digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

See the original image at wired.com

Reznor vs. Radiohead: Innovation Smackdown

wired.com — Radiohead and Nine Inch Nails have been taking turns giving the music industry the finger. The British band made headlines last October for releasing In Rainbows without the support (read: control) of a record label, and Trent Reznor's group followed suit with last month's Ghosts I-IV.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • frrs, on 03/27/2008, -24/+0No comments, front page D:
    • anillop, on 03/27/2008, -3/+4moron
    • SoxSweepAgain, on 03/28/2008, -0/+4SO WHAT. People who post "FIRST!" have some weird ***** issues.
  • 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. :-)
    • MisterNoMoniker, on 03/27/2008, -2/+3Smart 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.
      • ratzmoose, on 03/28/2008, -0/+2I don't think Reznor was being dickish. I felt a bit cheated by Radiohead's part, they never made it clear that there was going to be any physical album besides the disc box set. I know they said in interviews but I don't recall on the In Rainbows site saying that there was going to be a CD release. If the group was truly sincere about the online release they should of offered pre-order for a physical album or a statement saying there is going to be a physical album in the future on the site. Instead it left people who did not want to spend the $80 for the disc box but still wanting to PAY for their music with a low quality download option without any knowledge of a physical release in the near future. To me Radiohead's release hurt paying consumers more then anything, since some people have now ended up paying for the album twice.
      • 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.
        • MisterNoMoniker, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1"Transparency in your dealings" Jeez, it's a band guys, not a corporation. What did you expect the website to tell you? There were only like 20 words on the whole site. The download page as I recall only said "Pay what you want".
          If you found out about the release from any other source on the internet it should have mentioned the eventual CD release; and what's stopping you from torrenting a higher quality file now that it is released?
        • 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.
  • quomen, on 03/27/2008, -33/+8This comment is neither insightful nor humorous, but will manage to receive many diggs.
    • MAGZine, on 04/22/2008, -7/+5Digg him neutral, and all but he shall be victorious.
    • BirdCatcher, on 03/27/2008, -8/+2No sir, in fact, you have failed.
    • craprock, on 03/27/2008, -1/+2Don't tell me what to do.
  • 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.
    • ChooChoo3000, on 03/27/2008, -13/+6It's not that hard to make a ***** album of instrumentals and then release it on your own. People do it everyday. It is, however, much harder to make a superb album, and then take a big gamble by releasing it on your own knowing that any label on the planet would gladly put it out.
      • 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.
    • 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
      • 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.
      • spiralout123, on 04/07/2008, -0/+1NIN has a physical copy of ghosts too, but no label
    • Sp4rker, on 03/27/2008, -2/+3Trent Reznor laughs at radioheads attempt to arrive in the present. HOW? He published Ghosts under a Creative Commons License !!1!1!!!11!! w000t!1!!1 OMGWTFBBQ!!!

      http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/u ...

      It is legal to share this album anywhere on the planet!
      Read that again.
      You can share, alter, and share the result, and it's all O.K. Share as you like. Free as in Freedom.

      Now why is nobody talking about this? I mean if you´re talking ***** TEH RIAA...
  • m4csrgh3yk3v, on 03/27/2008, -8/+410 years ago, we had the information revolution, where plenty of people needed to adapt or be run over. Information became free. The information kept flowing. We also had open source. Software became free. That free software kept flowing.

    We now have a content revolution. Content will be free. The content will keep flowing. This transition period will see many persecuted as the law catches up.
    • 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.
      • CressCrowbits, on 03/27/2008, -1/+1Quite. M4cs...etc - how do you expect musicians to make a living?
        • m4csrgh3yk3v, on 03/27/2008, -1/+1Musicians may expect to make a living. I expect nothing on behalf of the musicians. I can expect to make a living selling lawn clippings, but society doesn't owe me a damned thing. Nobody should care about expectation.

          If *I* want musicians to make a living, I am free to support them. Just like Radiohead when it is confident for support for something it is giving away for free.

          There is and always has been music and musicians, from the banging of sticks onwards. 100 years of cutting records does not define music.

          The ownership of something abstract is lunacy. If technology was sufficiently advanced to monitor your thoughts, would you have to pay royalties for remembering a song?
          • 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.
          • m4csrgh3yk3v, on 03/28/2008, -2/+1He can, and I will decide not to work. He is free to make the offer to pay me, I am free to accept. If I don't perform, he is free to no longer pay me, and I am free to leave.

            He does not *own* that time. For example, if I slack off at work, should he claim theft? I've *stolen* from his company!

            Remember. People work for free. Artists work for free. Software engineers work for free. If we want more we can pay them. If we don't pay them enough, then we have ourselves to blame. This has nothing to do with theft or the law.
      • m4csrgh3yk3v, on 03/27/2008, -0/+1I disagree.
        Microsoft give away content every day when somebody pirates their software. That they expect protection from the law for their abstract commodity is irrelevant. I brought up information and software to illustrate that they exist and are being created even though they are obtainable for free.
        You must recognise how arbitrary you are being about protecting these abstract things which require work. I can work for years learning how to factorize prime numbers, solve global warming or foster a relationship with a woman. Should I own those abstract things too? You are violating copyright when you sing happy birthday. According to you, somebody owns your birthday. If I cure cancer, I don't own that. Sorry.

        IP and copyright are a historical anomaly of the last hundred years. Wake up.
  • elpohl, on 03/27/2008, -1/+33Any nail, big or small, that is laid upon the RIAA's coffin needs to be applauded.
    • harvested, on 03/27/2008, -4/+17a nine inch nail?
    • pokedex, on 03/27/2008, -6/+0allyourmusicarebelongtous.com
    • CressCrowbits, on 03/27/2008, -6/+0Even if the nail is pointy at both ends?

      I have no idea if that analogy makes any sense.
  • bryano, on 03/27/2008, -16/+1Buried as inaccurate for "giving the music industry the finger".
    More like ... ***** THE RIAA !!!
    • ronaldinho, on 03/27/2008, -0/+2Um, I think it's pretty much the same thing......
  • BirdCatcher, on 03/27/2008, -9/+2kjhj
  • quaunaut, on 03/27/2008, -3/+26I 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.
    • 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.
      • stubadub, on 03/27/2008, -0/+3You've just about described the fans of (insert band name here).
      • 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?
    • nemrel, on 03/27/2008, -3/+2I'm a huge fan of NIN. But I just can't get into Ghosts. I am interested in seeing how the film festival with YouTube is gonna end up.

      But regardless of Ghost being a real album or not, it is the new model NIN sees for their future. I just don't see Trent backing down when Year Zero Part II comes out and saying that it won't be priced in a similar fashion or that it will only be available on cd's or in drm format. Thankfully Trent gets it!
    • MisterNoMoniker, on 03/27/2008, -0/+1I don't think the argument is that Ghost is "not a real album", the point people are trying to make here is that it's not an album that would be very well marketed in the traditional RIAA system. Double albums and instrumental music are just not "big sellers" in the Wallmart market and Reznor definitely would have faced more resistance than if it were 10 tracks of 3 minute songs. Conversely, Radiohead's new album is arguably MORE radio friendly than their last few releases, which would be a little salt in the wound of the labels that were being circumvented.
  • Reisr3, on 03/27/2008, -7/+7This article is obviously biased.
    • 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.
      • MisterNoMoniker, on 03/27/2008, -0/+1Wasn't this debate just a circle jerk to begin with?
        • 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.
  • davincid, on 03/27/2008, -5/+2Couldn't bring myself to vote Reznor for any of them on account of being such a big fan. oops.
    Agree with general consensus. Applause to both of them for making roads to a fair and sustainable model for music distribution.
    • CressCrowbits, on 03/27/2008, -3/+0How exactly have they done that?

      All these models have acheived is allow artists who've already been made rich and popular by the traditional record industry model to make more money for themselves.

      How does it help new and struggling artists?
      • 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.
      • 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.
      • 4nunca33, on 04/05/2008, -0/+0see: the bastard fairies
  • leg3L, on 03/27/2008, -3/+3Both influential and innovative. Everything else in this is rubbish.
  • eitheror, on 03/27/2008, -17/+12Well....I mean, are we really accusing Radiohead of playing a trick on people. Its not like they're taking the music back or something. No one said Wilco was playing a trick on us when Yankee Hotel Foxtrot was streamed online for free. Radiohead was simply saying "Here, you can have this, its our album and no, its not 180g audiophile pressing of the record, but its not bad and its free. If you want that vinyl, we'll offer that to you later." Is that really dishonest?

    Lets also not forget that Ghosts is an incredibly lame album. As much as Reznor seems to think he know something about creating instrumental music, he doesn't. Maybe Radiohead isn't innovating the way they distribute their music, but they've been innovating the way they play music and that is much much more important.

    Seriously, if you thought Ghosts I-IV was good, let me recommend you something better. Its not a good album.
    • davidgoodchild, on 03/27/2008, -8/+1The problem is that "In Rainbows" was rubbish too though.
    • Goblin, on 03/27/2008, -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.
      • eitheror, on 03/27/2008, -1/+0Yeah....their other albums aren't great either.

        Seriously Ghosts is not good. I'm not saying that because its not "non-stop adrenaline"....I'm saying that because its sounds like someone's music theory 101 homework, not because of its lack of over-driven guitars.

        Having made the whole album while on tour isn't exactly an excuse either as most of the sessions to Wilco's A Ghost Is Born were done on tour....come to think of it, most great records were developed on tour. I mean, A Love Supreme, The Shape Of Jazz To Come....needless to say, a lot of great music was dreamt up while on tour.

        Try listening to Wayne Shorter's "Beyond The Sound Barrier" or maybe something from Sonic Youth's SYR series.....or for something with a few lyrics Loose Fur's self titled record.
    • 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??
      • eitheror, on 03/27/2008, -0/+0Hmmmm....maybe I should have rephrased that...I didn't mean to say "know how" I mean to say someone who is willing to put a little bit, if only a little bit, of passion into their music. So, as requested, here are some more recommendations.

        Jim O'Rourke "Bad Timing", Sonic Youth "SYR, Vol. 1", Happy Apple "Youth Oriented", Sonny Rollins "The Bridge", Charlie Haden "Not In Our Name", Ornette Coleman "Change Of The Century", Brad Mehldau "Day Is Done", Chris Potter "Traveling Mercies", David Torn "Prezens", Dexter Gordon "One Flight Up", Gastr Del Sol "The Harp Factory On Lake Street", Powerhouse Sound "Oslo/Chicago Breaks", Joe Henderson "Live In Japan", Nels Cline Singers "Draw Breath"......these records are all wildly better than Ghosts and there are, let me assure you, many many more in the category of being better than Ghosts I-IV.
    • 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.
  • Waredgo, on 03/27/2008, -11/+8I'm listening to the NIN album right now, and as an ambient work it is interesting, though I wouldn't say good at this point. The Radiohead album was good from the first listen.
    Also, the delivery method was sooo much better with Radiohead. I DL'd the album and went back to pay immediately. I've ordered the NIN album TWICE, the second time paying the $5 for I-IV, but never received the email download. I've complained and have gotten NO response. FAIL!
  • eitheror, on 03/27/2008, -1/+8Not that In Rainbows is Giant Steps or something, but its a good album.
  • ic4rus, on 03/27/2008, -11/+3they're both doing good things. Reznor's just ***** off Radiohead got there first. Hence the mud slinging.

    however, radioheads does seem more like a marketing ploy. Except Reznor is guilty of it too. USB drives in bathrooms? gimmicky or what
  • rinkjustice, on 03/27/2008, -3/+1I'm lovin' it - great article. But both radiohead and Trent tripped up on a few things: http://printpusher.com/economic-tactics/2008/03/08 ...
  • chthonicdark, on 03/27/2008, -1/+11The 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
  • 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 ...
  • 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.
  • MajorOutage, on 03/27/2008, -9/+8When In Rainbows first came out, I thought it was a really cool idea, but upon actually listening to it, it occured to me that no one in their right mind would have paid for that garbage anyway...
    • CressCrowbits, on 03/27/2008, -3/+4Although rather confrontationally stated, it is interesting that people rarely speak of the quality of the album itself.

      In Rainbows is a decent album, but it is by far Radiohead's weakest. The production standards are also not really up to scratch and sound rather demo-ey.
  • senatorpjt, on 03/27/2008, -8/+6If you combined Radiohead's music with Trent's business model you'd really have something.
    • 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.
      • Hotrox, on 03/27/2008, -2/+1You beat me to the punch, Lathen. If Radiohead ever decides to start making good music let me know.
  • godzillaWax, on 03/27/2008, -8/+3Do some research on how much Radiohead stole from the Beta Band, and then we'll have the discussion about who is innovative.
    • CressCrowbits, on 03/27/2008, -2/+5I did some research. The results came in and said "you are an idiot".
      • 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.
    • 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.
  • 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?
    • CressCrowbits, on 03/27/2008, -2/+3Yeah well, I released free MP3s of my ***** music on the internet back in the late nineties.

      Who is more innovative NOW?
  • Joe857, on 03/27/2008, -2/+2I don't want to start an argument here, but my major argument against Ghosts is that it's simply an instrumental and frankly, I don't think it's that good. Sure, it spiked the charts on Last.fm when it first came out, but the week after that it seems everyone's listening to In Rainbows again and forgot about Ghosts.

    Also, I can't go anywhere without hearing a song from In Rainbows. Barnes and Noble, Nordstrom, and Crazy Wing Cantina are just examples of where I've heard one of their songs before.
    • directrix13, on 03/27/2008, -1/+3Am I the only one who thought In Rainbows was horrible?
      • neuromachine, on 03/27/2008, -0/+1Are you only saying that because of your bias towards NIN?

        Either that, or you've got bad taste.
        • directrix13, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1No, I'm saying I've hated all of Radiohead's stuff that came out post-2000. Its boring.
    • amhx147, on 03/27/2008, -1/+2Nope. You're not.
  • oldtactics, on 03/27/2008, -8/+6Radiohead used their release as a marketing tool. Nothing innovative or noteworthy about that.
  • ronaldinho, on 03/27/2008, -3/+3I have to say Reznor is right that if Radiohead is gonna do it, they might as well complete the job instead of doing a U-turn. And Reznor did do a much better job of distributing his stuff online than Radiohead did. BUT, In Rainbows has been one of the best CDs I have heard in a while, and it totally trumps Ghosts
    • MisterNoMoniker, on 03/27/2008, -1/+1They didn't do a U-turn, they never said they were trying to do what Reznor was doing. All they ever said was, "Here's an album. You can listen to it." What is dishonest about that?
      • Namesbond, on 04/03/2008, -0/+1I love In Rainbows and couldn't care less about the 160k because I gave them 0.00. Nine Inch Nails I paid 300.00 for limited edition and I am still discovering Year Zero.
  • amhx147, on 03/27/2008, -3/+2I've been following this debate in your magazine, and in several other magazines, both online and print. I figured it was a fluke at first that it was overlooked, but NONE of the articles centering on this debate between Radiohead and NIN mention ANYTHING concerning Saul Williams’ CD produced by TR. The central question to this debate is whether this model of distribution is feasible for an artist who has not broken through the upper cusps of famedom. Why is it that no one (wired, rollingstone, cnet, ny mags, etc..) has mentioned anything about the "rise,[..] liberation", and fall of Saul Williams’ release back in November of 07. It came out in relatively the same formats as NIN's Ghosts(mp3/FLAC), it offered better quality than Radiohead did, and it was TR's first attempt at this type of marketing in order to see what kind of response there would be from consumers towards an artist who had not been on "billboards top 10". Radiohead has repeatedly said that this was not a central goal for them, just a means to try something out, and they made that clear with the release of their hardcopy CD in January. Saul and Trent have completely backlashed against the major labels, and continue to pursue their own means of releasing their music. Yeah, the articles written by reporters might attract more audiences with a feud between big name bands (and who was better and who was more right); but it takes away from that fundamental question of whether this will be a logical and viable option for bands who have nothing, and are willing to risk the awards they might gain by having full control of the art they create, produce, and distribute. I am getting aggitated at seeing Radiohead vs. NIN articles popping up left and right, when it is clear that Radiohead never wholeheartedly took the step towards liberation from a major label, and are just doing this as an "Ad-campaign". 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.

    Just a thought

    Schade
    • MisterNoMoniker, on 03/27/2008, -0/+1I was with you up until "Ad Campaign"
  • debrawelsh, on 03/27/2008, -1/+4Both great bands who get my full respect for what they have done over the last 6 months.
  • oblivionatm, on 03/27/2008, -2/+5Reznor wins, end of story.
  • Jnlandis, on 03/27/2008, -2/+1I have seen a lot of comments about how Radiohead used this as a promotional tool and I think that is totally inaccurate. I agree with Trents statement about how Radiohead should have gone all the way however I think it was never Radioheads intention to mess with the industry. They have stated that to them, it was the right time to get the music out. They had a finished record and didn't want to wait to release the material. Radiohead has always done things different, they are a crazy group of guys. On the other hand I feel that Trent is using this as a promotional tool. Why call out a band who helped start a "movement" and criticize them instead of saying they helped, now this is what I am going to do to move it one step forward. Every time Trent has said something recently it has just made more news about him and his release while bashing other bands. Radiohead did what they wanted and that was it, you don't see them going on and on about it. i respect both bands for what they did/ are doing but it is really frustrating to see someone talk down upon a fellow band in such a way. The industry needs to take steps not leaps and there will be more bands to do this, and each one will perfect the model just a little more each time.
    • 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.
  • Vash3001, on 03/27/2008, -2/+1*coughoverratedcough*
  • 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.




  • danielman94, on 03/27/2008, -3/+6Am 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.
    • nodatax0, on 03/27/2008, -0/+7Agreed. 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.
    • MisterNoMoniker, on 03/27/2008, -0/+1Yay, thank you for saying that. I was starting to feel like a Democrat in Texas.
    • wpc33, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1Yeah, the BAND are affable, but their manager has publicly stated that that it was publicity. That's official.
    • ratzmoose, on 04/03/2008, -0/+0Trent has gotten tons of publicity and I think he could care less about that. What are all these things he is calling Radiohead, really? He has said they are one of the most talented bands out there, he just didn't like their distribution model. I don't think Radiohead purposely used it as a marketing ploy but I don't think they thought completely through their online release. NIN and Radiohead both rock and I don't think there are even hard feelings between the bands, all this is generated media hoopla to get hits on their sites. I mean really when you create an illusion between two bands with massive cult followings are in conflict with one in other you are going to get more hits on your site. And you and I my friend have both fallen for it.
  • drewedman, on 03/27/2008, -3/+1This is all f'ing stupid. Rapper Tech N9ne did this in 2005, being the first artist to distribute his release through free mp3's and making money off of the eventual actual release. The fact that this isn't covered is because A. He's a rapper and B. He's Black.

    Furthermore, Madlib and Talib Kweli released "Liberation" for 0 profit at all last year, to 0 media attention..
    • ratzmoose, on 04/03/2008, -0/+0I really doubt it has anything to do with that. First rap music is likely more popular than rock these days and second playing the race card everytime something goes wrong for a black person is just stupid. I think it has to do with that very few ppl have heard of this person (myself included).
      • SittinSidewayz, on 04/15/2008, -0/+1Agreed with this response, disagree with original post. The race card has NOTHING to do with this so don't bring it up.
  • BlackStar77, on 03/27/2008, -1/+2I'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.
  • proghead, on 03/27/2008, -3/+2It doesn't change the fact that Radiohead just writes better music than Reznor. I am floored by the idea behind Ghosts I-IV, but the quality is just not there. In Rainbows is, simply put, a much stronger album. (And don't give me that jive about him breaking out of "preconceived notions" about what makes an album. Plenty of bands (Yes - Tales from Topographic Oceans comes to mind) have done the extended, sprawling sound-scape thing way back in the seventies. It still doesn't change what makes an album stand the test of time - solid, compact, original, and expertly edited.
  • kitsua, on 03/27/2008, -3/+1Radiohead wanted to release their album as soon as they'd finished it, as opposed to hanging around for months of "pre-release" industry guff - so they leaked it themselves straight away, so everyone could listen to it at the same time. Simultaneously, they thought it would be an interesting idea to ask the question "what is our music worth to you?" so, being free of label limitations, they did so, though they had the option of accepting a huge payout from any major label they wanted. These are the clearly stated reasons by Radiohead for doing what they did. The fact that this also brought lots of free advertising and was a brilliant marketing concept, is a by-product of what was, essentially, a really interesting, courageous move for such a popular band to make. The band always maintained that the album would be eventually made available through conventional distribution methods, for the reason that they wanted people who are not internet savvy (or well-off super-fans who could afford the diskbox) to be able to have access to the music - they didn't want the idea itself to get in the way of ordinary people being able to get hold of their work and make the whole venture applicable to a tech-savvy elite. To do so, they went to an independent label (XL) to organize a simple distribution of the CD to regular outlets throughout the world, not go back to EMI, who would have offered a far more lucrative deal.

    Radiohead have never been anything other than honest and humble about the whole deal, whereas Trent has felt the need to condescend and criticize them for...what, exactly? He just seems bitter about not doing it "first"/not getting all the headlines, or something - at least that's how it seems to me. Why doesn't he view Radiohead's gambit as being the positive thing it clearly is, rather than nit-picking over something like the bit-rate (which is petty if you ask me - listen to the album and tell me that the quality of the files detracts from the quality of the album).

    Reznor's convoluted release and public slanging feels much more like a marketing gimmick to me than Radiohead's simple offering.
    • ratzmoose, on 04/03/2008, -0/+0You Reznor was just being honest. He was asked point blank in an interview what he thought of the online release of In Rainbows, and so he gave it to them. Would you rather him lie? Have you read other interviews at the time of In Rainbows release where Reznor praised them for what they were doing, and saying what a big fan he is of Radiohead? I didn't think so otherwise you wouldn't make such comments.

      And if you want to know what was being criticized?
      The release was misleading. No where on the In rainbows page did it say there would be a physical release of the album other than the disc box set. So if a fan wanted to pay for the album but didn't have $80 for it they only had the low bit rate option, unknowing there will be a CD in the near future. Now say I am a radiohead fan feeling pretty good I payed for their music online then a week later I find out there is a going to be a CD released. Now I want a better bit rate and I like owing physical copies of stuff so I have to go pay for this album again. The band could of fixed that with on simple thing either state clearly on the page of a CD release in the future or add the ability to pre order the album and with it you get a download along with it, then I would of had no problems with the release. Luckily this didn't happen to me since I decided to steal it haha (i knew i was going to get the disc box for x-mas).
  • Kohaxx, on 03/27/2008, -0/+1As much as I adore Radiohead, Reznor is the one that will be remembered when the music industry has its new model. His work with Saul Williams to get music out from an artist that wasn't neccessarily well known while keeping it on a pay or don't model made a difference.
    Although I don't believe that Radiohead did it as a publicity stunt, they're the kings of their genre why would they need to advertise a new album?! Also it was a great album, Videotape is a beautiful song that could've stood out on its own.
  • rezzy333, on 03/27/2008, -0/+1Both amazing artists, both amazing albums. I love both of their music but to me both bands' are weak in the vocal department. whiny can't understand what he's saying guy in this corner and angry kind of singing but not in the other corner. So this time around I prefer ghosts.
    However I think Ghosts should be listed as Trent Reznor instead of NIN. He's been throwing the idea around for a while and I think this is a good example to bust it out. As just a NIN album, people who became fans with Year Zero may jump right off with Ghosts. Same thing happened from Spiral to Fragile.
  • nigdef, on 03/27/2008, -2/+1to trent reznor stop your ***** moaning and be glad people give a ***** about what you do. i challange anyone to kick up 2 media players load radioheads cd and the free download and play. hear the difference thought not end of no more on this please it's boring and detracts from the real issue. can a band keep there fan base and make money, yes money it is a job after all. without the record label and traditional distribution. and while all you people moan about record labels and the like. stop to think about the thousands of people who work in record store's for a living and next time your in one go up to them and say ***** you i want you on benefits, because i don't agree with the riaa so i won't buy cd's ever again in stead i will pay over the odds get it from the artist direct so i can have some overpriced packaging or steal it... i don't agree with the riaa or the way labels work yes they do rip artist's off fact but there is a bigger picture people don't be so ***** selfish and self centered there is room for both systems and besides that most of you digger's probably get you music form torrent sites anyway so all it cost you is the line rental for the tinternet
  • 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.
  • kitsua, on 03/27/2008, -3/+0My first ever digg comment and I get a negative vote - and I thought I was as clear and fair as possible.

    Oh well...
  • InsaneOni, on 03/27/2008, -0/+1Why the hell are people arguing about this? Both albums were good. I'd have to say the mastering on Radiohead's was better (feels more polished), but that's not saying Ghosts isn't good. How about instead of dividing our base, we all just accept that both of these artists are changing the future of music and leave it at that?
  • 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/+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.
  • Tribe303, on 03/28/2008, -0/+0Reznor wins 8-2 by my reckoning. In Rainbows isn't my cup of tea, and i've been a fan of NIN since '89, but thoughts Ghosts is crap. Pompous self indulgent synth noodling that sound like 36 half finished ideas. There's much better dark ambient out there than Ghosts.

    I thought NIN got dropped from their label with 1 album left to go?
    • Namesbond, on 04/03/2008, -0/+1Year Zero Remixed got them out of their contract.
  • Jerky1312, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1Now if Radiohead would release the raw music, fans could make some awesome mixtapes of Radiohead vs. NIN.
  • loosewirez, on 03/29/2008, -0/+0this is some of the only music i have paid for since 97 besides a few collectibles just because of the point.i feel the artist is actually getting the money.its worth the price and i don't feel raped/!
  • ethericloopz, on 03/31/2008, -0/+0I don't get why this goes under category>Music at all cause it's just stupid judging on one band or the other. Both of them deserve every single cent they made by releasing both "In Rainbows" and "Ghosts I-IV" respectively. Only thing that's bad would be the bands themselves saying the other one is bad in any manner :).
    Support the artists. Don't go political! :)
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 53 of 53 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.