Wired News has a little thing about Nine Inch Nails and Radiohead's latest label-free distribution. They say
In Rainbows is a real Radiohead album with 10 (college) radio-ready songs that many labels would have been proud to put their stamp on. ... Reznor's sprawling, 36-song instrumental opus is either a brilliant explosion of the traditional album format or an example of poor self-editing.I'll concede that Ghosts I-IV may not be the best-flowing "album" ever released by NIN, but to say it's an example of poor anything is just... ridiculous! A large percentage of the album is fantastic, presenting some of Reznor & Co.'s best sonic explorations since The Fragile. The album format in general has been a waning art form for some time now; I applaud Radiohead for putting together something that works as an album, but implying that In Rainbows is better or has less substance solely for that reason doesn't sound particularly forward-thinking to me.
But why does there have to be a "smackdown" in the first place? If the albums stand on their own—and, more importantly, if the artists can make and share the music they want to make—who cares?
(Of course, I am a huge Nine Inch Nails fan, so maybe I'm just too emotionally invested. :P )
