Radiohead Guitarist Says “It’s Good Enough”: Fans Feel Duped By ‘In Rainbows’ Poor Sound Quality
Posted October 12, 2007 — in Music News
Many fans feels they purchased a glorified demo…
The Radiohead offering of letting fans decide the price of their new record began with excitment, respect, and admiration. Fans are now angry over the low quality of the downloads and the band’s manager’s statement that the you-choose-the-price downloads were just a promotional tool for the release of the physical CD.
Radiohead’s previous albums were already available as MP3s encoded at 320 kilobits per second — the highest-possible compression rate in the format, but it was announced that the new record RAINBOWS would be available at 160 kbps (poor quality) — after the majority of their fans had already paid for the download. To be fair, the band did give the fans the power of choosing how much they wanted to pay to download the album.
Most promo MP3s come at a higher bit rate,” wrote the author of U.K. blog Kids Pushing Kids. “Worst pound and pence I’ve ever spent.”
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” responded one commenter.
No one seemed to understand why Radiohead decided to release Rainbows at 160 kpbs, though guitarist Jonny Greenwood told Rolling Stone, “We talked about it and we just wanted to make it a bit better than iTunes, which it is, so that’s kind of good enough, really.
Statements from band’s management that seem to indicate that the downloadable album was just promotional tool for physical CD also resulted in disgrunted fans.
Is Radiohead fighting for the fans and the music? or is this a kanye west marketing plan in disguise. Maybe everyone is just nitpicking…
Do you want it :
Fast? Good? Cheap?
You’re only allowed to pick two.
Nice to hear one of my favorite bands settle for “good enough” in ANY area of their music or career. Oh well.
Comment by Burst Labs — October 12, 2007 @ 9:57 am
Everyone is nitpicking. 160kbps is not “poor” quality. Maybe by audiophile standards, but not for the average home/car stereo (or iPod listener). Still a brilliant move by a brilliant band.
P.S. I paid $5 for the download and plan to buy the CD when it comes out.
Comment by jalan — October 12, 2007 @ 1:00 pm
Jesus Christ! People will never stop complaining.
They are basically giving the album away for free and people are whining about sound quality?
Comment by Dave — October 12, 2007 @ 2:31 pm
who cares!! They got exactly what they were going for!! They did not give this music away, people haven’t talked about radiohead this much in years!! They couldnt have paid for this kind of media.
Comment by Cris — October 12, 2007 @ 4:48 pm
[...] Along with many others, I’ve commented enthusiastically on Radiohead making its new album available for whatever price the buyer decides to pay. Alas, now it turns out there’s another shoe to drop. Apparently, the band has belatedly let fans know that the download (which they’ve already decided to buy) is not cd quality, and not typical (bad) mp3 quality, but instead a low-quality mp3. (For example, check out Radiohead Fans Feel Duped By In Rainbows’ Poor Sound Quality, Possible Ulterior Motives.) [...]
Pingback by Ponder Marketing » Blog Archive » Radiohead… a little too lo-fi? — October 12, 2007 @ 4:48 pm
Just hilarious how most people are downloading songs off itunes and file-sharing sites at quality on par or worse than this and some people are complaining? I’m sure since the album is out now there isn’t much more to speak of, so people are making ado about nothing.
Comment by A2daC — October 12, 2007 @ 7:06 pm
Sounds like something some frightened record label guy would say.
I doubt the majority of these 1.2 million people who downloaded the album care much about the sound quality when its mostly going to be played on their computers and ipods. Like someone said before me, most of the music they normally listen to, from downloads, is at 128kbps.
Comment by jono — October 12, 2007 @ 11:31 pm
Yeah, if it’s better than iTunes quality, then I don’t see the big deal.
I have no problem with the quality of the songs I’ve paid for on iTunes.
Comment by Tim Towner — October 13, 2007 @ 6:44 am
Im sorry, the quality is poor. This is pretty sad on Radiohead’s part. Dont like this at all because I feel I was taken for a ride..
Comment by tina — October 13, 2007 @ 11:19 am
Burstlabs wrote: Nice to hear one of my favorite bands settle for “good enough” in ANY area of their music or career. Oh well.
I couldnt agree more, artists are lazy today and settle for mediocrity. No wonder music has taken a backseat..
Comment by Liz — October 13, 2007 @ 11:21 am
Good Enough?
Comment by davey — October 13, 2007 @ 11:28 am
Those who are complaining. How much did you pay?
Did you pay the amount you would’ve paid in a record store for a physical CD? If you paid less .. shut up already.
Radiohead said it earlier. They will release a physical CD later in 2008. You’ve should’ve waited for this release.
Comment by Dave — October 13, 2007 @ 1:47 pm
Did anyone listen to this thing? The mp3s sound good. You can have a 256 kbps that sounds like shit and you can have a 192 kbps mp3 that sounds like the real thing. It just depends (on what I am not sure).
But they probably should have told people the quality before they paid for it.
Comment by Keith Freund — October 13, 2007 @ 5:22 pm
Again, the quality is better than what you pay for with iTunes. So I don’t know what the big deal is.
BUT I do agree that Radiohead should’ve hired a top-notch PR company to handle this media storm. Their manager and guitarist should’ve never said those statements, publicly.
Comment by Tim Towner — October 14, 2007 @ 7:49 am
Wow… um…its Radiohead. They have been releasing nothing but space noise since Kid A. Does the bit rate of space noise really matter?
Kidding, kidding…sort of.
Seems to me that if it sounds like you’re missing out on the full potential of the songs, it has less to do with bit rates and more to do with the quality of the songs themselves. Any artists thinking about adopting this Radiohead model should pay close attention, as they will surely be facing the same scrutiny. Try whatever tactics you’d like, but in the end it is ALWAYS about the music. If it’s not the greatest thing you’ve ever written, we don’t want to hear it. Doesn’t matter how much it costs. Plain and simple.
People who buy into hype are generally disappointed. Have faith in music, not marketing stunts.
Comment by AJ-KOAR — October 14, 2007 @ 11:57 pm
Longtime fan…no more. Simple - give what you advertise. I think most people thought they were contributing to this idea that they were paying for the music, not the poor quality. That’s what the press was and that’s what a reasonable person would assume. Really sleezy.
There’s no denying that they could’ve easily told people this download was low quality.
The sound difference is noticeable. For a second I thought my earphones were broken because of the distortion. I’m going to try to get my bank to stop the payment.
Comment by Noblerinthemind — October 25, 2007 @ 3:18 pm
Longtime fan…no more. Simple - give what you advertise. I think most people thought they were contributing to this idea that they were paying for the music, not the poor quality. That’s what the press was and that’s what a reasonable person would assume. Really sleezy.
There’s no denying that they could’ve easily told people this download was low quality.
The sound difference is noticeable. For a second I thought my earphones were broken because of the distortion. I’m going to try to get my bank to stop the payment. If they hadn’t of done this I would’ve gladly paid for the CD.. but you know… eff them!
Comment by Noblerinthemind — October 25, 2007 @ 3:19 pm