I think it is pretty huge news that Radiohead has produced its own record (without a label deal) that it is now going to give away, basically for free (or whatever people donate).

Does this mark the end of the music industry as we know it today? What will happen to the major labels?

Is this a special case, or will other, less renowed artists follow suit?

Any thoughts...?

I know their website is crashing like a Lindsay Lohan DUI.

I'd say special case. First, you'd have to be a band as big as Radiohead to be able to do this. Second, a band as big as Radiohead would never do this. I don't know, it seems like small bands couldn't get by, but there are more bands then ever right now even in the age of downloading. But, those small bands don't make any money in hope that they get signed to some kind of label. If what Radiohead is doing becomes standard what happens then? I'd say it would be next to impossible for an unknown band to put out a record. The labels are there for a reason. It just seems that this would only work for a band who already has made a name for themselves.

I know Manu Chao said his latest record would be the last to come out the "regular" way

You beat me to this thread, Loophole! :)

I agree with John - this is special case. I could only see a band like Radiohead doing something like this. Not simply because they're a huge band (in terms of fanbase and popularity), but I think it's the type of fanbase that Radiohead has that allow the band to pull a stunt like this.

When Radiohead puts out a new album, you might not know what you're getting musically (ie. sound), but you sure as hell know that they've done something that they haven't done before, and as is the case with this album, it's something they've put a lot of time and effort into. As a fan, I definitely appreciate Radiohead's constant "boundary-pushing", and because of this, I'll pay for their record even if I could get it for nothing.

(On the flipside, I certainly can't see a band like Nickelback pulling off something like this.)

Whether this marks a turning point in the music industry, I'm not sure. All I know is that yesterday morning when I woke up and read this news, I was like "holy f$&k." We'll see what happens on the 10th, I guess.

This is the first I'd heard of this

When will it be available?

October 10

Link to buy: http://www.inrainbows.com/Store/Quickindex2.html

Pitchfork article: http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/article/news/46015-new-radiohead-album-aaaaaaahhh

I wonder how far Radiohead will move up the top artists list after the end of the year with this? I reckon they'll take over Nirvana for sure

How much are you guys going to pay and is anyone going to dig deep for the box set?

im gettibg the box!

Since they are cutting out the middle man, I think I will pay a little less than a regular CD. The consumer should benefit as well as the band.

Haven't figured out the exact amount yet.

I think I'll pay 9 Euros
The price of a album download on an legal site is 9.99 Euros, so I guess it's a fair price, and it's really what I'm ready to pay for this album

I predict that most people will just take it for free.

When I was in college they came up with an idea to have "Green bicycles" available for free on campus. The idea was that the "Green bicycles" would always be laying around whenever you needed one. They even held an excorcism ceremony in the middle of campus to ward away all greedy spirits that might cause students or townies to steal the bikes, of which there were many.

Within two days, every single "Green bicycle" disappeared never to be seen again. Lesson: People will take what's free (at least in the USA).

Hahahaha well yeah that's true other places as well - but I'd feel a bit guilty if I didn't pay at least something for it.

I'll pay $15C (whatever that works out to in quid.) Then I'll get the box set when it's released.

I'm excited to hear the studio version of "Nude", a song that's been floating around P2P sites in various live incarnations since OK Computer.

I'm going to wait for the physical album. Heck I might even wait a couple years. I still haven't even really heard Hail to the Thief. I guess I lost interest with Amnesiac.

I've just got through listening to 'In Rainbows' for the second time, and I have to say I really like it. I'd've been amazed if I didn't like it, RH being my favourite band, but still I didn't know what to expect and I'm happy. I think it will be a grower as well.

I've also just got through listening to it for the second time and I can't help but feel it doesn't live up to expectations. It's much mellower than "Hail," and doesn't have that experimental edge all their other work does (at least OK Comp and past). Also, the songs are really straightforward...no more "three songs in one" or any 2+2=5-like-song-long-crescendos-into-cacophony. Pretty standard stuff compared to the rest of their catalog, but because it is Radiohead (and therefore, imo, in a class of its own) its still one of the better albums I've heard this year. Just don't expect it to reaffirm their status as the best modern band like OK Comp or Kid A (or possibly even The Bends?) did when they first came out.

I will agree that this album is more melody-based and less electro/experiement-driven than probably anything since The Bends, but still it has that magic. Listening again, tracks like Nude and Reckoner have that pincer grip on both mind and spirit that very few can replicate. I know a few are disappointed with the mix of Videotape, but I even like that. The first 2 tracks, for the record, are probably my favourites.

It's pretty good. Over the past few years I've become more of a Kid A/Amnesiac guy. This almost seems like a step back to me but it's still one of the best releases of the year.

I agree with you Rendler. The reason OK Computer was awesome was because of that "three in one" song structure. This album is missing that and doesn't have the crazy experimentalism like the records that followed OK Computer. It's a good album but I don't think it will be my favorite of this year.

I also can't believe Radiohead decided on a 160kbps bitrate. It's not bad but it's definitely noticeable.

I was surprised about the 160kbps bitrate too. I forget where I read it, but in some interview Jonny Greenwood said they were satisfied with 160 because it is ever-so-slightly higher than whatever itunes' is. It's ironic that Radiohead would release an album at 160--if there is one band out there that warrants as close a listen as possible it is surely Radiohead. However, I will say that the noticeable difference between this and CD has me pretty hyped for 2008 (I have to skip on the deluxe edition, the $81.50 they're asking won't fit in my budget as of now).

In Rainbows, I believe, is actually better than Amnesiac and Hail To The Thief and seems like a much more appropriate follow-up to what i think is Radiohead's defining moment, Kid A.

Rendle? That comes too close for comfort.

What, whoa!! That is close.

Is an easy pick for "album of the year"... so easy is annoying.

Anyone have a doubt??, and it really dosent matter how the album sounds, the hype is gonna put it in a good place for the rest of the year at least, is Radiohead, duh.

Thougth, lets see what the critics say.

It's good enough to get album of the year. I have a few I like better but it will get universal acclaim.

Yeah, I'll second that. It is good enough for album of the year, if only because "ITS RADIOHEAD!!!" and its going to be overrated just because. That's not to say I don't think its deserving, but a Swede who calls himself The Field put an album out earlier in the year entitled "From Here We Go Sublime." IMO, that's a 10/10 album, and Radiohead just put out a solid 8/10 album (sorry to be so crude with these ratings but you get the point). But, because The Field is a. minimalist techno, b. relatively unknown among anyone but us buffs, and c. SWEDISH!!! , Radiohead's record is going to get more acclaim than it will know what to do with, and The Field will go pretty much unacknowledged here in the States. That's not to say that Radiohead's album isn't worthy of acclaim, but I can tell how uneasy I will feel later in the year when Entertainment Weekly names "In Rainbows" the best album of the year just because its the easy/obvious choice, and "From Here We Go Sublime" (or some other more deserving gem--Jens Lekman, M.I.A., Battles, etc.) never gets mentioned because nobody wants to read about how "some minimalist techno Swede" bested Springsteen, Thom Yorke, and whoever else. Sure, "In Rainbows" may very well be in my top ten at the end of the year, but it won't be my number one, and if people put their fanboyism aside as hard as it may be (as a Radiohead fanboy myself, a part of me wants to delete this whole post), I doubt that as many people will honestly think "In Rainbows" is AOTY as there will be declaring it AOTY a few short months from now.

Actually the Field album is the top album on Metacritic right now. #48 on the AM charts though. But, the Field has a pretty good shot at being #1 on a lot of end of year lists. MIA, Battles and The Field will be on almost everyones end of year lists be it Spin, Pitchfork or Rolling Stone. They aren't really unknown albums. Maybe to mainstream radio but certainly not to critical acclaim...

My point was that The Field (and to a lesser extent the other artists named) will be underrated and Radiohead will be overrated when people make their lists at the end of the year. While The Field is the top album on metacritic, it is based on only 14 reviews. And that is more what I'm trying to say than it not being acclaimed. The Field is acclaimed but not getting its due recognition even among the music community. On the other hand, I've met far too many people who are more than eager to call themselves Radiohead affectionados when all they own is Kid A and possibly OK Comp. I think there is a push in pop-culture that encourages everyone to hold Radiohead close to their heart, and on the other hand there is also a push away from what may considered other great but lesser-known music. I love to see The Field the highest ranked album for 2007 on metacritic, and in my opinion it deserves to be there. What is unfortunate is that it only has 14 cataloged reviews, and that I had to order it through amazon while a few months from now every music store plus target/walmart/maybe even costco will have copies of the new Radiohead album. Reading my previous post over again, I realize I should have specified that when I call Battles, The Field, and M.I.A. "unknown" or whatever I called them, I meant to do so only in a pop-cultural sort of context. They are obviously known and loved among our types, but realistically nobody is going to line up for their next albums or even play them on mainstream radio.

"I also can't believe Radiohead decided on a 160kbps bitrate. It's not bad but it's definitely noticeable."

Isn't that above standard? I don't know cause I don't listen to MP3's but I thought 160kbps was way better than most.

I saw an old friend's set tonight and he mentioned he was putting CD's on sale for whatever people were willing to pay. I said, "Pulling a Radiohead, eh?" (I'm Canadian) and he replied "No, a Keith Green. Don't ever let anyone tell you Radiohead started that. Keith Green was decades ahead of them." You know, he's right, Keith Green was decades ahead of them, and that's not only important because he was first, but he was doing it while people still BOUGHT CD'S!! Green felt morally obligated to give his Christian worship albums away for free because he felt his music shouldn't be a commercial endeavour. Radiohead's cool but Keith Green's the real indie hero.

No offense if you really like the Field and Battles albums (I haven't heard either), but they're not going to have as big an impact on year end lists as they're having on metacritic.

Just think about these top 10 metacritic albums of the past few years and how they stack up here on AM

2006:
Savane (No. 1 on MC, No. 27 here)
Destoryer's Rubies (No. 6, No. 18)
The Town and the City (No. 8, bubbling under)

2005:
Wearamonster (No. 3, No. 27)
Hypermagic Mountain (No. 4, No. 47)

2004:
HoboSapiens (No. 8, bubbling under)
Last Exit (No. 9, No. 27)

Metacritic value doesn't always equate into doing well on year end lists.

As for Radiohead's new album, I think it's pretty good after one listen, but I'm holding off on calling it great for now. And Trent Reznor has announced that Nine Inch Nails' new album will be released in much the same way.

That's a good and (for me) unfortunate point you made Rocky. While The Field has received almost unanimously positive reviews, it is (in part) the quantitative lack of these reviews that will place it lower on this site than I personally think it should be. I also heard the NIN news, and I must say I'm interested in seeing how that works out. Hopefully I'll be able to finally catch him in concert when he tours for the new album. Bizarre at it sounds, I did see Trent once live, but it was an acoustic performance. He made up for a lot of instruments through the strategic implementation of strings. Really Grade-A stuff though, and a testament to him.

Well Metacritic goes after the big sources so at least in the general public eye they will be considered the best. The AM lists takes a bunch of sources into account and gives a better view of how all critics view it.

But, Metacritic is compiling how the widely read critics view an album, so it will be the general public perception that The Field, Battles and MIA are the best albums (so far) this year. I'm just pointing it out because the rendler was making the case that those albums were virtually unknown which is not the case at all.

jonmarck, 160 quality is better than Itunes, but Itunes downloads are 128 which is absolutely terrible. 192 is considered CD quality. It really isn't but what is lost would only be heard by audiophiles. I rip all my music at VBR V0 which calculates the highest bitrate the song needs to be and variates the bitrate throughout the song. This makes for the highest quality at the lowest filesize. As close to lossless as you can get. I'm not an audiophile by any means but I just like knowing that my digital music is as close to the CD's sound as possible. Again, In Rainbows doesn't sound horrible but there are times when the lower quality is noticeable and it's really surprising that a band like Radiohead didn't at least use 192kbps. There are some private torrent sites out there that aren't even allowing it to be uploaded because it doesn't meet their minimum bitrate requirement.

First off John, I never claimed any of the albums to be "virtually unknown," and it seems that our definition of public opinion differs. I stand firmly by my point that The Field is RELATIVELY unknown when compared to Radiohead. I used Entertainment Weekly's lack of a review for this album as case-in-point. Sure, among the musical community The Field has gotten recognition--I've acknowledged this multiple times now. All I'm saying is that in the TRULY widely read US magazines it got no recognition whatsoever. No review in the Times, no review in Rolling Stone, no review in Entertainment Weekly, etc.. I don't know where you're from, and maybe things differ there for the better, but here in the States, the vast majority of the population doesn't look any further than these sources for their music news (that is if they look anywhere at all). While the sites featured on metacritic may be more well-known on average than those featured here, essentially all the US-based reviews metacritic features are from sources that the casual music listener is not going to avidly read. While we know pitchfork all too well, most people in the US have never heard of it, let alone read it regularly. Compared to any major newspaper, ET, People, etc. sites like that don't even have comparable readership on a quantitative level. And while The Field is by no means "virtually unknown," there is simply no comparison to the coverage a band like Radiohead gets. Quite literally, an 80-something year old brought up the Radiohead launch with me a couple days ago. He saw something about it on ABC. When ABC even mentions The Field in a broadcast, and/or when an 80yo with no knowledge of the modern musical landscape brings him up in conversation--then I will agree with you when you say The Field is even acknowledged in "the general public perception." Until then I have a hard time believing that The Field, Battles, or (possibly) even M.I.A. are getting the publicity they deserve on a pop-cultural level.

*removing headphones* Well, that was interesting.

Yorke was right - it is "embarassingly minimalist", but not in the good Kid A sort of way; the bad "isn't this band a 5-piece?" sort of way. After one listen I'm sadly unimpressed - it sounds like they're just retreading old ground at this point, like they don't know where to go next - not because of too many options, but because of lack of options. Way too much emphasis on rhythms and beat-driven riffs, and not enough on instrumentation and melody. But I'm not going to say the album is weak just yet.

Highlights: "All I Need", "Reckoner", "Videotape"
Lowlights: "Bodysnatchers", "House of Cards" (both sound like outtakes from HTTT.)
Utter Disappointment: "Nude" (an awful re-working of a song that should've remained an unreleased gem.)

By and large, Yorke and co. seem rather uninspired for most of the record. A few hints of brilliance, especially on "Videotape", but they might've just given up the "relevant" label with this record (that is, if they still had it after the last album.)

I'll report back after a few more listens. Until then, thumbs down to "In Rainbows" (but a thumbs up to "Cease to Begin".)

I didn't realize you meant mainstream appeal. Well that's true, but that's only because mainstream critics don't realize something is good until it becomes a hit and then claims their next album as great even though it's not. They always look like idiots.

Plus, the casual music fan probably isn't going to look at EW or even Rolling Stone when buying their music anyway. They are going to hear it on the radio or see it at their local Borders or Barnes and Nobles. The Field have almost no chance of catching on with the general public.

I knew we were fundamentally in agreement John. And sorry about any mis-phrasing that led to confusion. And for Anthony, a thumbs down? I admire your bravery. Giving such a highly anticipated album a "thumbs down" seems to generally result in two possible scenarios. You end up "wrong" and later recognize your error (or stick with it against all odds). Or you end up being recognized as being ahead of everyone else. That's the first overall negative response to the album I've seen, and even though I like the album I can't really disagree with anything you said. You may be a true trailblazer Anthony. My guess is that many feel similar to you, but they don't really want to voice their opinion because going against Radiohead seems to be like betting against the house. I look forward to seeing your later impressions.

i haven't heard it yet. not one song. i tried downloading it last night but i couldn't figure out how to use it. either that or the site was just way too slow. i was going to download it for free. i even tried entering a negative amount hahaha. they didn't let me :(

anyways, apparently radiohead are looking for a label and the record will eventually be released the regular way so that more people can hear it. i'm pretty happy to have heard this. for some reason i love owning CD's so the download alone just wouldn't satisfy. the box set, on the other hand, is just too expensive. so even if i have to wait 6 months, i'll be buying it the regular way.

a note on mp3's. it depends on what you're listening to music on as to what bit-rate to use. i'm using these horrible little $20 computer speakers. there's no way anyone could tell the difference between even a horribly low quality mp3 and the actual CD. having said that, i still use a relatively high bit-rate. not because i can hear the difference, just because i'm a perfectionist. btw. m4a is a way better format than mp3. much better quality for the same bit-rate... as far as i know anyway. there are probably better ones out there, but you might have to pay for them. m4a is free :)

I've heard it one time now, downloaded it yesterday, and I must say I don't find it that great either. Now, I'm not a Radiohead fan, but I can appreciate OK Computer and Kid A. In Rainbows is kinda.. boring, though. it seems like they miss a record label to give them some kind of sense of direction, because they're really going nowhere with this album. Everyone expects them to release more innovative albums but they far from live up to this hype. Although the album isn't bad (and will most likely end up high on metacritic just because it's Radiohead, similar to the recently released Halo 3) it's not even close to OK Computer, Kid A, or even The Bends or Hail To The Thief.

Damn, I gotta stop agreeing with Anthony, this is no fun.

ok so i don't think I'll pay much for it if ever I download it

Listens #2 and #3...

Tree is starting to bear delicious new fruit. Still no real sense of urgency with this record; beginning to think record label pressure might not be such a bad thing.

“All I Need” is Radiohead trying a ballad on for size. “Videotape” is stunning – the percussion sounds like driving over a bridge late at night when no cars are around.

Still not impressed with “House of Cards”, but “Bodysnatchers” has grown on me to a small degree.

As for “Nude” – still largely unlistenable at this point. To me it will always be “Big Ideas (Don’t Get Any)”, featuring Yorke and Greenwood both on organ.

Might be too early, but what the hell: a better record than Hail To The Thief.

I listen to it three times now, aaand its pretty good, im happy about it... "Hail to the thief" was disappointing, "Amnesiac" too exaggerate, this one remind me a lot of the first times i heard "Ok Computer", i would call it underwater-OKC, im not sayind is that good but definitely this one is something you shouldnt miss.

OK, got it too now and just listened it for the first time.

Not bad, not bad at all ... but since my first impressions don't ever mean a thing, need to listen at least 10 more times. No problem though, this sounds like another typical Radiohead album that needs multiple listens to get into it.

Well I'll have to get it over the weekend sometime
And remember,as Dave Matthews said,I don't think it's possible for Radiohead to be bad on record

I'm liking it, love Nude, probably helps that I havent heard previous incarnations, and really enjoy the second "side"