^Usually we do the coldplaying reviews in seperate threads though.

This is the review thread. So that people can tell what they thought about it on this thread.

:dozey: okay

ahh.. sorry! just doing what I'm supposed to be doing :embarassed:

All I Need is my absolute favourite....still blown away by this album. :heart:

 

The live version was better

Hmmm not sure about that..both versions are brilliant.

I fell asleep last night listening to the album..its so perfect :heart:

For those people who dont like the album version of Videotape, I've been editing it so that the annoying reverse sound effect on the left speaker fades away after the chorus. I have also added very slight reverb to the song.

 

I'm listening to it now and the changes are very subtle, but for me they make all the difference, the second half of the song sounds much better.

I'll make sure to upload it to a site like rapidshare in a minute, so stay posted for the link.

 

:)

 

EDIT: I'm uploading it to megaupload. It's encoded as a 256kbps mp3 to preserve quality.

 

EDIT: Download link:

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=JFVFALK7

Hope you enjoy it more this way ;)

For those people who dont like the album version of Videotape, I've been editing it so that the annoying reverse sound effect on the left speaker fades away after the chorus. I have also added very slight reverb to the song.

 

I'm listening to it now and the changes are very subtle, but for me they make all the difference, the second half of the song sounds much better.

I'll make sure to upload it to a site like rapidshare in a minute, so stay posted for the link.

 

:)

 

EDIT: I'm uploading it to megaupload. It's encoded as a 256kbps mp3 to preserve quality.

 

EDIT: Download link:

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=JFVFALK7

Hope you enjoy it more this way ;)

 

Thanks a squillion!

Thanks a squillion!

 

Let me know what you think :)

As I expected... :)

 

I love it. :smug:

I've just listened to the first songs and it sounds really gooooooood....can't wait to listen to the rest...:dance:

ouch.. this is a intriguing article..

 

read on:

 

 

Radiohead Fans Feel Duped By In Rainbows' Poor Sound Quality, Possible Ulterior Motives

 

Statements from band's management seem to indicate that downloadable album was just promotional tool for physical CD.

 

By James Montgomery

 

When Radiohead announced last week that they would be releasing their seventh album, In Rainbows, via their official Web site, there was much fanfare and some honest-to-goodness debate about the future of the music industry, the validity of major labels and just how people consume music.

But in the days since that announcement, a whole lot of that fanfare has curdled, thanks to moves by the band and its management that some see as dishonest, distasteful and, well, downright un-Radiohead. The sentiment among many fans seems to have gone from admiration for the group's willingness to let the consumer decide how much to pay for the new album to anger over the low quality of the downloads — and dismay over 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.

The first bone of contention arose October 9 — the day before Rainbows became available for download — when fans who ordered the album (either in its download-only form or as a deluxe, $81 "discbox" version) received an e-mail from Radiohead's official online store, announcing that "the album [would] come as a 48.4 MB ZIP file containing 10 x 160 [kilobits per second], DRM-free MP3s."

To the casual music listener, the e-mail would be little more than an order confirmation (if not, you know, totally confusing), but to a segment of Radiohead's fanbase — aand to anyone who frequents file-sharing sites — it was a call to arms for two reasons.

First and foremost, all of Radiohead's previous albums were already available as MP3s encoded at 320 kilobits per second — the highest-possible compression rate in the format (though still not nearing the quality of a compact disc) — and most file-sharers scoff at anything less than 192 kbps. (MP3 files encoded with a lower bit rate will generally play back at a lower quality — something not readily apparent on tiny iPod earbuds but obvious enough on high-end home stereos.)

Second, most took issue with when Radiohead chose to announce that In Rainbows would be available at 160 kbps — after the majority of their fans had already paid for the download. To be fair, however, the band did give potential customers the power of choosing how much they wanted to pay to download the album. It could be had for as little as the transaction fee of 45 pence, or roughly 92 cents. There was also an option on the Web site to cancel orders; though, given the timing of the bit-rate announcement, fans had less than 24 hours to do so.

"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."

"Radiohead has such delicate music that requires detail and depth of sound. ... I for one CAN tell the difference between 160 and 192," responded one commenter. "[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."

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. It's never going to be CD-quality, because that's what a CD does."

That explanation didn't fly with some fans, who began speculating that the decision was made to keep the album off P2P sites or as a subtle way of making fans purchase either the discbox or the physical release of the album next year. The thought behind this theory was that if Radiohead fans were willing to split hairs over something as seemingly inconsequential as kilobits per second, then surely they wouldn't mind shelling out cash for the actual CD version of Rainbows.

And, as it turns out, the latter speculation seems to be true — especially after comments made by the band's managers, Chris Hufford and Bryce Edge, began to make their way around the Internet on Thursday (October 11) — which brings us to bone of contention number three.

In an interview with U.K. trade publication Music Week, Hufford and Bryce spoke at length about the downloadable version of Rainbows and how it plays into the larger plan of releasing a physical copy of the album in stores next year.

"In November we have to start with the mass-market plans and get them under way," Hufford told the magazine.

"If we didn't believe that when people hear the music they will want to buy the CD, then we wouldn't do what we are doing," Edge said.

To many, those comments sounded strangely, well, capitalistic and seemed to confirm that the lower-quality downloadable version of the album was little more than a promotional tool for the actual CD. (It didn't help that Edge is quoted as saying that "CDs are a fantastic bit of kit. ... You can't listen to a Radiohead record on MP3 and hear the detail; it's impossible.") And if that was the case, it probably would've been nice if the band — or its management — had let fans know before they paid (or, you know, didn't pay) to download it. Attempts to contact Edge for clarification on his comments were unsuccessful at press time.

Is this entire backlash really just glorified nitpicking, or do members of Radiohead Nation have a legitimate reason to think they were duped? Well, the answer in both cases is probably "yes."

On one hand, the main reason so many are upset (the 160 kbps thing) seems rather inconsequential, especially given the fact that most people downloading Rainbows are going to be listening to it on their computers or a portable MP3 player. But there is a slightly noticeable difference between a 160 kbps-encoded song and, say, one encoded at 320 (it's heard most easily when played on a stereo). And Radiohead have yet to really offer up any plausible explanation for why they even chose to go the 160 route, especially since their entire catalog is already available at 320.

Furthermore, had the band announced the sound quality before people paid for the record — and if its managers had made the download sound like nothing more than a glorified demo a few days earlier — would 1.2 million people (as is being reported) still have made the decision to download it on the day it was released? Well, probably not. But really, who knows?

In the end, it's really all about a series of intangibles — kilobits per second, fan loyalty, etc. — that makes it difficult to tell if Radiohead fans are upset because of a whole bunch of miscommunication, or if there was some less-than-honest business being done by a band not exactly known for being cold and calculating. Then again, it's also entirely possible that Thom Yorke and company tried to do something different with Rainbows, and as is the case with being first, they might not have gotten it right.

"I paid zero, nothing, nada for the album," one fan wrote on an epic Stereogum thread about the album. "Sounds like Radiohead. But 160 kbps, that's not good enough. They are actually forcing us to buy the CD when it comes out."

"Do not buy the record then. Was that not the point? Don't go around complaining like they did you a disservice by making an album available," another countered. "As if you wouldn't have downloaded the leak. Would you complain if you got the album for free and actually listened to the music instead of focusing on 160 kbps? Maybe you'd actually remember what music appreciation was and be forced to buy the album based on that notion instead."

 

 

it certainly made me think..

 

 

what are you thoughts on this?

^ Aye, I agree, it doesn't sound as nice as it should.

 

However, those who can buy the discbox (and have a record player, 2 ticks for me then :D) should, by all means, buy the discbox, especially if people are bitching about 160kbps MP3s.

Green plastic is saying that these shots are the cover art for the album..

 

front

 

back

TZI WAS FUNNY THAT COLDPLAYING CRASHED TOO, NOW IM LEAVING TO MY HOMETOWN (ATEASE), IT WAS REALLY NICE HERE (THE FEW MOMENTS THAT i SPENT HERE) YOU ARE ALL REALLY NICE PPL, THANK YOU AND GOODBYE.

 

LUV.

 

MR. RAINBOW

P.S. Videotape is the best track on In Rainbows.

According to our records Coldplaying didn't crash at all :confused:

Green plastic is saying that these shots are the cover art for the album..

 

front

 

back

 

I doubt that is the actual artwork. Well the front maybe, but these are just shots from the promo pick released for the box-set. Since In Rainbows is on two vinyl's, I bet you the back here is just from the first vinyl with the first half of the album. I think that explains why half is in colour and the other half is white.

Hmm i think the album sounds in gorgeous quality, but it feels not so effective on stereo, where as it is beautiful on headphones. But then again it will be relishing to get the disbox (to those who get it) and hear it in that better quality, can't wait to get it. AND THOSE EXTRA SONGS, TOO.

Interesting article posted ^ up there.

 

As someone with a "high-end"stereo system I am quite disappointed in this album, I can definately hear the shortfall in quality. I guess that's my fault for spending 000's £££ on a stereo system designed for music producters to keep their end of the bargain. It was a bargain I paid for this album, and I'm glad I did. It's not CD quality and thus not worth the price of a CD.

 

Nevertheless, standout tracks for me are limited to Weird Fishes and House of Cards.

standouts for me are reckoner and nude.

I just got back from a trip and I think I've listened to this album about... hmm... 20-25 times over the past three days. I haven't talked to anyone that even knows Radiohead, so I think it's safe to say that my opinions have not been influenced by others at all. Though I'm still in initial shock/speechlessness and I can't exactly rate it yet, I have some thoughts.

 

15 Step- Amazing! I love the crazy beat softened by Jonny's amazing guitar thing, this song is just lovely. Haha what's up with the little kids screaming? It was so funny. And then in the very beginning I think Thom's voice could have been a little stronger to kind of balance the beat, like he sang in live versions, but maybe that was all on purpose or something. It really doesn't matter though, this is a lot better than the live version.

 

Bodysnatchers- This is a reminder that Radiohead are the best rock artists ever and though any band can make a rocking out song, Radiohead will always do it better :P

 

Nude- I'm not really sure what this song is about (?), but I'm glad to hear it finalized and finally recorded. Amazing...Thom's voice is just.... :dead:

 

WF/Arpeggi

I love the drum beat here, the lyrics are amazing...awesome..

 

All I Need

This song is just amazing. It's so dark and kind of scary, the part that always gets me is "I'm in the middle of your picture, dying in the reeds." That just kills me...there's so much emotion.. :dead: When the piano kicks in it's crazy..

 

Faust Arp

I love this song! I was really excited to hear it because nobody had any idea what it was. The orchestra is amazing, Thom is amazing, his voice and the lyrics, the guitar is amazing, everything is great. This is a song I'm going to listen to over and over again and never get tired of.

 

Reckoner

Totally different from live versions and IMO a lot better. awesome.

 

House of Cards: Is it just me or is there something funky going on with the sound in this song? What's up with the echo? It only really gets annoying on speakers, which I just noticed when I got home. And I didn't love the oooh part in the beginning, I liked the live version of that better. I like the rest of the song.

 

Jigsaw: I love this song, especially the end. I think the beginning could have had some more strength/power/whatever you wanna call it, I'm not even exactly sure what I'm trying to say.

 

Videotape: Kind of disappointed. I liked the version from iTunes, that video one. The banging noise is annoying and it kind of ruined it for me.

 

Overall..

 

Thom's voice is just absolutely perfect. Untouched, lot of emotion, soft where it needs to be and more aggresive in other places.. amazing. yeah thom!

I don't even know what the overall feel is yet though. listening to this album is like going somewhere else...you can't compare it to OK Computer very easily or Kid A either...it's really different. I don't really know what to think of it yet. I'll share some more thoughts in a month :P

PS. I just listened to it on speakers (i've been listening to it on headphones for three days) and this album sounds SO much better on headphones! It really sounds like bad quality on speakers. Unless I have reaaally crappy speakers, which I doubt.

This is gonna be a long post.

 

I'm at about 30 listenings on account, and still love it, but already my way of listening to it has changed.

 

I'm quite happy about the album title, because i feel exactly this way : in rainbows. I think it's one of the most coloured albums I've ever heard. Each song has a different style, and even inside one song, you meet different things, like strings on a chillout background for Nude.

Faust Arp is really interesting : i think it's Wolf At The Door's little sister in the way that the lyrics are quite said rather than sung. It almost sounds like rap : the way some parts of the text are enforced by a second voice (as for "dominoes", "balance", "ought to") makes me think very much of my favourite French Rapper MC Solaar, but with a music oh so much better !

 

Inside most of the songs there is something that reminds me of a past Radiohead song part, but in a different atmosphere : the rupture in the keyboard scape at 3:26 on 15 Step makes me thinf very much of Trans-Atlantic Drawl (amazing song) ; the Ondes on Bodysnatchers sound almost exaclty the same as on National Anthem ; drums on Weird Fishes/Arpeggi sound quite oldschool-back-in-the-nineties and remind me of Blow Out (even though it's a radically different song) ; and i have an overall feeling about Jigsaw that makes me recall the Trickster.

 

I've written "www.inrainbows.com" on my classroom's blackboard, and massively try to promote the album in front almost everyone around me.

 

I've sent the address to my father, who downloaded it for £5 and listened to it all day long.

 

 

By the way, I'd like to say it's the first time i discover a long-awaited album since I've got the internet, and it's really great to share impressions with all of you.

 

I've written "www.inrainbows.com" on my classroom's blackboard, and massively try to promote the album in front almost everyone around me.

 

 

:lol: Nicee.

In Rainbows is their most emotive and personal album to date.

 

An explosion of emotions:

self improvement (15 Step)

mental illness (Bodysnatchers)

vulnerability (Nude)

escapism (Weird Fishes/Arpeggi)

longing (All I Need)

hope (Faust Arp)

separation (Reckoner)

...

So don't get any big ideas

They're not gonna get a haircut

 

it cracked me up when I read this :D