 |
|
 |
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Kizzume
Site Admin
Joined: 31 Dec 1969
Posts: 2832
Location: Tacoma, WA USA
|
 Posted: Thu Dec 06, 2007 5:21 pm Post subject: In Rainbows was a limited offer? |
 |
|
I just got an email from info@waste.uk.com that contained this:
| Quote: | FAREWELL TO IN RAINBOWS DOWNLOAD AREA
We also thought you'd like to know that the download area that is 'In Rainbows' will be
shutting its doors on the 10th December so if you've not yet downloaded,
here is the place to go www.inrainbows.com
The discbox will still be available at w.a.s.t.e. until they have all gone. We then have no plans to make further stock. |
??? I'm confused. This was just a temporary experiment? They weren't keeping that business model? What are they going to do now? Are they going to try to get back with a label? Why did they decide to stop? Are they breaking up? What's going on?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
jq
Joined: 02 Dec 2007
Posts: 1124
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 06, 2007 5:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I thought you already knew about this; it was more or less a publicity stunt, according to them. They are signing a temporary contract with a record company which will basically work as its distributor. Radiohead will still retain all rights on their music, and their contract on the distribution is only temporary, but it will be going into stores. I can't remember where I read this-- I am sure you could google it. Basically they said something to the effect of "we knew all along that we were going to put this on CD" or something like that.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jq
Joined: 02 Dec 2007
Posts: 1124
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 06, 2007 5:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
A little disappointing, although I'd say the most disappointing thing to the people who paid for the download is that they paid for 160 kbps, whereas the CD that they are later distritubing will be in full.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kizzume
Site Admin
Joined: 31 Dec 1969
Posts: 2832
Location: Tacoma, WA USA
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 06, 2007 5:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I thought it was 192?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jq
Joined: 02 Dec 2007
Posts: 1124
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 08, 2007 1:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kizzume wrote: | | I thought it was 192? |
Afraid not. Go ahead and double check it, but I am positive it is a meager 160.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kizzume
Site Admin
Joined: 31 Dec 1969
Posts: 2832
Location: Tacoma, WA USA
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 08, 2007 2:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I guess you're right. They deceived my ears--it sounded like 192. They must have used a really superb encoder.
It's still strange to me that they did this only as a gimmick. At least they made money from it. Now if the record labels want to grab everything from it, it won't really matter because Radiohead has already made something from it beforehand.
No matter what, it has made people look at and question things they weren't previously. 
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jq
Joined: 02 Dec 2007
Posts: 1124
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 08, 2007 2:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kizzume wrote: | I guess you're right. They deceived my ears--it sounded like 192. They must have used a really superb encoder.
It's still strange to me that they did this only as a gimmick. At least they made money from it. Now if the record labels want to grab everything from it, it won't really matter because Radiohead has already made something from it beforehand.
No matter what, it has made people look at and question things they weren't previously. |
Indeed, but also, keep in mind that the record label won't be taking it all in this contract. Again...don't know (or have the chance right now to check) where I got my information, but from what I understand it is only a temporary contract through a record label that is working purely as a distributor. That means-- no advertisements by that record company (but rather by radiohead themselves if they want) but also that there are less overhead costs and NO STUDIO COSTS, which is a definite plus. IF you consider that a lot of bands let their record label decide their studio and their producer, you see where a lot of the cost comes from *(they don't offer a discount to their own artists, so their artists DO have to pay back studio time reflective in their CD commissin.)
So if you consider:
no studio costs
reduced overhead
no advertising by the label they are going through
you can faithfully assume that Radiohead will be making somewhere between $3.50-$7 PER CD, which would be completely 100% unheard of in the tradtional market.
Of course, that means they have to cover THEIR OWN studio costs (but they probably have their own arrangements) and THEIR OWN advertising costs (but they don't have to spend much because the press alraedy gives them a lot of coverage.)
But keep in mind that this also means that they have TOTAL LICENSE and control over their music. The contract on their new cd expires-- their ownership of their own material doesn't. It is really a sweet arrangement, and is something hopefully a lot of bands will follow in the future.
NOTED:
Saul Williams plans on going through the same company to put his CD in stores some time next year
Trent Reznor is considering going through the same people in order to release Year Zero pt 2 into a physical copy without going through a record label.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jq
Joined: 02 Dec 2007
Posts: 1124
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 08, 2007 2:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
*Excuse me, I mean so that he doesn't have to go through a traditional record label*
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kizzume
Site Admin
Joined: 31 Dec 1969
Posts: 2832
Location: Tacoma, WA USA
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 08, 2007 2:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yeah, that's quite the nice setup. I do hope other bands start to take this route.
With the availability and ease of home studios, making a decent investment in some equipment pretty much gives them their studio, and if they already know how to work that equipment, they have it made. What a wonderful position to be in.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jq
Joined: 02 Dec 2007
Posts: 1124
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 08, 2007 3:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kizzume wrote: | Yeah, that's quite the nice setup. I do hope other bands start to take this route.
With the availability and ease of home studios, making a decent investment in some equipment pretty much gives them their studio, and if they already know how to work that equipment, they have it made. What a wonderful position to be in. |
Yeah. You don't have to be rich, really. If I had $2,000 or so I could easily finish my 'studio'.
All you need is protools, an mbox, reason, some effects pedals, and then ur own instruments.
Or I suppose renoise would work. (I wouldn' know but I know you use it
My only setback right now is really the instruments, lol. $150 guitar from 4 years ago is not holding up well at all. Neither is my $50 bass, or my banged up PERFORMANCE mic. lol.
But I still feel that even I make do pretty good compared to what it would have been like in the old skool dayz.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jq
Joined: 02 Dec 2007
Posts: 1124
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 08, 2007 4:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I have to be honest though. As much as I like Radiohead in headphones or on my stereo, their visual element completely kills them for me. I was visiting my parents yesterday and they have on demand. On on demand there is a 25 minute concert of radiohead from just recently performing new songs, etc.
Musically, it is great.
Visually, Radiohead is totally suckass.
I have to admit, the visuals are the deal breaker for me. I realize music is mostly about SOUND, but I do believe their is a visual element that comes with it. This is part of why people dug records so much as oppose to CDs-- bigger artwork.
I am not asking them to have a bunch of choreographed moves or anything. But the Nine Inch Nails performances, by contrast, are soooo much better. The lighting, the theatrics, the intensity.
Radiohead reminded me of when I saw The Shins live. *thumbs down.*
Whereas I was hoping they would have a live presence like Dredg. (Dredg, which has some EXCELLENT studio work, also has some very mediocre studio work. I would have never got into them. But I happened to go with some friends to see them live one night, and it changed everything. They were true performers. It was surreal. And it brought my respect level for them up several notches.)
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kizzume
Site Admin
Joined: 31 Dec 1969
Posts: 2832
Location: Tacoma, WA USA
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 08, 2007 8:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jq wrote: | I have to be honest though. As much as I like Radiohead in headphones or on my stereo, their visual element completely kills them for me. I was visiting my parents yesterday and they have on demand. On on demand there is a 25 minute concert of radiohead from just recently performing new songs, etc.
Musically, it is great.
Visually, Radiohead is totally suckass.
I have to admit, the visuals are the deal breaker for me. I realize music is mostly about SOUND, but I do believe their is a visual element that comes with it. This is part of why people dug records so much as oppose to CDs-- bigger artwork.
I am not asking them to have a bunch of choreographed moves or anything. But the Nine Inch Nails performances, by contrast, are soooo much better. The lighting, the theatrics, the intensity.
Radiohead reminded me of when I saw The Shins live. *thumbs down.*
Whereas I was hoping they would have a live presence like Dredg. (Dredg, which has some EXCELLENT studio work, also has some very mediocre studio work. I would have never got into them. But I happened to go with some friends to see them live one night, and it changed everything. They were true performers. It was surreal. And it brought my respect level for them up several notches.) |
For me, if the music is good, I don't need any visuals at all. If the music is okay, some visuals are nice. If the music sucks, they better have some good visuals or I'm leaving. 
I imagine you probably wouldn't have done well at concerts before the 80's. When I see footage of bands from the 70's and 60's now--it's usually just a room with a couple lights pointed on them, Broadway style.
To me, album covers/jackets are something totally different than what someone puts on visually at a show. Some of the most intense artwork on albums came from groups that didn't put any sort of visual show on at all at a concert.
If one can afford the visuals, it would be best to have them. I see no reason why they couldn't have had something going on.
The one thing that has always struck me about Radiohead is that they seem completely like a studio-based band.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jq
Joined: 02 Dec 2007
Posts: 1124
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 08, 2007 9:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kizzume wrote: | | The one thing that has always struck me about Radiohead is that they seem completely like a studio-based band. |
I will have to agree. Steely Dan is the same way for me.
As for concerts before the 80s, I am not sure I would dislike them. There is a lot of footage from David Bowie performances in the 70s that I love. And while often Jim Morrison was too high to perform, I've seen a lot of footage that was very worthwhile.
When I speak of visual element, I am not necessarily talking about lights, or videos, or backdrops, though sometimes those definitely add to the experience. I am also referring to the performances. I believe that there are people who just don't perform well, or seem interesting while they do it. In my opinion, some bands just lack intensity and fire outside of the studio, and that lack of fire, and showmanship ruins the music for me.
An great example would be when I saw John PIzzareilli live. He is a jazz guitarist, and certainly had no backdrops or special lighting. The first two groups who came before him-- I WAS SO DAMN BORED. I was thinking "why did I ever agree to come here with my friend?"
Then Pirzzarelli came on, and he performed like I have rarely seen. It was one of the best performances I have ever experienced. While his musicianship is top notch, he also had a visual element-- he really performed. He was charismatic, funny, and had a real fire. A real....presence.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kizzume
Site Admin
Joined: 31 Dec 1969
Posts: 2832
Location: Tacoma, WA USA
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 08, 2007 9:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm probably more of one of the studio-ish kind of guys. If I'm not having to do anything other than vocals, I can do pretty good--certainly better than what I've seen from Thom Yorke or whatever his name is who always looks like he just did some heroin or something--but if I'm having to sing and play keys at the same time, my visual intensity goes out the window. I just can't multitask that many things and put on any sort of visual performance.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jq
Joined: 02 Dec 2007
Posts: 1124
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 08, 2007 9:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm a studio guy too. I mean, I feel like I can put on a good visual show (I was fairly recognized at my high school for my music videos for the songs I did) HOWEVER, where I fail is in the singing.
To put it another way: In the studio, I can redo vocals where I went flat, wasn't loud enough, etc. Outside of the studio, not so much  .
Speaking of which, do you have any tips for staying in tune while singing? I wouldn't know if there would be any or not...?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
| |
|
