More Music Ramblings

More music talk to bother you all with.

Much was said about the great experiment that was In Rainbows by Radiohead, how it made a ton of money with its "pay as you want" online price scheme. I find myself confused at the business side of the album - I haven't listened to it, and thus won't judge its quality.

What I mean by the business side is twofold. First, if I recall correctly, the band has stated that they likely won't release another album in this style; it was merely an experiment. I suppose this is part of their style - do something amazing and new and crazy, and then move on to the next thing. But it still bothers me, as it suggests they really don't care about changing the industry as much as they wish to outdo everyone else in order to keep their crown as Band the Hipsters Can't Ever Hate.

This was reinforced in me when I saw the album in a store. All it consisted of was a cardboard sleeve, the kind that looks like something your PC Gamer demo disc comes in. No real jewel case, and it isn't the nice foldout cardboard cases that Millencolin has been apt to using. Just a cheap sleeve. Oh, but the tracklisting on the back uses crazy letter spacing. Quirky +2. I suppose the retail version was never the focus, and so it didn't warrant any attnetion to how it was presented. But, as I find myself collecting more and more physical music, I like being able to keep it in something a little less flimsy. This shows just how little we regard physical media compared to digital downloads, which really doesn't have to be. CD prices and quality have affected the industry, but that is not the fault of the albums themselves.

Meanwhile, as Radiohead goes with stunts, Nine Inch Nails continues to explore various release formats for their music, both digital and non. Ghosts I-IV can be downloaded, but it was also released in a nice CD format, and even on vinyl. Their belief in giving fans options, and putting effort and craft into everything they produce speaks volumes more to me, even if I don't really listen to their music.

I keep going back to this list of the greatest rock artists, and every time I learn a little more. I love the idea behind it, but what I am learning is just how out of touch Rolling Stone and others in the modern music industry are. Everyone is going to have bands they would like to see on the list - Queen and Pink Floyd come up most in the article comments, and I would at least agree to Floyd being a neccessity. What bugs me more is their insistence on putting talents from other genres on the list. Dr. Dre is not rock. Neither is Eminem. The fact that Britney Spears wrote the excerpt about Madonna is enough proof to say she isn't rock. By putting them on this list, as opposed to a list of great rappers, allows glaring ommisions like Floyd to exist.

Also, the list has some clear biases, some of which I agree with, though I don't credit it to RS being smart. There is little in the way of prog. rock on the list, and pretty much none of the stadium rock of the 70's. The former is why Floyd fans are up in arms, and I agree with the latter. I cannot deny an enjoyment of bands like Boston, Journey and Foreigner, but they have never inspired or moved me, and a lot of output from that era is unlistenable to me (see Kansas), or can only stand so many repeated listenings before I need a break.