Trent Reznor slams Radiohead
p2pnet news | Music:- Sadly, if reports are correct, Nine Inch Nails’ Trent Reznor now seems just as intent on slagging Radiohead in an ego feud as in continuing NIN’s leading role in developing the Net as the online music distribution vehicle for the 21st century.
Both bands made instant headlines and garnered impressive sales when they correctly identified cyberspace as the place to promote, sell and distribute their music.
NIN recently released its Ghosts I-IV online and did well.
To highlight just one element, all 2,500, $300 limited ‘ultra deluxe’ sets, numbered and signed by Trent Reznor, were completely sold out within a couple of days.
Reznor’s problem with the Radiohead release, “is that it was available encoded at a less-than-hi-fidelity 160kbps,” says PC World, continuing >>>
Reznor said Radiohead’s online release of In Rainbows was comparable to a MySpace-quality audio stream. On the other hand the Ghosts I-IV album is encoded at 320kbps, which is high for a digital track.
Reznor continues to describe the Radiohead release – which is no longer available as the band is relying on traditional sales method – as a shrewed marketing gimmick.
He also has a complaint with Radiohead getting all of the credit for the online music distribution model at the same time only making low-quality music available for a requested donation.
So far, Radiohead hasn’t responded and hopefully, the band will ignore Reznor’s complaints, realising it makes more sense to be in accord than discord.
Better to leave that to Warner Music, EMI, Vivendi Universal and Sony BMG who’ve totally missed the P2P boat.
Meanwhile, Reznor’s punch-up with Radiohead doesn’t mean NIN is ignoring the online promotion end of things.
The band is using YouTube to host a “film festival” around Ghosts, says Reznor on the band’s site, going on >>>
The concept is for you to take whatever tracks you feel inspired by from Ghosts and create what you feel should accompany them visually. You will be able to see all of the submissions, and a team of us (including me) will be sorting through them and setting aside ones we feel are exceptional. Eventually (within a couple of months?) we will present a virtual “film festival” with me and some special guests presenting selections of your work.
This isn’t a contest and you don’t win elaborate prizes – it’s meant to be an experiment in collaboration and a chance for us to interact beyond the typical one-way artist-to-fan relationship. We’ve discussed some interesting ways this could go, including multiple installments of the online “film festivals,” to broadcast TV specials, to a one-time live performance of the entire Ghosts record with your visuals involved. It really depends on how this progresses and develops.
We are all very much looking forward to what you come up with, and hope you enjoy the experience. Visit our YouTube channel for information on how to participate.
Definitely stay tuned.
[NOTE - p2pnet is running a special reader's survey. It only takes 20-30 seconds and it'd be a huge help if you'd fill it in. Please click here. Cheers! And thanks ... Jon]
Also See:
Really well – Nine Inch Nails: P2P file share triumph, March 6, 2008
PC World – Mud Flies Over Radiohead’s Online Release of In Rainbows, March 14, 2008
Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It’s really easy!
Subscribe to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
Net access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details. Download here.
March 15th, 2008 at 3:40 pm
I feel the same way Trent Reznor does. It sounds more like it was just a sales gimmick to attract people to Radiohead’s music. If this is to become a way of obtaining music it needs to be done right and not with low quality crap. It also needs to stay available that way. They brought people in by letting them download low quality music and then when they stopped allowing the downloads they forced people to buy it the traditional way. Just sounds like a sales gimmick that Radiohead did to me. That’s my 2 cents.
March 15th, 2008 at 3:43 pm
I can see the point in Reznor’s complaint. Even though I don’t regret the 4.20 bucks (or was it quid? Can’t remember…) that I paid for In Rainbows, I was somewhat disappointed that they only distributed a 160 kbps version of it and didn’t even bother making the fact known in advance. While I wouldn’t go as far as saying that this is MySpace-stream quality (I’d bet that it is transparent to the vast majority of the people), it is still not the same thing as the optionally lossless distribution that NIN gave its album, with which you can actually say you have the album in wholly digital form for you to re-encode and resample in any format of your liking. Moreover, whichever way you see it, stopping the digital sale of the album once the CD is out really makes it a marketing gimmick rather than a full-fledged venture to a new form of distribution. Considering this half-assed attempt, Trent’s frustration with giving Radiohead all the credit as pioneers of online distribution is understandable, even though Radiohead’s move was by all means a positive move and they got several things right, such as lack of DRM and pay-what-you-can/want (which NIN decided not to use)
While I see the point in trying to appear in accord rather than discord, I think that Reznor’s declaration is overall a positive one, as it will draw attention to the fact that a time-limited mid-quality release is not what bona fide online distribution should really be about. In any case, I would say that “slamming”, “punch-up” or “mudslinging” are a bit harsh terms for this. From what I know, Trent Reznor is a fan of Radiohead’s music and I’m sure he meant this as positive criticism.
Oh, and for the record, I love Radiohead.
March 15th, 2008 at 4:21 pm
Why no link to their “YouTube” channel?
March 16th, 2008 at 1:16 am
I agree that 160K is low quality. 192 is the lowest I go and I hear no reason to go above 256 as long as we’re talking MP3, here. Reznor is overdoing it when it comes to the bit-rate of his own MP3’s.
If you want to sell lossless as compact as possible then FLAC is the way to go. MP3 will always be lossy no matter how many K/second.
Just MY 2 Cents…
March 16th, 2008 at 1:29 am
vbr mp3 lame v3.90.3 is the way to go if your going to do mp3s…
320k cbr is a waste of file size, you won’t gain anything.. it’s still lossy compression.
March 16th, 2008 at 5:49 am
I think u will find Trent did include FLAC as a download option
March 16th, 2008 at 10:01 am
Reznor is 100% correct. If I wanted to buy low quality files I’d go to an online music store.
Now, if you’ll excuse me, I’m going to go listen to my nice shiny .flac files of NiggyTardust and Ghosts I-IV.
March 16th, 2008 at 4:44 pm
I am a fan of both artists musically, but I have to entirely agree with Reznor here; in fact, I was having many of the same thoughts as he did back when it was revealed that they were yanking the digital download and going back to CD sales . . . in stores . . . through the record label. Whether it was a gimmick or a backtrack, that’s the only debate to be made here; Radiohead has been accorded far too much credit. I mean, bands have released free mp3s of their songs for ages now.
In terms of pioneers of ACTUAL digital distribution, I’d put Reznor and Saul Williams right up there, along with The Flashbulb (google for their/his “Soundtrack to a Vacant Life” album which was *officially released to P2P sites in FLAC* and you’ll understand what I mean when I say there’s a fundamental difference between that kind of model and the Radiohead model…note too that NIN has an official profile on The Pirate Bay).
March 17th, 2008 at 8:51 pm
Storage space is dirt cheap. The only reason I’m not using FLAC or other lossless formats is that I’m impatient on the download, and its not compatible with my portable.
March 18th, 2008 at 11:08 pm
oh c’mon, reznor didn’t slam anyone, he just said what he liked about RH release and what – in his view – could have been done better. i think everyone has a right to have a point of view, no? just STOP REPEATING THIS STUPID HEADLINE
June 24th, 2008 at 10:39 pm
I listened to the actual interview and Trent Reznor in no way slammed Radiohead. He simply stated what he liked and disliked about the way that they released their digital album. This is simply his point of view and not once in the interview did he “slam” the band. The interview itself was about how music distribution nowadays in changing and Trent simply said that Radiohead did some things right and some things wrong. This is a classic example of the media twisting a man’s words to mean much than they were ever intended.
June 24th, 2008 at 10:42 pm
The full interview can be listened to here: http://www.abc.net.au/triplej/hack/notes/s2185560.htm