So I'm a little pissed. I just got the email from Radiohead's merchandising arm, WASTE, telling me that my download would be ready vaguely "tomorrow morning (UK time)" and what does it say?
THANK YOU FOR ORDERING IN RAINBOWS. THIS IS AN UPDATE.YOUR UNIQUE ACTIVATION CODE(S) WILL BE SENT OUT TOMORROW MORNING (UK TIME). THIS WILL TAKE YOU STRAIGHT TO THE DOWNLOAD AREA.
HERE IS SOME INFORMATION ABOUT THE DOWNLOAD:
THE ALBUM WILL COME AS A 48.4MB ZIP FILE CONTAINING 10 X 160KBPS DRM FREE MP3s.
MOST COMPUTERS NOW HAVE ZIP SOFTWARE AS PART OF THE OPERATING SYSTEM; IF YOUR COMPUTER DOES NOT, YOU NEED TO GET WINZIP OR ZIPIT INSTALLED PRIOR.
YOU CAN DOWNLOAD THEM HERE:
PC: http://www.winzip.com/
MAC: http://www.maczipit.com/IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR PROBLEMS DOWNLOADING YOUR FILE, PLEASE CONTACT OUR DOWNLOAD CUSTOMER SERVICE TEAM AT
downloadinrainbows@waste.uk.com
(emphasis mine)
Huh?! 160kbps mp3s? That's the best they could do? Are you kidding me? It's 2007. There is no excuse for this. These should have been 192kbps at the very least, but really should have been 256kbps. If they want to lead the industry and other bands to a new solution, then LEAD. As my piece last week said, is this a debacle or a brilliant new idea? The answer's becoming clearer: debacle. Maybe 160kbps is okay for the kiddies who blast this stuff so loud they can't even actually hear the music, but for many listeners, 160kbps is a no-go deal.
All I can say is, I sure am glad I only chose to pay $3 for this. Yes, I admit it - I simply couldn't fathom paying more than that for "mystery files."
It turns out I made the right move. I'd be furious if I'd paid CD prices for the album, especially after seeing report after report that they've either signed or are on the verge of signing with a major distributor to sell the CD in stores next year. But that was part of my criteria - if they want to be vague about the details, both about the future of the album in a physical format as well as the quality of the files, then I'm going to assume the worst, and while they didn't go as bad as they could have (128kbps) they sure came close.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Kevin Eagan
I agree with you, I got my e-mail today as well and I was shocked that not only are they putting it in a zip file (probably the most old fashioned way to distribute music on the internet out there), but were 160 kbps quality. All I have to say is that I hope the music is really really good to make up for it. We'll see.
2 - Edwin
Wow, what an ungrateful, griping little cynic you are. You paid three dollars, shut your worthless little mouth. I would love to sit you down in front of your own computer and have you distinguish between 160 and 256. Geez, shut up.
3 - Mark Saleski
man, what is it about the internet that makes people want to unzip their heads and let their pathetic leetle intellects flop out for the whole world to see?
4 - Nick
Honestly, that's why you buy the CD and rip your mp3s yourself. If you want something done right, do it yourself.
To complain about the quality of a FREE download, or to use that as evidence of a lack of forward thinking on the artist's part seems really ungrateful. Moreover, I can guarantee you that the kiddies who plan on blasting the music so loud they can't hear it are the ones who are going to appreciate this album a lot more than a cynical blogger who can't accept less than WAV quality... so which one would YOU cater to?
...that's what I thought. I'm sure Radiohead appreciates your three bucks.
5 - Kevin
Bigger is better . . . isn't that the American creedo?
6 - Jim
What a moaner! I don't know about you, but I can't afford to buy an MP3 player with double the capacity just to listen to MP3s at 256kbs. I listen at 128kbs out of necessity but I'm not so cheap that I'd pay 3 dollars for an album and have an online tantrum about bitrate.
In my view they want people to think about how they value music, what they buy and why they buy it and you're blog is proof that it's working!
7 - Steve
To all you bitching about his $3...
Radiohead getting $3 from this guy is more than they probably got from you idiots spending $15 on their last album at your local soulless enormo-mart.
$3 straight to the band is still a better deal than most bands have with their label.
And really, an album of mp3's is worth $4 or $5, tops, since you don't actually OWN anything, and those files are gone the second you have a hard drive failure. Sell your albums online for $4 and take all of it...it's still a better deal than signing with a label and getting $1 per disc, if that.
8 - André Elias
Well, considering it's still bound to Warner (read the Terms page ) they will probably release a 'standard' CD next year. I just paid less than I would normally because it's 160kbps, so I can at least listen to it legally while I wait for the CD next year. (I doubt Warner won't release it as a 'normal' CD in shops, etc)
9 - Glen Boyd
Like Tom and the rest of you guys, I got the email today as well.
While I admit to sharing some of Tom's concerns, I'm just going to withhold judgment until I've actually downloaded and listened to this.
Again, my position is that I ultimately prefer something tangible that I can hold in my hands, read liner notes, look at cover art, etc, while I listen to it. I'm just not willing to pay $80. for it (especially since all indications point to this being available in stores by January).
I guess I'm just "old school" that way.
As to the download, I basically did the same with "Hail To The Thief" when it was widely available as a free download about a month prior to the physical release (and I wont go into the resulting spy ware nightmare I had as a result).
Anyway, by the time it was out on CD, the recording quality was such a marked improvement over the oversized file that sat on my desktop, that I eventually just got rid of it.
I suspect it wont be that much different this time around (well, except for the spy ware frying my hard drive part anyway). In the meantime, I'm curious enough about the release to take part in this experiment -- and withhold comment until I actually hear it.
-Glen
10 - Tom Johnson
Are most of you who are bitching at me for paying $3 actually reading the piece? Because I state pretty clearly that I was very reluctant for specific reasons - questions of quality, questions of whether we'd get a real CD sometime soon, etc. These are vital parts of the equation when it comes to valuing this music.
I mean, fer chrissake, there's one guy actually telling me to buy the CD and rip my own mp3s . . . except we don't even know that there will definitely be a CD. We can guess that there probably will, but it's still a guess.
It doesn't matter whether I can sit "down in front of your own computer and have you distinguish between 160 and 256," as one particularly eloquent commenter put it. What matters is that we're paying for damaged goods. Here's the thing, see: you can buy a CD now, and have it be pretty damned great sound quality (not perfect, of course - it's not completely uncompressed, but let's not niggle here) and you'll have your choice of what to do with it for ages. Or you can buy mp3s, or iTunes AAC files, or Zune files, or whatever, and you're stuck. Those files will forever be stuck at the bitrate they are now. And, believe me, on a good sound system, it will make a difference - maybe 14 year olds listening on Apple buds won't hear it now, but in 15 years and they're listening on a huge home theater system, they're going to hear it. And they willingly paid for this.
Radiohead undertook this bold experiment, but did it in the meekest ways they possibly could. It's almost as if they already planned a CD release and this was a way to squeeze out a few more dollars from many buyers. How many of us are going to buy the CD when it comes out, despite already owning the music as mp3s? Come on, a show of hands. We'll let the numbers speak for themselves, but I bet they're going to say "double purchase!" And yet some blame me for paying $3 - mind you, the Emusic model is about 25 cents a track. I'll let you do the math, but I think you can figure out that I paid extra. Radiohead's doing just fine, I'm sure, with users who pay $3. What they're hoping for are those who pony up the fully CD price and get very little in exchange. You don't get what you pay for in that case.
I think what we've just seen is one of the first major tiered-launch structures. Digital files for a price now, and the physical media to follow at some later date. It's just too bad the band couldn't have been honest about this - and the bitrate of the files - upfront.
11 - Ed
I agree it should be at the very least vbr 192 or flac. Not everybody is paying $3 some more. It looks like if you want the marginal quality cd you get to pay again full price next year. Worse than double/triple dipping over at Fox.
12 - rhoul
Bwhaha, duuude. Come on. I cannot believe you are bitching about a free lunch. Did it not occur to you that perhaps Radiohead has thought this plan through a little further than you obviously have?
Sound fidelity is the one trump card they can still hang on to while beating pirates to the punch with this pay-what-you-want release. By voluntarily flooding the online market preemptively with readily available but slightly inferior product, they maintain a slight edge to market the CD by when it finally comes out to those who will care enough to buy the CD... i.e. you, supposedly.
I can't believe you would be naive enough to think that you'd get ALL the goods just like that, up front, for whatever you want to pay for it. lol. Radiohead might be setting precedents, but they aren't stupid.
Worse, you have the gall to bitch about it. "Damaged goods". OH the arrogance. You are simply too much. Nevermind the marketing strategy behind it, you in your infinite consumer need, demand to be satiated, in full, right now. *foot stomp* Pookum's hungry!!
$3 isn't a good enough deal for you either - you'd rather have the band come to your house and demo the new tracks for you themselves... Paying their own way.... And cleaning the bathroom before they leave. Am I right? Come off it, guy. Let's get some perspective: Who are you, exactly? Some little toad belching his dissatisfaction for his "generous" $3 contribution (note: you paid "extra"). Woe is you. Couldn't have even made it an even $5 spot? I pay more for a latte, you cheap bastard.
Do us all a favour and lose the sense of entitlement next time you decide to expound your theories on the digital music market. Turn the WHINE down, offer some actual critical thinking for thought instead of this thinly veiled excuse for bitching, and bring some actual business logic to the table next time to avoid coming off like such a greedy pissant little asshat.
You seem shocked that Radiohead might position themselves to profit on this. Do you honestly think they run their balls and sanity over the blistered coals of hell for "fans" like you month after year after decade for a pat on the head and a cookie? You actually come off as *offended* that the band might profit "doublely" from their hard work and innovative marketing strategy. Music at this level is a product, funboy. It stops being art when you sell it. You can bet every move the band does is calculated to make them maximum profit. That's why they call it the music BIZ, bubba.
Man. I want to hurt you. Seriously. You make me sad humans can breed. :( You deserve every harsh word on this board.
13 - Tom Johnson
I don't think you get it, rhoul. Radiohead, if indeed their plan is to later release the album conventionally, has deliberately kept those plans quiet, which in turn makes fans believe that this is "it," which in turn encourages fans to pay up a little more than they would if they knew a CD was coming down the line at some point. This is called "being duped." It's not nice, it's not fair, and if things like this keep up, bands that employ this method are going to get the same reputation that the music industry itself has gotten - that they are simply out to get money out of fans in such a way that they themselves don't feel particularly guilty. It's a very convenient way for the band to play off of the natural guilt most people have about taking something - as we see, most people simply will not take the album for free, not when it's presented as if this is the final, and only final product. Honestly, how many who paid for the mp3s would now have paid for these mp3s knowing that the real CD would be out sometime early next year? I bet the results would have been a lot less impressive, monetarily, had all of the information been shared up front as it should have been. So now how do we know we can trust Radiohead? When the CD comes out, will it be the CD, or will there be a "deluxe" edition in a few more months with the tracks from disc two of the "Disc Box"? I don't particularly feel I can put much faith in them right now.
14 - Tom Johnson
One more thing: rhoul, the last line of your comment reveals the truth about what kind of "human" you are. I'm angry about a consumer injustice and you wish to commit physical harm upon me?
15 - Chris
No physicists in this bunch, I'm guessing. 160KB/s is very close to lossless when compared to CD quality. It's actually not the bit rate that should be of much concern once you reach around the 160 mark (I will admit that it is the bottom of the rung when it comes to good quality bit rates, but nevertheless it is good quality). The other thing I'm wondering is how much of a music lover bit rate snobs really are; if you're listening that intently for imperfections, are you appreciating the music? I mean, if you care that much about perfection, why are you listening to Radiohead? Listen to a world class orchestra or a savant pianist if perfection is what you desire.
Do you really care that much about the bit rate, or is it just something to talk about with your WoW buddies?
16 - Tom Johnson
Read comment #11, Chris.
17 - Chris
...and you're not paying for "damaged goods", you're paying for exactly the goods that you purchased. You have a) no legal precedent; b) no moral precedent; and c) no perspective. The onus is on the consumer to read the fine print and do their own 'dirty work'.
As for the great moral degradation perpetrated by those nasty, wicked and downright awful Englishmen, perhaps you had best let that one go. I think you'll find that, ethically, it's a moot point at best and and abhorrently skewed point at best. In the immortal phraseology of the generation that brought you the creative license now passed on to Radiohead "get some perspective, man."
18 - Tom Johnson
Lossy options such as mp3s are inherently damaged goods.
You can talk all the gibberish you want, but Radiohead was being deliberately sly when they opted not to inform buyers of the bitrate of the files they were buying (we mistakenly believed they were on our level; we know better now,) and that they planned on releasing a CD of the music at some point. They could easily have done this, but doing so would have compromised the profitability and newsworthiness of their endeavor. In effect, fans have taken part in a stunt that they had to pay for. And what was the end result? What have they proven? Not a whole lot - we already knew people would by digital files. Itunes is proof of that. If they were only concerned with beating the leaks, they could have done that with the "pay as you wish" download and the news that a CD would be forthcoming. Start thinking about this from the band's angle and things start to look quite different. I'll say it once again to sum it all up: they had absolutely no reason to keep the bitrate and the future CD release secret.
19 - Edwin
I apologize for my overly harsh comments earlier... I just really love radiohead, as I'm sure many of us do. Rhoul: you totally summed up the pro-radiohead sentiment. Well said, well WRITTEN, a joy to read, though the threat of physical violence might be a bit much in retrospect. You're good though... very good.
I can understand both sides a little better now, but can we be so sure that the band had dishonest intentions? Why even let the public now about the arguably-dissapointing bit rate before the official release? Why let the word get out and risk potential backlash when you could just send out the files and hope people didn't immediately investigate the mouth of said gift horse?
Had I been in the band's situation, it wouldn't have crossed my mind that there were enough audiophiles out there to raise a stink about a few... hundred kbps. I thought the world of music journalism had more or less agreed that the 256 kbps DRM-free tunes offered on iTunes a few months back for extra moola were no significant improvement over the standard 128 precedent. It's almost as if these bloggers will pick a side conveniently in the interest of tearing down the high-rollers, i.e. Apple and Radiohead. Any thoughts?
20 - YammerAnt
Guys... it's F-R-E-E. Just go to "InRainbows.com" and say you want to pay $0.00. After listening to it, you can then pay if you want or remain to keep it for free. Although I'm not positive as to what Radiohead's plans are by doing this, I can say that I support them and whatever they've got going on.
21 - Glen Boyd
Well I just downloaded it and two songs in, this actually sounds pretty damn amazing so far. More in the review in a day or so...
-Glen
22 - allan cardenas
Being a long-time reader of Pitchfork Media, I knew some time ago that they would be releasing the CD with a label. In fact, many media sites were talking about the release of this album at least a month ago. It's almost ignorant not to think that it wouldn't be released on a label. Also, if you're a Radiohead fan you should know that the second disc of B-Sides will most likely be released separately as an EP. That's how they do things. I do feel kind of bad for people who paid more than $3 for the mp3's, but I stand by the band and do not believe that they would intentionally want to cheat people out of their money. Keep in mind that this is mostly a move against big-business, but Radiohead still need to see some profit for their work. They don't have the manpower/capability to supply the world with cd's on a single release day, so they have no choice but to release it with a record label that has worldwide distribution...
Finally, when the discbox comes out in December you can be sure that excellent quality mp3's will surface free of charge. I wouldn't be so upset over any of this.
And yes, this is still a brilliant and innovative move by a band. 160 or not.
23 - Ernesto
From Wikipedia:
The transparency threshold of MP3 can be estimated to be at about 128 kbit/s with good encoders on typical music as evidenced by its strong performance in the above test, however some particularly difficult material can require 192 kbit/s or higher. As with all lossy formats, some samples can not be encoded to be transparent for all users.
For digital stereophonic sounds, this transparency threshold of MP3 can be greatly reduced by using the Joint stereo coding mode based on stereo intensity redundancy removal. This feature further reduces the overall bit rate of a stereophonic sound down to 96 kbit/s. Unfortunately, in spite of a wide use of this feature in most MP3 files and all standardized encoders no official results of this transparency level were ever published due to strong lobbying and opposition of the professional music industry.
With all respect, it seems like the "professional music industry" has found its way through your mind. Really, try and be honest and tell us if you can actually hear any difference between an 160kbps encoded mp3 and a CD. You knew what you were getting ("damaged goods"), because they always said they were mp3s, and everybody knew they were going to release it as a regular CD sometime later. Being the "audiophile" you are, you should've bought the vinyl version, since it's the only way to listen to the record without losing the precious information your ears can't actually tell..
I agree that there's nothing like holding the actual artwork, and considering Stanley Donwood said it's his best yet, it's not something Radiohead fans would want to miss, but hey, here's the band leaking their own album and asking you to pay saomething if you want, after all the music is published by Warner, as I guess you read, (I just don't want to say it belongs to them, I still want to believe art belongs to the ones who want it).
One final thing, where you so naïve to really believe five regular men from England could bring down the whole record industry's standard (bringing down the industry itself is plain impossible for any single artist) and capitalism's scheme of commercialising even art?
I really hope you like the record mate, so you cant have some sort of comfort after feeling cheated. I know just minutes from now I'll be having beautiful experiences because of some "damaged" sounds coming out of my headphones. After all it's "just" music. Really
Oh and don't forget! "We are damaged good, we are rotten food"...
24 - EED Amnesia
Would I have bought the album if I'd known it was at 160? Probably, I'm a Radiohead nut from pre-Pablo Honey. Is it satisfactory? No. Lets get some things clear;
i) In Rainbows is not intended to be *free*. The choose-your-own-payment is called an 'honesty box' where you put in *some* value for the goods you are receiving.
ii) For those listening on bud-earphones off an mp3 player, you probably won't care about 160kbps rips vs higher quality its true. Saved space on some mp3 players? Also a marginal benefit.
However if this album had been mastered at 160 onto a cd and you played it through your hi-fi, a sizeable percentage of the population would detect that it was somewhat lacking in sparkle and quality.
More than that, there are millions and millions of people worldwide who rip cds at 256+ and use FLAC because they can tell the difference and want to listen to their music in a degraded fidelity. This is NOT some audiophile BS - there are many many millions of people who do this already and listen to music through good quality speakers from their pcs.
While mp3 / bud-earphone players are not affected, this is also 2007 - there are millions of people who own Squeezebox, Sonos and all sorts of other digital players into good speakers / hi-fi.
I'm somewhat surprised that someone like Jonny Greenwood who is a gear-guru and electronics expert and in general such an experienced band would have gone with a choice like this. It makes a lot of sense from a simplistic bandwidth point of view and perhaps that's why they've done it but it is DEFINITELY not a cd quality release. I hope such a progressive and excellent band does the obvious thing, which is when this initial rush of bandwidth is over, they make highest quality mp3 and FLAC versions releasable for anyone who paid an amount that covers the incremental costs of a bit more bandwidth for higher quality.
25 - Brian aka Guppusmaximus
"someone like Jonny Greenwood who is a gear-guru and electronics expert and in general such an experienced band would have gone with a choice like this."
If Radiohead was really concerned about the audiophiles or were such gurus then the $80 box-set would contain the album on a format such as SACD(2.8224MHZ/16-bit) or DVDAudio(96kHZ/24-bit). But, it isn't going to be because audiophiles don't dominate the pretentious rock market.
You are correct, though , that most people already rip @ 256+ kbps because that's where you really have an issue hearing the difference from CD(not 128kbps - with that compression I would much rather carry a tape player).