1.2 million people visited the site in the first 29 days of October (it was launched at the start of the month).
The average price paid was $6 (£2.88) on a globalised basis but Americans were more generous, coughing up $8.05 (£3.87) - factor in the freeloaders, however, and it??s more like an average $2.26 (£1.08) on a worldwide basis and $3.23 (£1.55) from Americans. The most common amount offered was below $4 (£1.92), but 12 percent were willing to pay between $8 (£3.84) and $12 (£5.77), around the typical cost of an album from iTunes.
What this doesn??t tell us is how many ??copies? of In Rainbows have been sold (in the middle of October, Gigwise quoted an unattributed source as saying 1.2 million albums had been shifted - and joined the dots to a poll in which a majority of consumers said they paid £4 to suggest Radiohead pulled in £4.8 million in around a week). Nor does it account for copies of the album circulating via Bit Torrent and file-sharing networks. P2P music tracker Big Champagne has previously estimated such transmissions had greatly outnumbered downloads via the official channel. Nevertheless, having let their EMI deal expire without resigning a label deal, Radiohead will get to keep more of the income.
Source (http://www.paidcontent.co.uk/entry/419-data-on-radiohead-experiment-38-percent-of-downloads-choose-to-pay/)
-
Most fans paid $0 for Radiohead album
By Alex Veiga, Associated Press
LOS ANGELES ?? Radiohead let its fans decide how much to pay for a digital copy of the band's latest release, In Rainbows, and more than half of those who downloaded the album chose to pay nothing, according to a study by a consumer research firm.
Some 62% of the people who downloaded In Rainbows in a four-week period last month opted not to pay the British alt-rockers a cent. But the remaining 38% voluntarily paid an average of $6, according to the study by comScore Inc.
Radiohead broke with its past practice of releasing its music in CD format and through a major record label when it released its seventh studio album online itself. The biggest wrinkle was the band's decision to let fans pay as much or as little as they wanted to download a copy.
The results of the study were drawn from data gathered from a few hundred people who are part of comScore's database of 2 million computer users worldwide. The firm, which has permission to monitor the computer users' online behavior, did not provide a margin of error for the study's results.
Between Oct. 1 and Oct. 29, about 1.2 million people visited the website the band set up for fans to download the album, comScore said Monday. The research firm did not say how many people in its study actually bought the album.
Among U.S. residents, about 40% who downloaded the album paid to do so. Their average payment was $8.05, the firm said.
Some 36% of the fans outside the U.S. who downloaded the album opted to pay; on average, those fans paid $4.64, according to the study.
Radiohead's U.S.-based publicist said Tuesday the band had no comment on the study.
The online release sent shock waves through the recording industry, with some hailing it as a shrewd move at a time of declining CD sales industrywide and others writing it off as a publicity stunt that amounted to the band giving away its music.
The band, which also offered fans the option of buying a lavish box set for about $82, plans to release the album in CD format some time next year. The box set ships on or before December 3, and includes a download.
Source (http://www.usatoday.com/life/music/news/2007-11-06-radiohead_N.htm)
-
for those thinking that "In Rainbows" is not only no "OK Computer", but would rather listen to the classic "OK Computer"... in a classical style:
The Section Quartet performing Radiohead's "OK Computer"
Nov 13 2007 10:30P DC9 Washington DC
Nov 14 2007 7:30P World Cafe Live Upstairs Philadelphia
Nov 15 2007 9:30P The Living Room New York (2 shows, OK Computer only during second)
Nov 16 2007 8:00P Maxwell??s Hoboken, New Jersey
their website (http://www.thesection.net/) doesn't confirm that the DC show will be a OK Computer show... then again, it doesn't say anything about the next night's philly show either, but the World Cafe Live's website (http://tickets.worldcafelive.com/eventperformances.asp?evt=2107) does confirm the radiohead.
listen to their take of paranoid android on theirspace (http://www.myspace.com/thesectionquartet). Radiohead a la muzak - <insert witty comment here>
-
Originally posted by sweetcell:
Radiohead a la muzak - <insert witty comment here>
see if y'all can top this one:
Radiohead a la muzak - an upgrade
:p
-
Anyone get their diskbox yet? I got an email saying mine was shipped. Can't wait...
-
mine was shipped, hasn't arrived yet.
-
thom york, what a looker:
EDIT: pic moved here (http://www.930.com/cgi-bin/ubb-cgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=016632)
article still available here: Pay What You Want for This Article (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/09/arts/music/09pare.html)
-
i'm sure the answer is in here somewhere (thread or net respectively) but searching is a chore that bores . . . so is this pre-order box set with all the albums, special or not, the only way to purchase in rainbows for those who like 1 cd please sir?
-
no, the single-CD retail release is slated for Jan 1 (i.e. available Jan 2, should be able to pre-order before that).
the digital download site is scheduled to close tomorrow (dec 10).
-
Originally posted by sweetcell:
the digital download site is scheduled to close tomorrow (dec 10).
The obvious question now is why would Radiohead kill the promotion and go back to a traditional sales model if the cash were rolling in? (http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9832659-7.html?part=dht&tag=nl.e703)
-
my discbox finally arrived.
-
mine too. it is really gorgeous packaging. very glad i made this purchase.
-
for some reason i am obsessed with promo copy versions, and waiting to buy albums after everybody else has heard the thing a hundred times. in rainbows was a whim of no exception. i can't wait to listen to each song to see what the fuss has been all about. does anybody think they'll release a grandiose version of the thing, like the library book kid a? sorry if i wasn't going to read ten pages to see if the answer was in there,
-
Originally posted by walkonby:
for some reason i am obsessed with promo copy versions, and waiting to buy albums after everybody else has heard the thing a hundred times. in rainbows was a whim of no exception. i can't wait to listen to each song to see what the fuss has been all about. does anybody think they'll release a grandiose version of the thing, like the library book kid a? sorry if i wasn't going to read ten pages to see if the answer was in there,
you're looking for the $80 discbox version.
i have it. it's very nice.
<img src="http://myjukebox.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/radiohead-in-rainbows.jpg" alt=" - " />
-
lps are nice to look at and i know they sound superior in sound, but the inclusion of them with that set ruins the finished product for me. i like how the "regular" store cd comes with stickers. i'm not a fan of stickers. some people, when they get older, lose the appeal of putting stickers on cars, suitcases, skateboards, whatever. how odd.
-
There's a video on this (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000YXMMAE/ref=dm_dp_cdp?ie=UTF8&s=music) Amazon page that shows what to do with the stickers.
-
David Byrne and Thom Yorke on the Real Value of Music (http://www.wired.com/entertainment/music/magazine/16-01/ff_yorke) (and the thinking behind In Rainbows, in general)
notable quotes, IMO:
Yorke: Well, yeah. The only reason we could even get away with this (pay-what-you-want), the only reason anyone even gives a shit, is the fact that we've gone through the whole mill of the business in the first place. It's not supposed to be a model for anything else. It was simply a response to a situation. We're out of contract. We have our own studio. We have this new server. What the hell else would we do? This was the obvious thing. But it only works for us because of where we are.
Yorke: (...) But at the moment we make money principally from touring. Which is hard for me to reconcile because I don't like all the energy consumption, the travel. It's an ecological disaster, traveling, touring.
Yorke: Yeah. Especially in the US. Everybody drives. So how the hell are we going to address that (enviro impact of fans attending shows)? The idea is that we play in municipal places with some transport system alternative to cars. And minimize flying equipment, shipping everything. We can't be shipped, though.
that issue (16.01, Jan'08) also has a great article by byrne on the future of the music industry. his main point: digital distro isn't a threat, it presents increadible opportunity to all artists. instead of being stuck in one business model, he sketches out 6 that vary from full control by record company to complete freedom (self-distribution). a recommended read.
-
per NME the cities that Radiohead will be playing on the first leg of their US tour:
Atlanta
Boston
Charlotte
Chicago
Cleveland
Dallas
Houston
Indianapolis
Los Angeles
Miami
Montreal
New York
Philadelphia
San Diego
San Francisco
Santa Barbara
Seattle
St Louis
Tampa
Toronto
Vancouver
Washington DC
I'm assuming from the previous Thom Yorke interview, the "Washington D.C." date will be "Gallery Place/Chinatown" (http://www.nme.com/news/radiohead/33548)
Brian
-
I was thinking that too but really really really hope I'm wrong.
Originally posted by Brian Wallace:
per NME the cities that Radiohead will be playing on the first leg of their US tour:
Atlanta
Boston
Charlotte
Chicago
Cleveland
Dallas
Houston
Indianapolis
Los Angeles
Miami
Montreal
New York
Philadelphia
San Diego
San Francisco
Santa Barbara
Seattle
St Louis
Tampa
Toronto
Vancouver
Washington DC
I'm assuming from the previous Thom Yorke interview, the "Washington D.C." date will be "Gallery Place/Chinatown" (http://www.nme.com/news/radiohead/33548)
Brian
-
RFK might not be a bad place for the show, considering about every other location that could contain them (except for the god-forsaken verizon center) would not really fit the eco-friendly bill.
Originally posted by azaghal1981:
I was thinking that too but really really really hope I'm wrong.
Originally posted by Brian Wallace:
per NME the cities that Radiohead will be playing on the first leg of their US tour:
Atlanta
Boston
Charlotte
Chicago
Cleveland
Dallas
Houston
Indianapolis
Los Angeles
Miami
Montreal
New York
Philadelphia
San Diego
San Francisco
Santa Barbara
Seattle
St Louis
Tampa
Toronto
Vancouver
Washington DC
I'm assuming from the previous Thom Yorke interview, the "Washington D.C." date will be "Gallery Place/Chinatown" (http://www.nme.com/news/radiohead/33548)
Brian
[/b]
-
Hey, has anyone here seen "Festival Express?"
<img src="http://www.movieposter.com/posters/archive/main/32/MPW-16403" alt=" - " />
It's a documentary about when the Grateful Dead toured Canada in the 70's and traveled by TRAIN. Considering The Band and Janis Joplin were also on board, it would have been a GREAT film if at the end "HORRIBLE CANADIAN TRAIN CRASH CAUSES ALL SAID BANDS TO NEVER PERFORM AGAIN" but I digress.
Radiohead could do that. Errrm...there's the fossil fuel thing with coal but it's probably more eco-friendly than diesel trucks.
Or they could steal this idea from another British band and perform ON the train. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q22oGInO-uo&feature=related)
Brian
-
Originally posted by Brian Wallace:
Los Angeles
Santa Barbara
Seattle
I will call bullshit on their CO2 crap then because those three cities have some of the worst public transportation in America.
-
Originally posted by Brian Wallace:
Hey, has anyone here seen "Festival Express?"
Very cool movie. Excellent footage of prime-Dead, when Jerry was captain trips and not the more grandfatherly figure he came to be, and particularly memorable footage of Janis (best example of why she was so beloved I've seen). The footage on the train (esp. impromptu jam sessions) and offstage was very inciteful, and like the Last Waltz, I thought it effectively took you to the mindset of the moment.
-
Is carpooling to Bull Run considered eco-friendly?
-
Originally posted by Mobius:
Originally posted by Brian Wallace:
Hey, has anyone here seen "Festival Express?"
Very cool movie. Excellent footage of prime-Dead, when Jerry was captain trips and not the more grandfatherly figure he came to be, and particularly memorable footage of Janis (best example of why she was so beloved I've seen). The footage on the train (esp. impromptu jam sessions) and offstage was very inciteful, and like the Last Waltz, I thought it effectively took you to the mindset of the moment. [/b]
Any GGW sightings? I'm pretty sure he was there.
-
I definitely wouldn't mind RFK as much.
-
Originally posted by azaghal1981:
I definitely wouldn't mind RFK as much.
I'm not sure if they're booking concerts or just the Pope and baseball but the new stadium is supposed to be green. (http://www.washdcsports.com/newballpark/greenpark.html)
-
Originally posted by vansmack:
Originally posted by Brian Wallace:
Los Angeles
Santa Barbara
Seattle
I will call bullshit on their CO2 crap then because those three cities have some of the worst public transportation in America. [/b]
how dramatic. indeed, their ENTIRE claim to taking CO2 emissions as a consideration is a complete farce. 3 cities out of 20+... abject failure!
another factor the band indoubtedly is how far away people live from the venue. they don't want to play in the middle of a cornfield. they're trying to minimize impact, not completely overcome it.
-
Originally posted by Mobius:
Originally posted by Brian Wallace:
Hey, has anyone here seen "Festival Express?"
Very cool movie. Excellent footage of prime-Dead, when Jerry was captain trips and not the more grandfatherly figure he came to be, and particularly memorable footage of Janis (best example of why she was so beloved I've seen). The footage on the train (esp. impromptu jam sessions) and offstage was very inciteful, and like the Last Waltz, I thought it effectively took you to the mindset of the moment. [/b]
I couldn't agree more. Fantastic movie. The footage of them all just jamming on the train was terrific. I can never get enough Janis. Any footage of Pigpen is worth seeing. I need to watch this again. Thanks for the reminder.
I sat behind Ian MacKaye at the screening I went to. True story.
-
Ed O'Brien was on WRNR via telephone this morning and said the DC date will be in May.
-
Originally posted by sweetcell:
that issue (16.01, Jan'08) also has a great article by byrne on the future of the music industry. his main point: digital distro isn't a threat, it presents increadible opportunity to all artists. instead of being stuck in one business model, he sketches out 6 that vary from full control by record company to complete freedom (self-distribution). a recommended read.
finally online here (http://www.wired.com/entertainment/music/magazine/16-01/ff_byrne?currentPage=all)
-
because some threads never die...
in case you somehow missed the noise:
Download Amplive's Rainydayz Remixes (http://www.onesevensevensix.com/amplive/index.html), an 8-track collection featuring remixes of Radiohead's historic seventh album, In Rainbows. The songs are available in a zip file (MP3 @ 192 kbps) and feature verses courtesy of Too $hort, MC Zumbi of Zion I, Chali2na of Jurassic 5, and Del the Funky Homosapien.
it's a good album, i enjoyed my first listen. back in december wired (http://blog.wired.com/music/2007/12/in-rainbows-rem.html) claimed that you could get a 320 kbps copy by forwarding your receipt for the original In Rainbows - i've just tried that, i'll let you know if it works or if the offer has been rescinded.
Originally posted by azaghal1981:
I was thinking that too but really really really hope I'm wrong.
Originally posted by Brian Wallace:
I'm assuming from the previous Thom Yorke interview, the "Washington D.C." date will be "Gallery Place/Chinatown" (http://www.nme.com/news/radiohead/33548)
Brian
[/b]
bet now you wish you were right, huh?