Comments on: Trent Reznor slams Radiohead

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 04:42:17 +0000

The full interview can be listened to here: http://www.abc.net.au/triplej/hack/notes/s2185560.htm

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 04:39:00 +0000

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.

By: innerveit

innerveit — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 05:08:33 +0000

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

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 02:51:37 +0000

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.

By: Phil_Urich

Phil_Urich — Sun, 16 Mar 2008 22:44:03 +0000

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).

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Sun, 16 Mar 2008 16:01:02 +0000

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.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Sun, 16 Mar 2008 11:49:10 +0000

I think u will find Trent did include FLAC as a download option

By: Raid

Raid — Sun, 16 Mar 2008 07:29:38 +0000

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.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Sun, 16 Mar 2008 07:16:42 +0000

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…

By: Stray Mongrel

Stray Mongrel — Sat, 15 Mar 2008 22:21:46 +0000

Why no link to their “YouTube” channel?

By: Reason

Reason — Sat, 15 Mar 2008 21:43:07 +0000

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.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Sat, 15 Mar 2008 21:40:35 +0000

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.