You may or may not find this humorous, but my wife's last name is Jackson. With my blessing, she never changed her name after we were married; a royal pain in the ass if you ask me. So, sometimes, I get mail addressed to "Mr. Jackson", so I guess that makes you and Ginny somehow incestuous, so.....
"Naked Woman, Naked Man Where did you get that nice sun tan?"
Posts: 12874 | Location: Behind the Orange Curtain | Registered: 14 May 2004
Song #9 (Jigsaw....too lazy to look up) sounds like a Broken Social Scene song (atleast the first half. Great rhythm!). "Reckoner", however is the clear standout. One of the best vocal melodies ever.
"Jigsaw" is easily the standout right now for me. I love the key change 3 minutes in when the song gets a little more frantic. "You look back, and she looks back - not just once, not just twice..."
------ And you're lying if you sing along
Posts: 2125 | Location: ATL-abouts. | Registered: 24 October 2006
listening to it for the first time after paying 10 pounds for it. my way of saying thank you for being so courageous, for the excitement that day they announced the release no one expected, that there wasn't any leaks....and it's my way of saying a big F*ck to the music industry.
my first reaction was: the quality is horrendous. i'm listening to it on my loud speakers and can definitely tell it's very rough. argh! other than that, it's bliss. i don't even have to try to like it, it's washing over me beautifully. loving it and not regretting paying for it
Mix a little folly with your plans: It is sweet to be silly at the right moment.
I haven't heard it yet, but I just had to get out in my excitement that the album is going to be played in full on a local radio station tonight!! I'll be at a cousins wedding, but I'll probably slip out for an hour when it starts, . That or I could just pay to download it like everyone else...
==== What has been is what will be, and what has been done is what will be done; there is nothing new under the sun.
Posts: 485 | Location: Care-a-lot | Registered: 16 July 2007
Originally posted by ericg75: 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.
ok... first thought was "a good radiohead album with some great moments (nude , weird fisches/arpeggi)"
today i m hearin the album all day n i have to say that its gettin better n better with every listen n almost love it.
its a very good record. actually a great one.
groundbreakin maybe not but definitely a heartbreaking album...
i dont know if its a classic yet cause only time will tell n now its too early for comments like these .
also i dont expect radiohead to come back with another "ok computer" cause that would be silly to expect a band to write a better album than one of the greatest records of all time.
today in rainbows have a place in the top 10 list with my top albums of the year. today my arctics monkeys n of montreal (#1 & #2 in my list) can still feel safe in these positions... but to tell you the truth i dont know about tomorrow...
I thought I'd share this Radiohead rant here. This was posted in response to my position of not downloading the damaged promotional copy of In Rainbows. Enjoy... I don't know whether to be frightened or amused, so I'm splitting the difference.
quote:
You and 4 other people on the planet are complaining and you didn't even download it. I'm sick of people like you. Fuck off, please. Radiohead has made millions of people happy this weel (yes, 1.2 million downloads on Wed.) and all you can do is complain, complain, complain. People are ungrateful for everything in life. We give Mexicans and any other person the opportunity to live in America and do what they wish and they complain. It's people like you that should be sent to war. The ungrateful ones are the ones who should be given up for sacrifice wether they want it or not. You're ungrateful and vain about it.
Man. That's harsh. What's up with the random cut on Mexicans? Do Mexicans not like Radiohead? And saying that you should be sent to war because you don't want to download 160kbs audio files is a bit much. I like to think that we have soldiers dieing in Iraq for more than the right to download free music on the internet from a British rock band.
On the subjectof Radiohead. I've been listening to Okkervil River all morning, and my opinion of Radiohead is leveling off at "okay". There are so many good bands in the world, Radiohead is just one of them. And I mean no disrespect to Radiohead by saying that.
---------------------------- It's okay, I'm a saint, I forgave your mistakes.
It makes alot of sense when you know why Johnny Greenwood did it. His question posed to fans or anyone interested was "We want to know what people value in life". I had a 2 hour discussion with a friend of mine on the topic this morning.
What's most interesting is that your typical Radiohead fan, like myself, seems to put more value on emotion. I've had these songs for almost a year now from live shows and I never once questioned the 'quality' of such songs. The quality for me came with the emotion invested, not the monetary value or even what I'd be paying for.
David Lynch only comes off like a total prick when he suggests people *should* see his movie in a theater with the best sound possible. Not everyone can afford such opportunity. Apparently he couldn't afford to give them that opportunity or he would have sold a little bit of his own soul and had a real distribution company distribute the film. He's a fucking hypocrite.
What about all the great films out there that aren't available in widescreen? Am I suppose to say fuck you to art in that case? I won't take part of your art because it doesn't meet *my* quality expectations?
It's ridiculous and the quality issue is only an excuse. At no point did Radiohead say you have to pay more than $0.01 for the record or you can't have it. I didn't pay for it.
I can't help it if [Dork] listens to a band like NIN, who seem to value quality of sound over emotional investment. Hell, a band like The Fall never made a good quality recording, yet their music speaks volumes.
If the soundfiles actually sounded bad, then you might have an issue, but it doesn't. It only bothers the fuckwad audiophiles out there who are too pretentious to admit it.
My friend is a musician, yet he can't seem to understand emotion at all. He listens to a band ONLY if they can play their instruments. He didn't buy Nirvana albums because he thought Kurt Cobain was a 'shitty' guitarist, nevermmind the fact that Cobain's music moved millions of people and in some cases changed their lives.
It's ridiculous. I'm sorry that I place art about anything else, but that's the way I think. I don't need 192k soundfiles to move me internally. Apparently someone as shallow as [Dork] places importance on that.
Dork, was that on another forum, or PMed to you here?
Either way, it's pretty funny. I did download the album, and I enjoy it, but I admit the audio quality left a little to be desired. I didn't pay much for the download, so I don't feel cheated or anything, but I does bug my that a lot of people paid top dollar to buy the download, thinking it would be a higher bitrate than it was. I think Radiohead should've at least posted more information on the product they were selling.
I'm happy with the album, but if they were trying to develop some state-of-the-art business model for releasing albums (as some have suggested), the model needs a little work.
----- Stay gold, Ponyboy. Stay gold.
Posts: 5211 | Location: Michigan | Registered: 19 June 2005
Alright, I'm probably only showing my own ignorance here, but I've got two questions:
1) Was there any reason to expect a higher bit-rate? 2) Would having 192 rather than 160 really have made anybody that much happier?
It seems like if your ears are discerning enough to actually be bothered by the difference between 192 and 160, than you probably shouldn't be listening to mp3s in the first place.
I'm not criticizing you, Dork, and I certainly respect that you're waiting for the cd to come out. I'm just curious why there's any outrage over the bit rate.
Posts: 707 | Location: DC | Registered: 05 January 2007
Originally posted by MajorNougat: 1) Was there any reason to expect a higher bit-rate?
What reason was there not to?
quote:
2) Would having 192 rather than 160 really have made anybody that much happier?
No. Who said I'd be satisfied with lossy files at all? (I would, though lossless is very nice.) 160 MP3s do not sound good to my ears and I'd rather have my first listen to In Rainbows be slightly less damaged. Even 256 would be pushing it for my ears, 320 only a little safer. High quality VBRs probably would have done it though.
quote:
It seems like if your ears are discerning enough to actually be bothered by the difference between 192 and 160, than you probably shouldn't be listening to mp3s in the first place.
I don't listen to mp3s, now that you mention it. There are other formats that don't chop off so much of the quality.
quote:
I'm not criticizing you, Dork, and I certainly respect that you're waiting for the cd to come out. I'm just curious why there's any outrage over the bit rate.
If I'd been a tad more excited and pre-ordered this album, I would have paid 8 bucks for something I now won't even download for free. That's deceptive. They didn't tell anyone what quality the files were going to be. In fact they only gave people 24 hours to cancel their orders.
It's actually not a huge big deal for me, I'm used to waiting for albums that I want to buy. But it seems uncharacteristically sleazy and cheap of the band to hype a promotional leak as a full release, and not tell people that it's just a promotion.
but I does bug my that a lot of people paid top dollar to buy the download, thinking it would be a higher bitrate than it was.
I can kinda see how that would be frustrating, but I can't really feel sympathy for someone who rushed out and dropped $15 on it if they thought sound quality was important. They did release that information before the album was released, so all someone would've had to do is be patient so they knew what they were buying.
I'm not quite understanding the whole bitrate thing either, MN. It's been said a few times, but nobody was forced to pay for this album. I don't know how anyone can complain about something not being "quality" enough when it's free. Even though that post Dork copied gets a little over-dramatic, I agree with them for the most part. No one was forced to pay for this album. If something is free you have no grounds for complaining. If you decided that you wanted to pay, you had the opportunity to know what the bitrate was before you decided what it was worth. I feel like I've gotta say it - spare me! If the quality is bothering anyone just do what Dork is doing and wait for the CD.
Posts: 1376 | Location: Valparaiso, IN | Registered: 01 July 2006
Originally posted by less_success: I can kinda see how that would be frustrating, but I can't really feel sympathy for someone who rushed out and dropped $15 on it if they thought sound quality was important. They did release that information before the album was released, so all someone would've had to do is be patient so they knew what they were buying.
You don't find it in the least disingenuous, really? Hmm.
quote:
I'm not quite understanding the whole bitrate thing either, MN. It's been said a few times, but nobody was forced to pay for this album. I don't know how anyone can complain about something not being "quality" enough when it's free. Even though that post Dork copied gets a little over-dramatic, I agree with them for the most part. No one was forced to pay for this album. If something is free you have no grounds for complaining. If you decided that you wanted to pay, you had the opportunity to know what the bitrate was before you decided what it was worth. I feel like I've gotta say it - spare me! If the quality is bothering anyone just do what Dork is doing and wait for the CD.
It's not actually free -- they let you pick your price. There's a huge difference. Most bands simply stream this sort of thing on MySpace, rather than touting it as a full release and raking in money for it.
EDIT: If I were superstitious, I'd take my 666th post as a bad sign. Erm...
. That or I could just pay to download it like everyone else...
There are other formats that don't chop off so much of the quality.
