Oh no! I find myself wondering if it's worth $9 to me. That makes me feel old. Well then of course I'll get it. Oh wait, getting it just to not feel old is really oldish huh? Oh Radiohead, why did you have to wait so long? Why no more name your price? And why, when I get down to it, did I really find the last (two) album(s) so disappointing? Oh, maybe that last one's on me. Remember how great the downward spiral was, and then by the time the next thing came around remember how I didn't care anymore? Radiohead - nin'd? Oh well, let us know how it is Craig.
WAV? Really? I don't get why anyone distributes uncompressed lossless files. The fact that they're charging $14 for wav files makes me feel like they are the ones that are old and out of touch. I don't mind the lack of NYOP, but I'm not spending 9 bucks for mp3s.
In Rainbows had some great spots, but really didn't wow me overall. I had to laugh when an article mentioned that they should have gotten the Grammy that year.
WAV? Really? I don't get why anyone distributes uncompressed lossless files.
It's probably grandstanding - they're trying to get people to believe the recording itself is high-end enough that there's a noticeable quality difference, even between that and 320 Mbps. And who knows, maybe it is!
You have to give them credit for understanding the internet distribution problem in general, though. They keep tight internal control over the files (and don't even publish a track-listing) until a precise moment, at which point they know the whole thing is going to end up on various torrent sites and blogs almost immediately. But they could have a system in place for watermarking or at least tagging all copies individually - the torrenters just won't know until they've compared versions, and the time it takes to do that might easily give Radiohead an extra couple of days of monopolizing the supply, plus it's a built-in FUD mechanism against non-legal downloaders. That could be worth tens of thousands of dollars/pounds for a band like that - maybe even hundreds of thousands.
I'll admit that came out a bit glib, but I hope it's at least vaguely understandishable...
Watermarking is a hopeless quest, which the recording industry had to learn the hard way. They stayed out of digital distribution for years while trying to devise a watermarking system. Every time they came up with a system, it was defeated in days. Here's what the recording industry failed to grasp for so long: In order for the watermarking to work, it has to be detectable. If I can detect when the watermark is there, I can determine what to do to make the watermark unreadable.
If Radiohead really understood music and the internet they'd have leaked tracks to get the excitement up.
Maybe it's a really terrible album, so that if they were to leak (or give away) tracks in advance, it would have the opposite effect...? Interesting question.
I agree that practically any sort of watermarking, tagging, or other version-differentiating scheme is easily defeatable, but again, even if it buys them only a couple of days, that could conceivably be worth a lot of money to them. Or, they might just be trying to prove a point, though I'm not so sure what the point is - if they're basically saying to the music-consuming public that they're convinced there are only two ways to distribute recorded music these days that are worth any effort at all by an act like them (namely, unleaked MP3s for the short period prior to widespread pirating, plus highly-packaged collectable artifacts for hardcore fans), then that's kind of arrogant, isn't it? Even if it turns out to be true.
If Radiohead really understood music and the internet they'd have leaked tracks to get the excitement up.
I disagree here - they're one of the biggest bands out there, and I think it immediately impresses everyone that they managed to spring a full album on people with no warning - that bumps up the curiosity and excitement factor at least as much as if enticing tracks had been leaked, imo.
To me, it seems like Radiohead is experimenting with the system. For their last album, they went NYOP and you could hear the album streaming everywhere. Now, perhaps, they're positioning themselves at the opposite extreme. I like that they're willing to take chances to find the model that works best for them. Perhaps other bands/musicians can learn from that.
I am looking forward to the album. There's never been a Radiohead album I didn't enjoy, though Amnesiac is the only one that I went gaga over. However, I have purchased them all.
@Scissorman - I'm fine with the option to go above 320kbps, it's the fact that they're using WAV. This is 2011, they haven't heard of FLAC? Or even one of Apple's formats? It's like with In Rainbows when the digital distribution was set at 160kbps - seriously?
I like they're music, but they annoy the crap out of me as a band.
Kid A is probably my least favorite of the post-OK Computer sound. I know I'm in the minority for lofting Amnesiac up into the top spot; most have Kid A up there. I believe a big criticism of Amnesiac is that it lacks the edge and tension of Kid A, and this is a big reason I enjoy it so much and don't listen to Kid A anymore.
Here's the official King of Limbs website. I haven't seen a price for the regular disc yet (I'm assuming that's what you want, the super duper deluxe version is $48).
Interestingly, Amnesiac is probably my least favorite of their albums. Never could get into it. Kid A on the other hand....
Kid A is probably my least favorite of the post-OK Computer sound. I know I'm in the minority for lofting Amnesiac up into the top spot; most have Kid A up there. I believe a big criticism of Amnesiac is that it lacks the edge and tension of Kid A, and this is a big reason I enjoy it so much and don't listen to Kid A anymore.
This is funny to me because I'd have a hard time picking between the two as a favorite, but if I was picking it would definitely be one of the two. Although lately I seem to have a really hard time getting into any Radiohead. Maybe I overplayed them at the time?
Comments
In Rainbows had some great spots, but really didn't wow me overall. I had to laugh when an article mentioned that they should have gotten the Grammy that year.
You have to give them credit for understanding the internet distribution problem in general, though. They keep tight internal control over the files (and don't even publish a track-listing) until a precise moment, at which point they know the whole thing is going to end up on various torrent sites and blogs almost immediately. But they could have a system in place for watermarking or at least tagging all copies individually - the torrenters just won't know until they've compared versions, and the time it takes to do that might easily give Radiohead an extra couple of days of monopolizing the supply, plus it's a built-in FUD mechanism against non-legal downloaders. That could be worth tens of thousands of dollars/pounds for a band like that - maybe even hundreds of thousands.
I'll admit that came out a bit glib, but I hope it's at least vaguely understandishable...
If Radiohead really understood music and the internet they'd have leaked tracks to get the excitement up.
I agree that practically any sort of watermarking, tagging, or other version-differentiating scheme is easily defeatable, but again, even if it buys them only a couple of days, that could conceivably be worth a lot of money to them. Or, they might just be trying to prove a point, though I'm not so sure what the point is - if they're basically saying to the music-consuming public that they're convinced there are only two ways to distribute recorded music these days that are worth any effort at all by an act like them (namely, unleaked MP3s for the short period prior to widespread pirating, plus highly-packaged collectable artifacts for hardcore fans), then that's kind of arrogant, isn't it? Even if it turns out to be true.
I am looking forward to the album. There's never been a Radiohead album I didn't enjoy, though Amnesiac is the only one that I went gaga over. However, I have purchased them all.
jonahpwll - Interestingly, Amnesiac is probably my least favorite of their albums. Never could get into it. Kid A on the other hand....
Craig
I like they're music, but they annoy the crap out of me as a band.
Kid A is probably my least favorite of the post-OK Computer sound. I know I'm in the minority for lofting Amnesiac up into the top spot; most have Kid A up there. I believe a big criticism of Amnesiac is that it lacks the edge and tension of Kid A, and this is a big reason I enjoy it so much and don't listen to Kid A anymore.
fun fact: my high-school debate partner apparently invented the digital watermark.
how much is the physical product for the radiohead disc? i've seen varying accounts (in us dollars, at least).
This is funny to me because I'd have a hard time picking between the two as a favorite, but if I was picking it would definitely be one of the two. Although lately I seem to have a really hard time getting into any Radiohead. Maybe I overplayed them at the time?