What is Digg?Sponsored by Sony Pictures
Adam Lambert sings the 2012 theme song, “Time for Miracles” view!
whowillsurvive2012.com - Watch the Adam Lambert music video for the 2012 theme song. See 2012, in theaters Nov 13
129 Comments
- MAGZine, on 04/22/2008, -8/+66Followed suit? Not exactly. Reznor didn't run back to his label afterwards for continued support. Really, Reznor knows what he is doing, and is showing the industry how to kick it, (completely) label free.
- elpohl, on 03/27/2008, -1/+34Any nail, big or small, that is laid upon the RIAA's coffin needs to be applauded.
- quaunaut, on 03/27/2008, -3/+27I guess I wish Reznor wouldn't have insulted them so easily, but I have to agree with him. Not to mention, using 'traditional' means of distributing the album is actually a bit better for Radiohead's distribution label as they didn't have the fund the creation of the album, essentially removing any risk involved in it.
Though, I must say, the fact that everyone seems to consider Nine Inch Nail's 2 hour instrumental opus to not be a 'real' album is disturbing. This is like the people who would call old progressive albums EPs just because they had 5 songs, even though they would be upwards of 45 minutes to an hour long. - pokedex, on 03/27/2008, -9/+32This is essentially comparing someone who's truly vested himself in using his clout to test the true viability of an alternative model (that will hopefully work for others) versus a group that used it as smart gimmick to spark some super-effective, free advertising. One will potentially benefit an industry while the other doesn't really produce any useful, widely-applicable lessons. But I love them both. :-)
- harvested, on 03/27/2008, -4/+17a nine inch nail?
- Lathen, on 03/27/2008, -2/+14Whenever these debates pop up, everyone seems to forget that Reznor produced Saul Williams album Niggy Tardust and offered a FLAC version of it for only five dollars. Who is more innovative now?
- chthonicdark, on 03/27/2008, -1/+12The voting would be more accurate if they didn't show the results while you are voting...many will probably go for the popular vote without understanding the situation
- nodatax0, on 03/27/2008, -0/+8Agreed. Radiohead doesn't mean to get publicity when they do things like release an album online. In fact the band has quite the reputation for being modest, humble, and somewhat elusive.
- salmonmoose, on 03/27/2008, -1/+8I've been a NIN fan for an age (I was introduced at broken). One thing I've learnt is there are 3 groups of fans.
The ones who love everything.
The ones who love everything up to the point they discovered the band.
The ones who love a single era. - eitheror, on 03/27/2008, -1/+8Not that In Rainbows is Giant Steps or something, but its a good album.
- Lathen, on 03/27/2008, -2/+7"you'd really have something *****."
Fix'd.
Not a fan of InRainbows so I'm a bit biased. - Carthagefield, on 03/27/2008, -1/+6a la digg.
- kevyn, on 03/27/2008, -2/+7Radiohead didn't run back for support... they said all along that there would be a physical copy in the shops
- Carthagefield, on 03/27/2008, -2/+7Totally agree.
"Punk-Rock Factor"
Radiohead: 'Tamer than a koala teddy bear'
Reznor: 'Like, totally ass-kicking punk-rock dudes'
They've managed to turn this 'debate' into a nationalistic circle jerk. - fkr3, on 03/27/2008, -0/+4Nice rhetoric, but you missed the bit where there was no revolution, and open source developers *choose* whether they want to give their work away, and what license they wish to use. None of that is comparible to people downloading movies and music without paying for it.
- inactive, on 03/28/2008, -0/+4SO WHAT. People who post "FIRST!" have some weird ***** issues.
- danielman94, on 03/27/2008, -3/+7Am I the only one who thinks that Reznor is kinda a turd for calling Radiohead out on all these things? Yeah, Radiohead could have done it in better bitrate and stuff, but at least they did it for free and stuff. At least they did something that most other major bands wouldn't have done. I think Trent might just be a little sore because he didn't get as much publicity.
- hedphelym, on 03/27/2008, -1/+5I think that Radiohead had a good idea, but Trent was right when he said that they didn't pull it off effectively - As the download quailty of In Rainbows was MySpace quality, and it was basically advertising the better, physical release - As they said themselves. Trent is clearly the "leader" here in my view, his approach has been a great deal better for all involved, it's what Radiohead did, but 10 times better - Better for him, better for us - and in more ways. I applaud Radiohead for their "bravery", but I think that it's pretty obvious it wasnt as good for either them or us as it could have been - Trent has basically, for me, shown how an artist should release an album in todays climate at benefit to everyone involved, and at all levels - Even creatively, using the multirack files.
- stubadub, on 03/27/2008, -0/+3You've just about described the fans of (insert band name here).
- debrawelsh, on 03/27/2008, -1/+4Both great bands who get my full respect for what they have done over the last 6 months.
- CitizenSimplex, on 03/28/2008, -0/+3Amen to that. Transparency in your dealings with your fans should be expected of any honest artist. I was so wooed by the apparent intention of Radiohead's efforts that I jumped at the chance to give them money for the download. Had I known their intent to release a physical album anyway, and that my download was gonna be so low quality, I would have responded much differently. Probably by torrenting the damn thing. You know, like how Reznor even encouraged with the first volume of Ghosts.
- oblivionatm, on 03/27/2008, -2/+5Reznor wins, end of story.
- ronaldinho, on 03/27/2008, -0/+3Um, I think it's pretty much the same thing......
- CressCrowbits, on 03/27/2008, -2/+5I did some research. The results came in and said "you are an idiot".
- craigtmackenzie, on 03/27/2008, -2/+5the USB drives in bathrooms was part of the alternate reality game that coincided with the release of "year zero": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Zero_(alternate_ ...
- MisterNoMoniker, on 03/27/2008, -0/+3It helps by showing that people would be willing to download an album from a website instead of driving over to Wallmart.
It helps non-pre-established bands by showing avenues of promotion and distribution that are much cheaper can actually be effective. Meaning that someday, maybe, labels would promote and distribute many, many bands at low cost online, instead of dumping millions and millions on one or two 'stars' expecting us all to lap up the same old garbage. - CressCrowbits, on 03/27/2008, -1/+4Especially easy when you are an artist made wealthy and popular through the traditional record industry model who can afford to take a risk and know they'll get attention for it.
- bat-21, on 03/27/2008, -0/+3The first band to sell music downloads is Duran Duran. You could get "Electric Barbarella" for 99 cents in September 1997. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medazzaland#.22Electr ...
- c4171, on 03/27/2008, -1/+3I'm a pretty big ambient music fan. And I can still dig Ghosts. It's got some great moments, really organic beats and samples. It's quite enjoyable, especially for the price point.
Since when has someone had to "know how" to create instrumental music before making it? Do you only listen to musicians with degrees?
I'm glad he's getting away from the same old music attached with strings of clicheed, forced lyrics. Ghosts is far more interesting to me than most of "With Teeth"
Im curious as to what you would recommend?? - MisterNoMoniker, on 03/27/2008, -2/+4Smart Gimmick for free advertising? Come on, how cynical can you be?
I admit there shouldn't be a comparison here. Reznor is shooting for a paradigm shift, Radiohead isn't. I personally think the 'betrayal' comment was very dickish on Reznor's part. Radiohead isn't trying to play alterna-tech superhero here like he is. They just wanted to put out their album, label or no. File format and size were completely reasonable considering they didn't want their site to be destroyed and they didn't ask for a lot of money for it.
It's really unfair to impose your own agenda on someone and then criticize them for not living up to your ideals. - Pharamond2, on 03/31/2008, -0/+2The thing is, even if Radiohead is not the typical "corporation," they made a purported $2.4 to $10 million off of their fans good intentions, and that looks like corporate numbers to me. We are not only fans, we are all potentially paying clientele. And if you want your clientele to continue to act with good intentions (like paying when there are easily other options, like pirated torrents), then you as the entity that is providing the goods or services need to act with as good of intentions as you possibly can towards your fans/clientele. And that includes being forth-coming and transparent with how you plan on releasing your material whenever there's the possibility of money being exchanged.
Maybe Radiohead had no initial intention to deceive people with their lack of information on the release, but it was that they just assumed that the financial response wouldn't be that great and that the whole thing would just be a little something to boost sales of the "real" release. But when it started to become clear within a few days of how great the financial support of the project was turning out to be, then I think they maybe should have done a little upgrade for those who paid by quickly setting up a website that could handle larger downloads such as 320kb, FLAC, ALAC. And they could have easily put an update on the In Rainbows site stating how because of such a great show of financial support for the project, they were going to give those who paid a higher quality download, and that it might take a few days longer to make it work. That announcement would also give people the chance to decide if they wanted to pay or not. Reznor said it cost him $20 K to develop the website that distributed Ghosts, And he kept updating people on how things were going when there was trouble. Out of $2.4 mill, I think Radiohead could have easily afforded to do that. And I would have felt much more respected as a financial supporter of their music. But the fact that Radiohead didn't pony-up a little more to the fans once we showed such great financial support for the project - and basically said something that came-off as "if you paid a fair album price, then you screwed up and it's not our fault" - just made me feel like my support was not respected, and not wanted in the future. - rezzy333, on 03/27/2008, -0/+2ghosts is amazing, but it's only for a niche of music fans. Not like In Rainbows that has yet to let down anyone.
- neuromachine, on 03/27/2008, -0/+2Are you only saying that because of your bias towards NIN?
Either that, or you've got bad taste. - Pharamond2, on 03/31/2008, -0/+2No they did NOT say that there would be a physical release in stores all along. I was very excited about the In Rainbows release and ordered the download on the first day, like many other fans did who wanted to support a band they loved. There was ABSOLUTELY NOTHING on that site about there being any physical release other than the $80 box set. I know, because I searched every link on that site possible over and over again to find any info on a later physical release. Now, WELL AFTER the pre-order downloads had all happened, people had actually started to DL the album and discover it was only 160 kb (we all paid 10/2, got dl link 10/9), that nice 3-day chunk of cash had been made ($2.4 - $10 mill - they knew they had made a lot of $$$$ before the 9th), and people started going, "Ummmm...160 kb? WTF?" - THEN Radiohead started talking in public about a physical release in stores to happen later. Again, there was NO mention of the later physical release on the In Rainbows site.
- StuartGibson, on 06/14/2009, -1/+3I like it. Just because it isn't the head stomping non-stop adrenaline pound of PHM or Spiral (or even Year Zero for that matter) doesn't negate its charm. It is what it is, an instrumental album written while on tour without the cohesiveness that NIN normally have throughout an album. It is very relaxing in places, a good album for coding in a dark room. Track 1 especially harkens back to A Warm Place, one of my favourite pieces of Trent's output. That's one of the reasons I love NIN so much, the variety of sound produced.
- nodatax0, on 03/27/2008, -0/+2I'm not so sure I understand why articles keep getting published trying to put reznor against radiohead. People seem to be arguing for the sake of having an argument over which band can be less traditional with their distribution methods. I think the bottom line here is that both bands had very good, but different ideas of what they wanted to do with their albums. But all that aside, radiohead has announced US tour dates, and that my digg friends brings me joy.
- Pharamond2, on 03/27/2008, -0/+2BTW....."Saul Williams deserves to be recognized for taking an incredible risk, and producing an outstanding piece of art, that is still available for download, and has not been sold to out to major music labels."
I agree. - directrix13, on 03/27/2008, -0/+2By providing a use case. BTW, if they are "struggling" then they probably should look for a different line of work. I have read many accounts of non-mainstream bands letting people pay whatever they want online. Its all about selling yourself as an artist that depends on your supporters. Even people who play music on the street can make a pretty good amount of money.
- Pharamond2, on 03/27/2008, -1/+3For the whole "ZOMG!!! RADIOHEAD/NIN I SOOO MUCH BETTER THAN NIN/RADIOHEAD" thing - I'm fan of both bands, and I got really excited over In Rainbows before it came out, and I like it, but I can't get myself to love it. I've listened to it over and over thinking it just needs to sink in (like Kid A), but I'm still like, 'OK...that's kind of nice." eh. And of course I was really excited over Ghosts, and when I first listened I was like, "WTF is this hippie *****?" lol. But I've always thought "WTF?" every time I hear a new nin album, and then they really sink in after time. And I'd say I was "WTF?" with the first, "hmmm...this is pretty cool" with the second, and "I totally ***** love this *****" by the third. And I still love it. I'm trying with In Rainbows, because I know it's supposed to be so good that it will cure world hunger and grow hair on bald guys heads, but I just can't seem to get excited over it, and I want to.
And this has nothing to do with the quality of the albums or whether or not you like Radiohead or nin better, but I paid around $10 for the IR download right away because I wanted to support the artist - which good fans want to do - and I was a little irked when it turned out to be 160 kb. And we did NOT find this out until we got our DL link, and there was nothing on the site at the time explaining that it was only 160 kb or that there was definitely going to be a physical release. The only mention of a physical release was the expensive box set. But when I read that Radiohead's management said that the "pay what you like" thing was really just a marketing thing for the physical album, I actually felt cheated. I felt like I had done something good to support an artist I believe in with their endevors to free themselves (and potentially pave the way for others) from the record labels by paying what I thought was a fair price for an album, and then I get told that my efforts were really not to be taken seriously and that it was a marketing thing and that they were lucky to have made so much money off of it.. It made me feel like I was being laughed at. Maybe Radiohead themselves misjudged how much people wanted to support them, and they never intended on duping people into paying for an album-quality product, but they should have maybe said as much and have not sent their management out to say that it was all a marketing scheme for an album that was going to be released via the old channels. I just really felt insulted by that, and as such, I have NOT bought the physical album as of yet. - Pharamond2, on 03/27/2008, -0/+2Trent didn't "call Radiohead out" to get promotion, the INTERVIEWER asked him his opinion on the RH release to get HIS ARTICLE promotion. As all these Reznor vs. Radiohead articles are doing now. I know that initially Trent told everyone on his fan site blog to go and support Radiohead if they were RH fans by paying for the download. TR has many times said how much of a Radiohead fan he is. Then I think he mentioned something briefly in an interview about how he was a little confused about RH's management coming out and saying it was a marketing tactic. Well, that interviewer knew he had interview gold because if you ask Reznor how he really feels about something, that sob will tell you EXACTLY what he feels about something. So he posed the question to TR about what he felt about how Readiohead released IR, and Trent said what he thought was good about it, and what he thought was bad about it. Reznor has NEVER had a problem with, ummm, holding back too much. And this interviewer was banking on that fact. And I seriously doubt he would insult a band he has so often said he admires so he could promote his album more. It's the online sites jockeying for hits - and our desire to fall in line and watch the smack down - that are fueling this "debate." Shame on the sites, and shame on us.
- BlackStar77, on 03/27/2008, -1/+3I'm really fed up of these 'blowjob' articles, which seem specifically created to satisfy the average digg nerd. Also, Radiohead didn't use their downloading service as a publicity stunt to get free advertising. They've stated that in multiple interviews.
- Walkboss, on 03/27/2008, -1/+3I don't like most of Pretty Hate Machine. Broken is good. The Downward Spiral and The Fragile are masterpieces. With Teeth is good. Year Zero is decent. Ghosts is superb.
Where do I fall in your categories? - acidpolly, on 03/27/2008, -0/+2I'm really bored with all endless digging of articles opposing NIN and Radiohead. Both brilliant bands, one is just much smarter in questions of digital distribution, ok, right, but enough! This article - even not the article itself but this voting there - is crap, I was surprised that it appeared in Wired. And it's a pain to see fans of two great bands starting feeling anger against each other just for nothing. I don't see any reason to incite it. So stop digging ***** like that for god sake. Enjoy the music.
- Namesbond, on 04/03/2008, -0/+1I love Nine Inch Nails and everything Trent is doing or has done. In Rainbows is the first time I have ever enjoyed Radiohead. In Rainbows is a quality album regardless of whether this was a gimmick. Everyone needs to look at the history of Nine Inch Nails. All the marketing for Year Zero and the fact that he is cool enough to do a Doom soundtrack. He also supports a drm free store being Amazon.
- godzillaWax, on 03/27/2008, -0/+1Really? Where do you think the title 'Hail To The Thief' came from? Why do you think the Beta Band quit touring with Radiohead? Radiohead started outright stealing baselines and melodies from the Beta Band while on tour, to the point that the BB came out publicly and said Radiohead was stealing their *****. But most in the music press revere Radiohead too much as gods to be bothered to follow up on this.
- amhx147, on 03/27/2008, -1/+2Nope. You're not.
- MisterNoMoniker, on 03/27/2008, -0/+1Honestly I think you're full of *****.
Can you post and links or sources? I was a huge fan of the BetaBand and was very sad to see them split up, and was following press of them when they were on tour together. (Although their show together in Virginia I was going to see was rained out) Everything I read was that they had a great time together and Thom Yorke would actually even help carry amps and guitars on stage since the Beta Band didn't have enough roadies. I caught the BetaBand after the tour in Boston and heard nothing but good tidings about the tour from their stage banter.
So, seriously, where are you getting this *****? Google's giving me nothing like what you're saying. - Carthagefield, on 03/27/2008, -0/+1Heh, that's true enough. I was making a point though that Wired have been less than objective while pretending to play referee.
- fkr3, on 03/27/2008, -1/+2Time is abstract. Perhaps your boss should stop compensating you for the time you spend working for him? If *he* wants to pay you then he's free to pay you. Oh right, it's only other people that should work for free, not you.
- Namesbond, on 04/03/2008, -0/+1With Teeth and Year Zero did not suck. I hope Nine Inch Nails never stop making music.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 129 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is