Originally posted by hudson: This is Metacritic, not an emo forum, so quit your crying people.
You wanna lead by example?
Yeah, no prob. I never called anyone any names. Yeah I kind of shot back at less_success because he was condescending to me in the first place, tryin' to tell me about radiohead's past albums and how they sound, as though i'm a 12 year old hearing them for the first time.
But like usual, I was ready to just move on. Some people's feathers are ruffled so easily.
I honestly would like the bossman of this site to create of more definitive list of rules so that I can make sure not to break them. Cause right now, I have no idea what I did to warrant an expulsion from eric.
OK, now that that has simmered for a bit, let me say something. And I hope to say this, everyone read it and then we can talk about the album. That means that I would like no responses and for everyone to do it.
I see a lot of misunderstandings here. No one person should be attacked for stating their opinion—no one. Now hudson, I know you feel like some people are jumping on you but just know that a lot of it is that they disagree with you and that’s all. I honestly think that less_success was simply stating what he heard on their previous albums and what he hears on this one. I know that you were reamed pretty bad about The Beatles but many others have also been reamed for having very striking and brave opinions or inputs about music, just ask RavingLunatic. No one is trying to use heavy-handed tactics, but we are looking out for the best interest of the community.
I also know that people have said worse things and have been “bigger” jerks before and they have never been banned. I am also not choosing sides. Let’s just try to be a bit more courteous and understanding of each other. Not everything is a personal attack and no one is out to get anyone here. If you think you are about to blow up on someone, take a few deep breaths, re-read the post and think about it—a wise person told me that once. I am going to go out on a limb so that no one gets banned and going to fight for it—don’t make me regret it. Plus, as mark stated in the general discussion forums, the past week has shown the most activity the site has ever seen. That’s a great thing to share amongst everyone, now let’s use some tact and be respectful towards each other.
I hope that we can now move one, I really do. If you have anything to say to me personally, feel free to PM me.
----- I go to sleep and think you're next to me.
Posts: 5752 | Location: Texas | Registered: 27 December 2005
what the ... so much for all the "new way to sell music"
im not paying for 160K
After hearing the album a half dozen times, I don't see that the 160KBPS is a big deal. It sounds clear and crisp to me.
By the way, I read an article in which Radiohead's manager said they chose to use 160KBPS because its more than what iTunes does. While someone explained to me that iTunes' ACC 128 KBPS is clearer than mp3 160 KBPS, I honestly can't tell the difference.
Does anybody who has heard the download have a problem with the sound?
________________ Caught between a generation dying from their habits and another thinking rock 'n roll is new.
Posts: 444 | Location: Los Angeles | Registered: 18 December 2006
Originally posted by The Fall of Troy: Does anybody who has heard the download have a problem with the sound?
It sounds a little poor but it's not horrible. I hear the bad-quality when I play it really loud but I am not getting bent out of shape about it. Especially since I am expecting the discbox with the vinyl and CD forms.
----- I go to sleep and think you're next to me.
Posts: 5752 | Location: Texas | Registered: 27 December 2005
what the ... so much for all the "new way to sell music"
im not paying for 160K
After hearing the album a half dozen times, I don't see that the 160KBPS is a big deal. It sounds clear and crisp to me.
By the way, I read an article in which Radiohead's manager said they chose to use 160KBPS because its more than what iTunes does. While someone explained to me that iTunes' ACC 128 KBPS is clearer than mp3 160 KBPS, I honestly can't tell the difference.
Does anybody who has heard the download have a problem with the sound?
No, No problem with the sound at all.
"Violence, she solved everything"
Posts: 1241 | Location: Nowhere | Registered: 31 July 2006
This album is a grower. Not that it was hard to get into at first - but some of the songs that I found more boring at first have definitely worked their way into my brain. The nuances make all the difference. Could be AOTY...
Posts: 747 | Location: San Diego ==> Duke U. 2012 :D | Registered: 24 July 2006
what the ... so much for all the "new way to sell music"
im not paying for 160K
After hearing the album a half dozen times, I don't see that the 160KBPS is a big deal. It sounds clear and crisp to me.
By the way, I read an article in which Radiohead's manager said they chose to use 160KBPS because its more than what iTunes does. While someone explained to me that iTunes' ACC 128 KBPS is clearer than mp3 160 KBPS, I honestly can't tell the difference.
Does anybody who has heard the download have a problem with the sound?
we cant compare it to a VBR rip yet but 160K is a bit low(at least for me), its not a lo-fi album after all. I was really disapointed to see this because at first i tought they had a great idea and someone finally did something bright about internet distribution instead of complaining about p2p, but to sell 160K mp3 is kind of ruinning it for me. The difference in bandwidth between 192K VBR and 160K is not that big... Sound to me like they want us to buy the (kind of lo-fi) mp3 AND the album when it comes out.
I might just be too cynical ...
This message has been edited. Last edited by: ajar,
Originally posted by ajar: we cant compare it to a VBR rip yet but 160K is a bit low(at least for me), its not a lo-fi album after all. I was really disapointed to see this because at first i tought they had a great idea and someone finally did something bright about internet distribution instead of complaining about p2p, but to sell 160K mp3 is kind of ruinning it for me. The difference in bandwidth between 192K VBR and 160K is not that big... Sound to me like they want us to buy the (kind of lo-fi) mp3 AND the album when it comes out. I might just be too incredulous ...
They should've just given us a 192 or v0 rip at least because when I was playing it on my speakers loudly it sounded pretty rough.
we cant compare it to a VBR rip yet but 160K is a bit low(at least for me), its not a lo-fi album after all. I was really disapointed to see this because at first i tought they had a great idea and someone finally did something bright about internet distribution instead of complaining about p2p, but to sell 160K mp3 is kind of ruinning it for me. The difference in bandwidth between 192K VBR and 160K is not that big... Sound to me like they want us to buy the (kind of lo-fi) mp3 AND the album when it comes out.
I might just be too incredulous ...
While we're on the subject, here's an interesting article I read:
ajar, you're not alone in being cynical about this. This was absolutely calculated by the band to prevent leaks of the album and to give people a taste of the album so they would buy the better-sounding CD.
The only thing I can fault them for is not being up-front about the bit rate. Otherwise, it's a brilliant strategy and makes good business sense. Knowing what I know now, I would still give them my $5.
________________ Caught between a generation dying from their habits and another thinking rock 'n roll is new.
Posts: 444 | Location: Los Angeles | Registered: 18 December 2006
Duh. Everything is business in this world.. Radiohead are businessman. They have a product, they wanna make money off of it. This way, they're make a ton of money off their product. People are paying for a leak because they feel privileged and wanna support a band "fight the record companies" (then Greenwood says that is not their intentions after the fact) then they go and buy the CD when it's released on disk, and all the die hards pay a premium to get a 2xLP with a CD. That's strategy, a very good one.
Yeah. And the thing that would really stick it to the man the most, is if Radiohead makes millions of dollars in straight profit off the scheme. People that want Radiohead to win, and also don't want Radiohead to make a lot of money are fighting against themselves.
---------------------------- I'm the operator with my pocket calculator.
Oh, they're going to make millions in straight profit. The download payments alone are gonna be in the millions, and I doubt that will affect album sales much either. Like I've said, if you paid for the download and plan on buying the CD, you made a donation.
Posts: 3946 | Location: NE Indiana | Registered: 14 April 2005
I think part of the excitement of being a Radiohead fan, and a fan of albums in general, is getting the physical copy with all of the artwork. The digital files alone should be seen as just a preview of the actual release. That's why I didn't pay much for the download. I know I'm going to buy the album when it comes out in its physical form. The lower quality of the files doesn't bother me really. I do think they should have posted about the bitrate on the page where they listed the details of the download option, but I think it's just common sense that a downloaded version won't be as pristine as CD quality.
Originally posted by Shadrach: Yeah. And the thing that would really stick it to the man the most, is if Radiohead makes millions of dollars in straight profit off the scheme. People that want Radiohead to win, and also don't want Radiohead to make a lot of money are fighting against themselves.
If this is sarcasm, I don't know why.
I didn't say it's a conspiracy, I said it's a business plan. I didn't mention "the man".
Why else would they release it this way? They know that they don't need the things that a label can offer them.. they can book any studio they want, any producer, get any venue, get promotion just through bloggers and word of mouth by announcing this.. it's perfect really. They are the perfect band to pull this off.
quote:
I do think they should have posted about the bitrate on the page where they listed the details of the download option, but I think it's just common sense that a downloaded version won't be as pristine as CD quality.
I don't think anyone was expecting a FLAC, but I've been seeing bands offering 320kbps full albums for free, that would be really nice. Even more so since this album really depends on good sound to have the desired effect (which I can't tell you what effect that is, although others could probably tell you how it's affected them).
Originally posted by hudson: Yeah, no prob. I never called anyone any names. Yeah I kind of shot back at less_success because he was condescending to me in the first place, tryin' to tell me about radiohead's past albums and how they sound, as though i'm a 12 year old hearing them for the first time.
But like usual, I was ready to just move on. Some people's feathers are ruffled so easily.
I honestly would like the bossman of this site to create of more definitive list of rules so that I can make sure not to break them. Cause right now, I have no idea what I did to warrant an expulsion from eric.
From the Forum Rules and Guidlines which are posted here.
quote:
1. Please BE COURTEOUS to other users. It is OK to argue against someone's position; it is NOT OK to insult or attack another person.
Be courteous. It's the #1 rule. You weren't courteous. Less argued about a point you made in a civilized manner and you responded by being a jerk. When he called you out about being a jerk, you told him to "quit his crying" and told him he sounded like a "13 year old girl who had his feelings hurt".
So, there you have it. There's the rule, there's where you broke it. Don't break it again. Feel free to plead your case to the other mods, but you're on extremely thin ice as far as I'm concerned.
I'm not trying to throw my weight around, and I'm not out to get anybody. I'm just trying to make this a more pleasant place for people to hang out without having to deal with someone who wants to be a troll and act like a jackass. End of story.
----- Stay gold, Ponyboy. Stay gold.
Posts: 5268 | Location: Michigan | Registered: 19 June 2005
Originally posted by Shadrach: Yeah. And the thing that would really stick it to the man the most, is if Radiohead makes millions of dollars in straight profit off the scheme. People that want Radiohead to win, and also don't want Radiohead to make a lot of money are fighting against themselves.
If this is sarcasm, I don't know why.
I didn't say it's a conspiracy, I said it's a business plan. I didn't mention "the man".
Why else would they release it this way? They know that they don't need the things that a label can offer them.. they can book any studio they want, any producer, get any venue, get promotion just through bloggers and word of mouth by announcing this.. it's perfect really. They are the perfect band to pull this off.
I'm often sarcastic, but this particular time I wasn't actually. You didn't mention "sticking it to the man", but others have. But really, all the term "sticking it to the man" is talking about is successfully going against the corporate system.
I'm actually in fervent agreement with you Jackson. I'm shocked by all the people that are jumping behind Radiohead and saying they are going to completely change the music industry, and then are turning around and complaining about how much money they are going to make. The point is for them to make money. If Radiohead ended up loosing money by this experiment (somehow) then it would just prove that major record labels are essential for music to be profitable.
---------------------------- I'm the operator with my pocket calculator.
Originally posted by Shadrach: I'm often sarcastic, but this particular time I wasn't actually. You didn't mention "sticking it to the man", but others have. But really, all the term "sticking it to the man" is talking about is successfully going against the corporate system.
I'm actually in fervent agreement with you Jackson. I'm shocked by all the people that are jumping behind Radiohead and saying they are going to completely change the music industry, and then are turning around and complaining about how much money they are going to make. The point is for them to make money. If Radiohead ended up loosing money by this experiment (somehow) then it would just prove that major record labels are essential for music to be profitable.
Oh alright, haha. I read it over a few times and the sarcasm could've been there or it could've not, so I decided to ask and explain myself more just in case.
I have no problem with the term "sticking it to the man," but when people say it, they generally say it in a demeaning fashion, like they're scoffing at you.
P.S. I like being called Jackson on here.. it seems a bit more personal haha. Maybe I'll change my handle again!
