Well I think Radiohead is completely awful and worthless, so I can appreciate this.

Whatever dude,

I'm not a fan either, but they offered up their CD for free. In an industry full of greedy people, that has to count for something.

in before Ghosts I-IV>In Rainbows AND In Rainbows>Ghosts I-IV.

ton be honest i agree with the man.

in b4 NIN fags defend ReznorThis Message Edited On 03.13.08

i thought reznor bought the album for 10,000 dollars?

anyways, its probably been completely out of context, and its in nme, possibly the worst music related magazine in the world.

yah trent is kinda right but before radiohead was doing that nobody else was. they're both right.

insincere because of no artwork

yah trent is kinda right but before radiohead was doing that nobody else was.

wow no artwork

who cares

Well from a business sense Trent is right. I'm no NIN fan, but radiohead handled their digital release horribly, which is why it was a huge failure.

Sure it was a bold and noble idea for Radiohead, but if executed as poorly as it was, then who even cares?

I'd rather have the album first, then the artwork, rather than the other way around.

its probably been completely out of context

and its in nme, possibly the worst music related magazine in the world.

Make the article title more misleading please.

I was dissapointed by the crazy acid rainbow artwork too...but once the cd is on, who gives a damn... trent's a deuche, but he does have a bitchin' guitar.

No they aren't equal. Radiohead is the best current band and Reznor is a has been who makes pretentious double albums that aren't very good, yes I just called out the Fragile so go cry.

I sometimes think artwork and the booklet do alot for an album. listening to it while reading through the lyrics and getting the atmosphere from the pictures is fun for me atleast. btw radiohead are far from the best band around...

Trent not really dissing, he's just saying, "whatever you can do, I can do better."

im siding with radiohead, because i think they are so much better, but as has been said, nme talk bollocks, and he probably didnt actually mean it.

Trent not really dissing, he's just saying, "whatever you can do, I can do better."

well there both good bands, and musically i like NIN more, but I'm a fan of both. Personally, artwork is important but it should not dictate whether the music is good or sincere or not. Now Reznor did his digital download way better then Radiohead, so he has a right to say he did it better, because he did.

and this shitty magazine is twisting everything, he's not dissing them at all.

Radiohead obviously has different priorities than Reznor. They've said that it just seemed like an interesting experiment to them.

Sure, Reznor may have given his downloads more meat, but we must remember that Radiohead were doing this at a time when very few other artists had done such a thing, and nobody of anywhere Radiohead's size. They took more of a risk. Without the buzz around the method that the Radiohead created, I dount Reznor would have embraced this way of selling record so quickly.

I agree with what he is saying though. I dont download because I like to have the artwork and liner notes in front of me with a CD, but thats just me.

Would Trent seriously have thought to do this sort of thing if Radiohead didn't do it first? I do recall Radiohead saying artwork was an important element in their music, but I don't really agree with what he's saying here.

Reznor isn't insulting Radiohead's music here at all. He's simply saying the release was extremely informal, which is complete fact. I love In Rainbows to pieces myself, but Reznor is correct in what he's saying here.

As a NIN fan, Trent Reznor can do no wrong. Well, except for that Happiness in Slavery video...

13 is too young to see that

I like the music and that's pretty much all that matters to me.

agreed ^^, In Rainbows was good, Ghost I-IV was good, nuff said.

This is coming from the man that paid 5k for In Rainbows. He can't hate them that much.

He's not really dissing them, he's saying he disagrees with the way they went about selling their last album

Are people confusing "low-quality" with "bad music" or something? That being said, I
bought both in their physical form...

edit: oh and the assumption that Reznor would never choose to do this if it
hadn't been for Radiohead is even more stupid than misinterpreting what he's saying.This Message Edited On 03.14.08

Radiohead never really caught my eye, so I'll side with the dude. Not that NIN is anything special though.

Well, as an artist myself, I can say that an allegation of insincerity is one of the most cutting insults you can deliver to a musician, especially to an avant-garde group like Radiohead.
I think that, while the album download may have been handled sloppily, it served its purpose, which was to get good music to a lot of people at an affordable price, and I think Reznor is badmouthing them as a publicity stunt for his own album.
But hey, what do I know.

I agree with Reznor, he was way more prepared for this than Radiohead, even though he didn't expect it to be so big since his severs got jammed.

"Radiohead is the best current band "


This is funny. Thank you for your comedy. Maybe you meant to write "Radiohead's music puts me to sleep". That would be more accurate.

[quote=RoshanC]They took more of a risk.[/quote] how exactly did Radiohead take a risk when they are, more than likely, financially stable?This Message Edited On 03.14.08

i'm not up on the slang that you kids are using these days, does that count as frontin' rather than dissing?

trent razor can go to hell

for the last time, radiohead were NOT the first people to do the free album thing, not by a longshot.

and i love radiohead, im a huge fan, but even i must admit that in rainbows was a bit lacking overall. it had some stellar tracks, and some that were just standard stuff. radiohead DID handle it poorly, very poorly, with terrible sound quality rates, and no artwork or anything.

now im also a huge NIN fan, and ghosts I-IV is excellent, ghosts 2 is the only forgettable section of it. reznor is right, and reznor's method of giving albums is better, it was put into theory with saul williams, and perfected with ghosts.

I agree that Radiohead's latest isn't that great. It's soo severly overrated and nutjocked on sputnik that it's not even funny.

^No. Some people were expecting an epic concept album. When they got a good, modest 10 song record (though there were still plenty of interesting themes), they were disspointed. I'm not saying is a hands down classic, but it does warrant a 4/5 rating.

i see where reznor is coming from, but i sort of wonder if radiohead even cares? i thought they more or less just wanted to see what was up and make some kind of a statement.

god too many people riding said artists' jockstraps to even have a clue what is going on.

i think trent and 'head are both pretty sweet for doing what they did. hopefully both are going to learn from the experience and improve their music products even more in the future.

wtf... anyone that doesnt like radiohead is very imature and un-cultured in music. smoke a bowl and listen to radiohead, you might get a better impression of what theyre trying to do with their music.

fuck trent reznor... he is the one who's being insincere here... after the release of In Rainbows he said he payed 10,000 dollars for it, but the truth is that you couldn't give more than one hundred dollars for it...filthy hypocrite... liar... is he on a downward spiral?

@1drummer: So you have to like radiohead to be classed as 'mature'? What kind of bullshit is that? GTFO!

@jnbp: **** you too! You don't know what the hell you're talking about.

Dumbasses should be banned from the internet.