@dangayle

Hilarious Sigur Ros Interview

This has to be one of the funniest interviews ever. It is so bad, it is good. NPR interviewed Sigur Ros two weeks ago, and the results are outstandingly ugly.

In the comments, the interviewer wonders if it was a language thing, and yes, it was. I don’t remember where I remember it from, but Jonsi has a hard time speaking English.

So although the interview was bad, you gotta cut them some slack. But it is still hilarious.

The Radiohead debate continues

MTV just posted a retarded news article about the supposed low quality of Radiohead’s new release that is only available as a download from their website.

People, whiners mostly, are complaining about the low bit rate, 160 kpbs, of the .mp3 downloads, saying that Radiohead “duped” them into buying an album with poor sound quality.

They have one commenter saying the dumbest thing in the whole article:

“Radiohead has such delicate music that requires detail and depth of sound. …I for one CAN tell the difference between 160 and 192. [With] 160 you can’t hear the finer details that make Radiohead so great. I have lost a bit of respect for Radiohead for this. I would never make people pay for 160. They may as well just stream stuff off MySpace.” (Empasis mine)

GET BEHIND ME SATAN!

“I would never make people pay for 160.”

How can you have such vehemence against a band that is not forcing you to pay a single red cent (or pence) to download their hard work?!

Ridiculous.

I don’t hear anyone whining like this about the entire iTunes library, which as Jonny Greenwood noted in the Rolling Stone article, is lower than what Radiohead subsequently released.

If you don’t like 160 kbps, then DON’T BUY IT.

Or download it for free, for that matter, you ungrateful whiners.

Radiohead’s In Rainbows worth the hype

(Second part to the unedited Radiohead section that I wrote for my school’s newspaper, the Ebbtide.)

With all of the noise concerning the manner in which Radiohead’s new album In Rainbows has been released, it’s easy to forget that there’s a new Radiohead album to listen to, and boy am I excited.

I downloaded In Rainbows yesterday, and according to iTunes, I’ve listened to it at least five times through. (In answer to the other question, I paid £5, whatever that works out to in American Dollars.)

So I’m going to come right out and say it: This is Radiohead’s best album since OK Computer back in 1997. It’s been 10 years and three albums since that classic came out, and it’s almost possible that the wait was worth it.

So far, it’s one of those albums that is definitely getting better with each successive listen. They’re finally starting to play the music that we as Radiohead fans have been wanting them to play for a long time.

In Rainbows is clearly a combination of their Grammy Award winning OK Computer and the best parts of their last album, Hail to the Thief. Toss in a little bit of the sonic experimentation of Kid A, and you might be able to grasp the concept.

To the great relief of many of their fans, Radiohead have scaled back the digital blips and bleeps of their recent albums in favor of a more guitar and piano oriented production, not to mention the emphasis on Thom Yorke’s haunting vocalisms that have no peer in the music world.

The best song is a slow, ballady number called Nude. To highlight the similarities between In Rainbows and OK Computer, it should be noted that this song was originally written during that era and has been kicking around in live versions for quite a while.

The other songs alternate between high energy rockers such as Bodysnatchers and 15 Step to the more pensive and delicate songs such as All I need and Videotape. There’s not a stinker in the whole bunch, a phrase that perhaps could not be applied to Hail to the Thief, Amnesiac, Kid A, or, GASP! the Bends.

Overall, In Rainbows is the most consistently good album that Radiohead has put out in a long, long time and is worth whatever it is you decide to pay for it.

How much would you pay?

(This unedited article was written for the Ebbtide student newspaper at Shoreline Community College)

Radiohead has once again captured the attention of the music world with their new album “In Rainbows.”

In Rainbows was announced October 1 on their website Dead Air Space (radiohead.com/deadairspace) with this simple message from Jonny Greenwood, one of Radiohead’s guitarists, “Hello everyone. Well, the new album is finished, and it’s coming out in 10 days; We’ve called it In Rainbows. Love from us all. Jonny” with a link leading to inrainbows.com.

The album is creating massive ripples in the music industry, prompting news outlets such as Time, the Telegraph, NPR, Rolling Stone and NME to ask a simple question:

Did Radiohead manage to kill the concept of the record label?

The discussion over the album has nothing to do with the content of the music, incidentally. It has to do with the way in which it is marketed and distributed. Specifically, they are not on any record label since their contract expired with EMI, and aren’t selling their album through a distributor such as Apple’s iTunes.

It is at the In Rainbows website that the most stunning discovery is made. The first thing you read is, “Radiohead have made a record. So far, it is only available from this website. You can pre-order it in these formats: Discbox and Download.”

They’re not the first band to do it, but they’re certainly the largest to ever circumvent the traditional band to record label to audience distribution chain. No advance copies were given to the media. No advanced warning was even given to the fans.

And most shockingly, no price was listed for the download.

Instead, there is a little empty box with the English Pound sign next to it under the price column of your shopping cart. To aid you in your confusion as to the missing price, there’s a little question mark that leads to a page that says, “It’s up to you.” Question mark again, “No really. It’s up to you.”

According to an interview with Rolling Stone, Greenwood stated, “It’s fun to make people stop for a few seconds and think about what music is worth, and that’s just an interesting question to ask people.”

Radiohead is banking on the fact that honest fans will want to compensate musicians a reasonable amount of money out of appreciation for the hard work that goes into the making of an album.

That attitude is directly opposed to the attitude of the major labels insistent on suing middle-aged mothers and college frat boys for illegally downloading and sharing music online.

Will Radiohead’s strategy be a success? Have they sounded the final death knells of the major record labels already reeling from changes to the industry?

The big questions remain to be answered, and will only be proven in time. But until that time, pundits, critics, bands, labels and fans will all be watching how Radiohead’s fortunes rise or fall due to their new venture.

So how much would you pay?

Pages