Reznor's Not So Optimistic About Rainbows

When I heard/read/whatever about the upcoming release of In Rainbows, I was overjoyed. For one, it was a new Radiohead album, which was, in and of itself, good news (they're pretty reliable when it comes to releasing great albums), but even better, it was going to be (practically) free! (If you're reading my blog, then you surely have at least an idea of why this album caused a stir, but if you want to know more, read this.) I was hoping that it would be the start of a music revolution, finally ditching the big labels, releasing albums for free, or at least for reasonable prices. I figured if any band could do it, it would be this one - they have a huge following, and can get away with just about anything.

As time passed, however, I quickly realized that it was only because Radiohead was Radiohead that they could pull it off (letting listeners download the album online and set the price, that is). It wasn't a formula that would work well for everyone, at least not yet. If bands didn't have millions of fans that were desperately anticipating a new album, then they weren't going to have a fraction of the luck their predecessors did.

After reading a short article entitled "Radiohead Offering Was Insincere, Industry Is Inept", which is based primarily on comments made by Trent Reznor - founder and creative force behind Nine Inch Nails (also one of the first to ditch his/their label) - I was less impressed with Radiohead's move with their recent album. Reznor brought up the points (of which I was already aware, but reading about them in series made more of an impression) of the band only releasing medium-quality (160kbs) tracks while Amazon and iTunes both offered 256kbs, going back to the record labels to put out the traditional album, cutting off distribution of online material after the previously mentioned release, and using their innovative sales method more as a marketing tool than a means to help out listeners. What they did was definitely a move in the right direction, but as the article points out, being who they were (Radiohead), they could have done better.