Sturgell
Sturgell
Follow

Trent Reznor: 'In Rainbows' Was 'Insincere'

Posted almost 4 years ago
Nine Inch Nails frontman Trent Reznor has criticised the unconventional release of Radiohead’s album ??In Rainbows??, leveling claims of insincerity on the part of the Britsh mega-stars.Reznor said in an interview with ABC: "What they (Radiohead) did was a cool thing. But if you look at what they did, though, it was very much a bait and switch to get you to pay for a MySpace-quality stream. There's nothing wrong with that - I but don't see that as a big revolution [that] they're kinda getting credit for."Reznor added: "What they did right: they surprised the world with a new record, and it was available digitally first. What they did wrong: by making it such a low quality thing, not even including artwork ... to me that feels insincere."Reznor’s comments come a week Nine Inch Nails released a set of instrumental tracks ??Ghosts I-IV?? that included a similar free download option. Yesterday (March 12), the band’s website had processed 781,917 transactions, and had sold out of the 2,500 box sets being sold for $300, according to the Chicago Tribune."More Here":CH[CH]http://www.nme.com/news/nine-inch-nails/35132
0

Comments (27)

  1. Pyro
    Pyro says There is a point in his words..
    Permalink posted 03/13/2008
  2. laura27
    laura27 says hear, hear. the huge difference being that radiohead offered 160kbps, no artwork etc, only mp3 format. they also misled people into thinking there wouldn't be a physical LP release. nin offered 320kpbs, beautiful artwork for each track, a choice of formats and the option to buy a physical format. i agree with reznor all the way, it seemed completely insincere and misleading.
    Permalink posted 03/13/2008
  3. HelenMarie
    HelenMarie says It's true. Enjoy the album but the quality ??was?? poor. And I donated too!
    Permalink posted 03/13/2008
  4. scion
    scion says you know.... i sort of agreed. Basically, they gave out a Radiohead record at 160kbps, with the assumption that their fanbase (myself included) consists of a bunch of muso-nerds who would sooner or later turn around and purchase a high-quality (WAV) version of it. It amounts to them promoting their REAL release (the 80 song boxed set that was released in time for christmas shopping) with a "teaser". I applaud their creativity... as always they're just outside the box, but know how to appeal to all the lemmings who are still trapped inside. So i'm both impressed and annoyed.... anyone else? that it's a good record does a lot to mitigate my irritations tho :p
    Permalink posted 03/13/2008
  5. earthman
    earthman says Its always hard to know what drives some of these things but the result is many people are now looking to give away more digital music or cut the middle men out at least. I was told MySpace is owned by Fox the media giants, does anyone know if thats true? if so its a little sus to me
    Permalink posted 03/13/2008
  6. Lyrikhan
    Lyrikhan says damn trent loves to talk some smack
    Permalink posted 03/13/2008
  7. Misstee
    Misstee says I'd pay big money to see that celebrity deathmatch....
    Permalink posted 03/13/2008
  8. earthman
    earthman says Yep I'll believe them all when they turn up my music club for a free concert
    Permalink posted 03/13/2008
  9. Augusts1
    Augusts1 says Drama, drama, drama! Damn Trent sure loves him some drama. Gotta keep that angst flowing. I think he's just jealous that he wasn't able to do what they did first(And I love NIN but I can see right through Trent).
    Permalink posted 03/13/2008
  10. davesonic
    davesonic says I remember seeing a release date for the physical In Rainbows, so I knew all along there was going to be an actual CD, I don't think they kept it a secret. I think what they did was awesome I think what Trent did for Saul was better and what he's doing now is amazing. Everything can always be improved upon but someone has to be first to get theings moving. Basically no one was doing anything until Radiohead broke with tradition, now it seems that's what everyone wants (except the labels of course) I'm sure in a couple weeks there will be people on here bitching about Ghosts as well. It still makes me laugh when people complain about the sound as most of them are listening to the music on cheap ipod ear phones.
    Permalink posted 03/13/2008
  11. HelenMarie
    HelenMarie says Can you see right through his clothes August?! Tell me, tell me what you see! He's my favorite 42 year old. ; ) You think he's jealous tho? But honestly, don't you think it was a bit too much of a fuss for that digi album...like laura27 said 160kbps, no artwork etc, only mp3 format...?
    Permalink posted 03/13/2008
  12. Augusts1
    Augusts1 says Ummmm, he's got a body under them clothes Helen, haha! I think he is jealous cause he's doing it better than them & they are getting the majority of credit. But as Davesonic said, somebody had to go first. I don't think Rhead intended to mislead, they just wanted to get their music out there as quickly as possible since fans had been wanting their new material(and they'd been performing it live for quite some time, so fans had heard it already). Rhead have always seemed like an honest, upfront bunch, so Trent's accusation rings hollow to me.
    Permalink posted 03/13/2008
  13. HelenMarie
    HelenMarie says Yep...davesonic has good points (his comment wasn't there when I was typing mine-btw) "Rhead have always seemed like an honest, upfront bunch" I agree. And they could've been quick and anxious but surely they thought about the things Reznor added, they're a smart bunch those Rhead's...they just didn't really do the best they could've done. Anywhooo...I love 'em both (and all of ya'll)!
    Permalink posted 03/13/2008
  14. River Lethe
    River Lethe says I love both NIN and Radiohead, and supported both (as well as Saul's release), but it seems to me that's Trent's gotten a shit-ton of press about Ghosts and what it's done to the idea of the current industry. Nothing to be jealous of there. Radiohead wasn't first, either, just the first of such a high profile band. I think there's room for all of these models, and I'm glad it's been a successful experiment. Experiment is exactly how everyone, including Radiohead and Trent were initially looking at this, so it seems weird that he'd now criticize the flaws in the model. And what do you expect for free anyway? I paid for real versions, and I wish that option had been available for the Saul release.
    Permalink posted 03/13/2008
  15. Sturgell
    Sturgell says interesting response. I figured most people would have just chalked this up to Rez just being a little jealous.
    Permalink posted 03/13/2008
  16. BelovedListener
    BelovedListener says I sensed a little jealousy. A little 'my band did this better than yours, and I want some credit too'. But at the same time, he has a point... I hadn't realized that the Radiohead thing was such poor quality! I mean, figuring that most people gave them, like, a penny, I guess that makes sense, but... I suppose I agree with scion. Impressed and annoyed.
    Permalink posted 03/13/2008
  17. Sum Majere
    Sum Majere says Why would he go and knock Thom and the boys like that? In Rainbows was free if you wanted it to be dude... Whether it was In Rainbows was Insincere or not, it was Inmybudget. good post Sturgell
    Permalink posted 03/13/2008
  18. ZZTodd
    ZZTodd says i did think that trent's model was smarter. give you a part of the package for free. or if you want the whole thing you pay only $5 dollars for 36 songs. very reasonable as far as price goes in my opinion
    Permalink posted 03/13/2008
  19. Alien8n
    Alien8n says I didn't get In Rainbows but I did get Ghosts I-IV. Paid my 5 dollars (which makes it about 1/6th of the price of even a single CD over here) to get the flac version. I was surprised at just how experimental it was, it's certainly not an easy listen and the lack of vocals certainly makes it different to anything else he's done. But I like it anyway :)
    Permalink posted 03/14/2008
  20. NiNiBee
    NiNiBee says >>scion says: Basically, they gave out a Radiohead record at 160kbps, with the assumption that their fanbase (myself included) consists of a bunch of muso-nerds who would sooner or later turn around and purchase a high-quality (WAV) version of it. It amounts to them promoting their REAL release (the 80 song boxed set that was released in time for christmas shopping) with a "teaser". I applaud their creativity... as always they're just outside the box, but know how to appeal to all the lemmings who are still trapped inside. So i'm both impressed and annoyed.... anyone else? I totally agree with you, scion! For me, it's like this: Impressed with the Radiohead release: They totally brought the concept of try-before-you-buy to the forefront of mainstream record releases, and that's completely, 100% the direction that music should be going. Many indies have been doing that for a while, but majors are resistant to giving *anything* to their audience for free, so in that respect, what Radiohead did to ruffle some feathers and encourage try-before-you-buy is very, very cool. And of course, it turned out that the music was worth all the fuss, so... hey, at least it was great artistry along with smart entrepreneurship. Annoyed with the Radiohead release: The release wasn't *quite* try-before-you-buy, though. More like a try-before-you-buy-but-if-you-*want*-to-pay-we-won't-discourage-you pre-release of an album they'd planned all along to sell in [better] digital and physical formats. So yes, Trent is pretty much right-on in calling it a "bait-and-switch." In a way, it was a passive-aggressive form of getting huge publicity for the album, which resulted in great sales, because it gave the *illusion* of risk and rebellion, which people are drawn to like [insert metaphor here]. To be certain, *any* money Rhead made on those crappy MP3s was 95% gravy. It's not *that* expensive to maintain server loads and get the website running properly for the bandwidth load... not for a huge band like Rhead. So in reality, it really wasn't a risk to pre-release In Rainbows with a "pay want you want" scale. If anything, it made their sales extremely profitable under the illusion of sacrifice and risk. Now, with Ghosts, a lot of thought and *care* went into that release.... so yes, Trent has every right to feel that Radiohead's release wasn't as sincere. NIN's release was very well-planned artistry and [I feel] incredibly respectful of NIN's audience... they gave a lot in exchange for very little. Also, there was a lot of risk with this one, because Trent released something purely experimental... he could have gotten horrible press and reviews and had fans bagging on him because it's 36 tracks of *instrumentals* rather than the kind of music that most NIN fans are accustomed to. That is risky! It's so great to watch something that a major would consider "not worth releasing" garner such huge success. It's a real "f^ck-you" to the majors, and I think that bands should follow NIN's model, and not Rhead's. Doesn't mean I don't applaud Rhead for trying something new, but I also don't see Trent speaking out of jealousy here.
    Permalink posted 03/14/2008
  21. contrabandwidth
    contrabandwidth says Yeah, he has a point, but he's also the king of redundant repackaging. I remember trying to find copies of "Broken" with the mini CD in it. And then there were a billion remix CD's. I tired of it quickly. Certainly, they should have offered a higher quality download, but I don't think it was ever intended to replace the album experience for those who want the CD.
    Permalink posted 03/14/2008
  22. Sturgell
    Sturgell says Thanks for the remarks, NiNiBee!
    Permalink posted 03/14/2008
  23. Mike the Knife
    Mike the Knife says Always knew the score with the Radiohead release. They never suggested that the original giveaway/pay-what-you-want mp3 version was the be-all and end-all. The word was out that you could pay for higher-quality digi-files and a variety of fancier formats, such as a CD with extra tracks. Those who didn't care to fork over a bunch of cash could listen to the low-end version. Simple.
    Permalink posted 03/16/2008
  24. NWADOC
    NWADOC says First off, Trent can talk all he want, but actually offering the product for however the CONSUMER, feels fit, as opposed to his little payment plan resonates a bit more strongly in my book. Especially when he offered up Saul Williams as a sacrifice to experiment with the Radiohead model. Furthermore, sound quality, while good, is just extra icing at best. Nobody cares whether you're listening to VU & Nico on old vinyl from the 60's or the CD Remaster, it's still THAT ALBUM. And "In Rainbows" will still be "In Rainbows", no matter what sound quality. I'm still listening to the original download, I quite like it. As for Trent Reznor, all of his targets in his dismissals are always too easy. First he makes an anti-Bush album in 2004. Which, let's face it, means nothing. By then, everyone and their mother disliked the president. When promoting Year Zero in Rolling Stone, he singled out Fall-Out Boy for caring about what commercial masses want. Now, however you want to look at Fall-Out Boy, your own opinion. But considering I think his music has fallen off extensively since the early 90's, who is he to start judging how other artists make music? And now he's going after Radiohead. Why? Even if he disagrees with their method, he can't deny it's really gotten the ball rolling. Artists are thinking more clearly about how to distribute their music on much grander scales. Sometimes, I look at the 90's, and I see what punks thought of the 60's rock stars... A bunch of bloated over-hyped millionaires who release boring music that maintains it's irrelevance, and fails to assist other artists in order to promote their product.
    Permalink posted 03/17/2008
  25. Kiddo
    Kiddo says Since when is 160 kbps all that bad? Though it's changing, most of the stuff I've purchased from iTunes is only 128 kbps. And maybe I'm completely deaf, but it sounds fine to me whether I burn the tracks to CD, listen to them through my cheap headphones, on the computer, on my stereo, or in my car. I don't think the majority of people right now care so much about having song files at 320 kbps. I mean, I guess it'd be nice, but since I only have 1.21 GB left on my iPod, the economical part of me digs those lower bitrates because it takes up considerably less space. While I have some songs on my iPod that are 320 kbps, I normally can't even tell. I physically have to check to see what the bitrate is. Then again, I still enjoy the occasional cassette tape. Anyone who bothered to check knew that the Radiohead album would be available in multiple formats. And we had the option of getting the download free. FREE. Legally. And people complain? I see where Reznor is coming from, but it seems petty and unattractive to me.
    Permalink posted 03/17/2008
  26. Angry Panda
    Angry Panda says What a jerk; "Our band is releasing double the bit-rate.." Get over yourself. There are several reasons to why Radiohead released it in such a way - The traffic of downloads was to be so high that making it double the size would have made it very expensive and slow. Thom has stated in interviews that he would have liked to make it full quality, it was just not possible. Another thing is, people were not tricked into this. It quite clearly stated the bit-rate of the download. Given that there was a disk box with CD's there, it was clear that it was going to come out on CD, Radiohead just hadn't sealed a record deal yet. Last of all, I have not yet heard one person complain of "Oh, the bit-rate on my FREE download is too low! Give me more of your hard work for free." Piss off you whinger. If I had a music repitoir like that, I wouldn't be one to criticise..
    Permalink posted 03/18/2008
  27. Lighter Dusk
    Lighter Dusk says Wow...I was ready to comment, but it seems like Angry Panda took the thoughts out of me head and the words off of my keyboard. So I guess I'll say `nuff said! -Dusk
    Permalink posted 04/11/2008

Comment on this Post

Login using email and password below.

Forgot Password?

OR login using Facebook Connect

Connect

Don't have an account?
Join MOG. It's Free!

 

© 2006-2012 Mog Inc. All Rights Reserved