Page 2 of 3

Posted: Mon Oct 08, 2007 1:33 am
by fluffy
You can just pay £0.00 for it, you know.

Posted: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:10 am
by Mostess
This has generated so much buzz. People I know who barely listen to modern pop have told me about this. I've heard more conversation about this than about Prince's deal with The Mail.

I'm so confused. Normally, I like to wait until the bums rush is over and get an album out of the discount rack. I get a cheap price while still being able to shake my head in shame at the silly capitalists who put such a beautiful thing in the discount rack. Damn you, Radiohead! You've made me be my own silly capitalist! Hail to the thief, indeed.

Posted: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:27 am
by fluffy
http://www.scottandrew.com/wordpress/ar ... ohead.html

Now I feel like canceling my boxed set preorder. I *thought* I was supporting a band which was trying out new things. Meh.

Posted: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:30 am
by Billy's Little Trip
fluffy wrote:You can just pay £0.00 for it, you know.
>> £0.00
Isn't that space money like they use in make believe places like Canada and Alderaan? :mrgreen:

Posted: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:23 pm
by Adam!
fluffy wrote:Now I feel like canceling my boxed set preorder.
This strikes me as a dumb reaction.

But, if you only want to give money to artists that have no record label, as of today you can give Trent Reznor your money. Or you can just give it to me.

Posted: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:50 pm
by fluffy
Well, my reason for buying the boxed set was to show my support for the decision to go independent while also providing something special to those who decided to stick with physical purchases. But they plan on eventually releasing a normal CD via normal RIAA channels, and this makes the boxed set rather less special.

Posted: Tue Oct 09, 2007 10:59 pm
by fluffy
I JUST GOT THE DOWNLOAD LINK

I WILL BE LISTENING TO IT SHORTLY

Posted: Tue Oct 09, 2007 11:07 pm
by fluffy
oh man this is great so far

i'm halfway into the second track and I just can't not say how great it is

Posted: Tue Oct 09, 2007 11:38 pm
by fluffy
words can't express the quality of this album

Posted: Tue Oct 09, 2007 11:41 pm
by Adam!
God damn it where's my link?

You'd think $20 would bump me to the front of the queue or something?

Now I feel like canceling my handful-of-nothingness preorder.

EDIT: Oh, there it is. Weee!

Posted: Wed Oct 10, 2007 1:12 am
by WeaselSlayer
It's pretty good. Kind of a streamlined effort and often sounds dangerously close to late 90s Blur (GASP).

Posted: Wed Oct 10, 2007 8:40 am
by fluffy
I don't know how the download links were doled out, but when I got mine, the download was fucking FAST (about 350K/sec). I wonder if us boxset orderers got it first. :D

Posted: Wed Oct 10, 2007 9:02 am
by jute gyte
I thought about "buying" it for $0.00, then realized I didn't care enough about Radiohead to justify even that.

Posted: Wed Oct 10, 2007 9:16 am
by fluffy
Jute, I think you might be pleasantly surprised by this album. It borrows a lot from the likes of Aphex Twin and Plaid, while simultaneously sticking to Radiohead's abstract-melodic roots. There aren't any radio singles on this album.

The first song is in 5/4, if that helps.

Posted: Wed Oct 10, 2007 12:13 pm
by Jefff
If you don't care about Radiohead, skip it. It's better than three of their albums, worse than two, and too close to call with one.

Posted: Wed Oct 10, 2007 4:01 pm
by WeaselSlayer
I'm listening again today, and this album is really kind of gratingly dull. Like they just slept through it.

Posted: Wed Oct 10, 2007 4:12 pm
by fluffy
I guess we can't be friends, because I find it to be one of the better albums I've heard in a while. The songs actually ebb and flow and there's a huge emphasis on the melody and on complicated rhythms and little details and big sweeping emotions. There's also a hell of a lot of dynamic range, which is something that's sorely lacking in most modern music.

Posted: Wed Oct 10, 2007 4:57 pm
by Lord of Oats
Jefff wrote:If you don't care about Radiohead, skip it. It's better than three of their albums, worse than two, and too close to call with one.
Which two is it worse than? And which is it too close to call with?

Posted: Wed Oct 10, 2007 5:02 pm
by GlennCase
Lord of Oats wrote:
Jefff wrote:If you don't care about Radiohead, skip it. It's better than three of their albums, worse than two, and too close to call with one.
Which two is it worse than? And which is it too close to call with?
While I am not Jefff, I'd like to guess before he responds.

<b>The two albums that are better</b>
1. OK Computer
2. The Bends

<b>The too close to call</b>

3. Hail to the Thief

Right? [Edit: I made these guesses before consulting <a href="http://rateyourmusic.com/artist/radiohead">Rate Your Music</a> on the matter.]

ROCK!

Glenn Case

Posted: Wed Oct 10, 2007 5:09 pm
by fluffy
The Bends and OK Computer are both very good collections with some very good songs but they still aren't *albums*. Individual songs on both The Bends and OK Computer, sure, they blow In Rainbows away, but as a cohesive listening experience I'd still say that In Rainbows is at least on par with both of them.

Sadly I'm not that familiar with the rest of Radiohead's repertoire (aside from a few individual songs of course), though in other discussions about In Rainbows other people have referred to similarities with Hail To The Thief so I think I will finally be picking that one up.

Posted: Wed Oct 10, 2007 6:21 pm
by Billy's Little Trip
WeaselSlayer wrote:I'm listening again today, and this album is really kind of gratingly dull. Like they just slept through it.
Like maybe they threw it together at the last minute with Taylor Hicks?

Posted: Wed Oct 10, 2007 7:19 pm
by Lord of Oats
Billy's Little Trip wrote:
WeaselSlayer wrote:I'm listening again today, and this album is really kind of gratingly dull. Like they just slept through it.
Like maybe they threw it together at the last minute with Taylor Hicks?
That didn't make a ton of sense. But it was very funny in places.

"Are you recording your dick?!"