Reznor Follows Radiohead, Offers Free Album

An anonymous reader writes "Convinced the current music business infrastructure (requiring artists to rely on labels) is broken, Nine Inch Nails front man, Trent Reznor, released his band's new album, Ghosts I — IV (Ghosts Volumes One though Four), on Sunday at 6 PM via his official site, marking yet another business experiment for this artist in the changing music market."

Comments

Reciprocity

[TheMeuge]

I can see this becoming a trend. Every headline about a band making millions in a matter of days by distributing their music online, is going to attract the attention of the other musicians. Eventually, they will catch on.

So what do you think will happen when more prominent artists start dropping the labels, realizing that they could make more money if they don't give 95% of their revenue away? I predict that the RIAA will tighten its grip, and try to work with Clearchannel to eliminate non-RIAA affiliated artists get in mass media (radio/TV). I don't think they are going to just sit around and let their cash cows drop out one-by-one.

Re:Reciprocity

[gsslay]

Every headline about a band making millions in a matter of days by distributing their music online, is going to attract the attention of the other musicians. Eventually, they will catch on. Unfortunately what works for Radiohead and NIN isn't necessarily going to work for other musicians.

For a start, they're not going to get tons of free publicity. Plenty of musicians already release their music for free, without expecting any payment. They don't get articles in slashdot. If lots of other musicians "catch on" they'll find the whole "band releases album on net" story is long past stale, no-one cares, and hundreds, never mind millions, aren't going to be made.

Re:Reciprocity

[Loke the Dog]

Exactly, its so lame when people think of this as some kind of revolution. Unsigned bands have always been doing it like this, and it has always been an economical failure for them. And when fewer bands go through the standard music industry, less money will be there for signing deals with small bands. That, in turn, means the barrier a small band has to cross before going professional gets even larger.

Re:Reciprocity

[guruevi]

Lots of those musicians (some of which I know personally or I bought a cd of them) don't play commercially either. They go to school and/or work and in their free time they make some high quality (good) music. If you buy their CD's direct, usually they'll throw in another CD or some other merchandise for free.

That's the way (in my opinion) music and a lot of other art should be made. In their free time while they also have a job either in or out the artistic/music business. If they are successful enough to live off the revenue generated from concerts and other stuff they make (if they're very successful) all the better for them, but at least THEY made it and you know they are good quality unlike the crap that is pushed now, some poor chap thinks he can sing and with a few hundreds of thousands in corporate backing he/she is promoted to death.

As soon as independent music starts to catch on, the radio stations will have to follow. Who'll listen to a radio station that has only some RIAA-promoted garbage on it while there are other sources that play high(er) quality music? It'll take a time but my last CD purchase from a promoted label was in 1999 and I know quite some people that do the same so next generation might be better off than us.

Re:Reciprocity

[cgenman]

You still need promotion, experience, and funding. To a fresh-faced band that is just breaking out of their home town, the prospect of someone coordinating and fronting the money for a 500k dollar video + a 40 city tour is very attractive, especially if they can get said band into rotation on MTV and Clearchannel. They're hitmakers, and everyone wants to be a hit.

Labels will probably continue to have a place for a long, long time.

Re:Reciprocity

[routerl]

The free publicity is a function of the band/musician's pre-existing popularity. As you point out, releasing music online and for free does not generate publicity for unknown acts.

If a lot of famous musicians catch on, every one of their online releases will generate publicity simply because every one of their offline releases generates publicity. Maybe not slashdot, but music publications will certainly make a big deal of, e.g., the new Sheryl Crow record (example chosen due to its low probability).

The publicity problem with releasing music online is the same problem facing any online release of anything; you can only count on your work being found by people who are already looking for it. As for generating revenue, I am not yet familiar with a business model that works well, but each new experiment (i.e. first Radiohead, then Trent Reznor) leads to new alternatives and, in the spirit of science, if we keep experimenting we're bound to find something that works.

Re:Reciprocity

[element-o.p.]

Have you tried it? My wife's drum instructor spent years playing clubs like mad trying to catch his big break. Eventually, he dropped out and got a day job in IT. He's easily one of the best drummers I've ever heard. My cousins are in Nashville trying to get their big break, but after a couple of years there, they have realized that for every band that gets signed, there are hundreds more of equally -- if not more -- talented bands that never end up in the right place at the right time. My brother and some of my best friends are currently playing every gig they can line up trying to promote their band. All of them are incredibly talented (in fact, I played a gig with one of them and his wife this weekend, and it went incredibly well).

IMHO, success in the music biz is more about luck and timing than talent. There are plenty of mediocre musicians who "knew somebody" and got lucky and plenty of very, very talented artists who are still unknown. Your music may speak for itself, but unless you can get it out there where the right person hears it, you'll never be "discovered", no matter how good you are.

Re:Reciprocity

[br0d]

To elaborate on this, regardless of free publicity, artists have to build up the perception of value before the general public will be capable of viewing something free as valued. That's just human nature, ask any goatboy marketer. Sometimes increasing prices increases sales. And with NIN, if they continue to give music away for free, they will continue to dissipate (or spend) their public perception of value, until a point where only the most hardcore fans are still bothering to download the music, because the novelty of "valued becoming free" will wear off.

We are wired to take free resources lightly. It conserves mental energy and focus for those which are harder to obtain. Ultimately the free music model is untenable for artists who seek to make a living. Then again, who said an ancient folk craft such as composing/songwriting SHOULD be a career? Charles Ives composed some of the most interesting and compelling music of the 20th century while selling insurance for a living. True musicians will continue to produce with or without the money, as they did in the beginning.

All major evolutions kill something off. I think this one will kill off the high dollar, highly pretentious cock rockers who rely on glam to create the perception of social status and fantasy. And what we will be left with is novelty music and grass roots composers, people who want to write music because they like to and are compelled to, as opposed to the overtrained LA, NYC, and London based ninnies who just couldn't hack it in a day job.

Bad Summary - only part is free

[ClarifyAmbiguity]

The summary's a bit off - I haven't read this article, but something I read earlier today said that there are several releases.
If I remember correctly:
1. The first part of the album (not the whole thing) is available as a free download.
2. The whole thing is available for download for $5.
3. A CD set is available (10-15ish?).
4. A deluxe, signed, and limited CD set is available ($75?).

So, yes, there is some music for free here, but it isn't the whole album, and this isn't exactly the same as Radiohead's release.

Starting to figure it out.

[CastrTroy]

Finally, these bands are starting to figure it out. No, not the whole online distribution thing, but the how to do it well thing. I think this is the first offer I've seen like this where you can actually listen to it and sample without opting for the free download. Also, the pricing seems right. $5 for the download album is pretty respectible. However, $10 for the 2CD set makes it really tempting to get the actual CD.

Alternative music.. alternative methods

[xtracto]

Why, o why should the guys doing these kind of music the ones that embrace the new distribution methods? I ask this because I do not really like this kind of music. I was raised having to listen to bands like Nirvana (the only ones I liked), Pearl Jam, Silverchair, Thearpy?, NiN, Smashing Pumpkins and all that alternative/grunge (sorry if I do not know the *specific* genre) until I vomited because my older brother used to play it all day long. I myself prefer Metal of different sub-genres like heavy, speed, black, epic (gay Metal... if you count Rhapsody hehehe), and that kind of stuff... However so much for the "rebellious" nature of Metal... all the bands (the good bands at least) like getting screwed by the big corporations (not that they do not get anything back of course).

Oh well, I hope that this kind of actions serve as an example for other bands of other genres.

Re:Alternative music.. alternative methods

[The Ultimate Fartkno]

My good man, you can say what you want about The Carpenters, and you can mock Neil Diamond all you want, but I will DAMNED well not sit here and allow you to say another unkind word about Barry Manilow. The man wrote the Band-Aid song, you Philistine! THE BAND-AID SONG!! Harrumph.

Re:Not Typical NIN, Give It A Listen!

[sm62704]

Not Typical NIN

Is there such a thing as "typical NIN"? Quake players cheered when we heard Reznor was doing the sound for Quake II, and they said the same thing, "not typical NIN".

I think that's one of the best things about that band - there is no such thing as "typical" NIN.

Real significance: Free as in Freedom

[chainLynx]

TFSummary (and TFA) leaves out the most important part about this news: that the album is free as in freedom, not just free as in beer. It's released under a creative commons license, which means that he (or the **AA) can't go after you if you share the album online. AFAIK, this is the first high-profile album release under a CC license (I don't believe Radiohead's was under a CC license).

Re:Real significance: Free as in Freedom

[Piata]

Someone mod this up. This is nothing like Radiohead's release. Reznor is providing high quality tracks under a non-commercial CC license in addition to a bunch of buying options. Radiohead was just dicking around, this is exactly how it should be done. Reznor himself put it on the Pirate Bay, preempting and silencing the whole piracy debate in one fell swoop.

The man is a genius. This more than anything signifies the end of the known music industry and it's about time.

Re:Not Typical NIN, Give It A Listen!

[Machtyn]

From your quoted section, it sounds like Reznor and the rest had some major jam sessions recorded and produced it for release. Stuff like this is probably rarely recorded, and if so, even more rarely released. A lot of good music is lost like that, because it's not "polished" for the labels or it is only played in bars, clubs, etc.

There are a few groups out there, when they jam, it's better than most other's "polished" releases.

Re:NIN Official torrent

[Bored MPA]

He didn't upload it till after he got Digged I think. Definitely should have planned for that in the first place and offered a torrent, but I suspect he was trying to collect data on who came back for the full album. i'd certainly be curious...

Re:Hey, that's my idea!

[Wildclaw]

Why? Because basing your money flow on reproducing and distributing an easily reproducable and distributable product is simply a bad idea.

It may have worked decently in the past because the reproduction and distribution wasn't as easy and protected by a goverment monopoly that most thought was a good idea.

However, with today's easy of distribution and reproduction even by private citizens the goverment monopoly is losing its morale stature. Every day more people begin understand how harmful the laws are and what they could have had without it. Instead of access to select pieces of art depending on your economic status, you instead get access to most of human culture with a few mouse clicks.

Sure, it becomes harder for those that create arts of work to make money. They have to work harder for the same amount of money, just like pretty much everyone else (known as increasing efficency). If there isn't enough money to be made in the industry, and they aren't skilled enough to be among those able to get that money, they may even have to go and work with something else instead.

Mankind may lose out on some works of art that don't get produced because of the lesser financial incentive. But the price we pay for those works of art is simply to big. We may have gotten some more unique pieces of art, but in return we as a whole had less actual access to art as a whole. All because of an artifical goverment restriction.

Businesses that rely on easily reproduced goods have two options (exluding quitting). Efficency or uniqueness. Efficency is obvious, but not what artists would be interested in, since as we know, they are undercut by filesharing.
Uniqueness on the other hand is very good. It means they don't have to compete directly with others on even terms and instead can charge a premium.

Concerts and performances are one such uniqueness. Being the original creator of a work is another uniqueness. Which is why lots of people focus on those.

Finally, as a disclaimer. I wouldn't steal a car, but I would copy one if I could.

You are going to get RSI in twenty years

[SmallFurryCreature]

Unfortunately what works for Radiohead isn't necessarily going to work for other musicians.

This was an often heard comment after Radiohead did it.

You update it to:

Unfortunately what works for Radiohead and NIN isn't necessarily going to work for other musicians.

Next band:

Unfortunately what works for Radiohead and NIN and Band X isn't necessarily going to work for other musicians.

Give it a couple of years and your comment will be marked informative for being the definitive list of every musician still active.

Do yourselve a favor, don't copy & past the same lousy comment from the radiohead thread and just insert the various band names, sooner or later you are going to look pretty silly.

Oh and giving your music away for free is nothing new, new bands do it all the time, in fact I still got a tape that my mother got from Peter Blanker (dutch artist, not that famous himself but wrote a lot of lyrics for others), specially 'mixed' to have his adult songs on one side and kids songs on the other.

A friend of mine is into alternative music, REALLY alternative, think music where they burn 10 cd's and 9 go to the "press" and the rest to the fan (yes I spelled it correctly). The difference here is that TWO big sellers have decided that this new method makes more sense for them.

Oh and as for it getting stale, tell the porn industry when they launch yet another starlet. The consumer is an ever hungry beast. There can never be enough new content out there.

Re:Radiohead not the first

[jsdcnet]

Amazon is DRM-free.

Two Problems with the Ghosts Release

[rinkjustice]

Not since Pretty Hate Machine have I been so enthusiastic with Trent Reznor's Nine Inch Nails. I find his latest release an interesting, meandering, sometimes beautiful and occassionally grooving body of work. It's made me a fan again.

However...

there are two significant problems I see with this (and Radiohead's In Rainbows) otherwise brilliant execution of the freemium business model:

1. Radiohead's internet release of "In Rainbows" could've been a lot more lucrative for the band if their servers dolled out the files and accepted all the payments instead of quickly crawling into fetal position. The reality is many eager fans tried to pay Radiohead for their music (and symbolically give the bloated corpse of the traditional music market a bootheel in the ribs) but couldn't, because the website was felled by the massive demand. We're seeing the same tragic error perpetuated again with Ghost's, as fans attempt to pay via Paypal or some other mechanism and are rejected as if by the house of Mutombo. Whatever the cash intake for Ghosts ends up being (and I'm sure they will be amazing), it could've and should've been much more.

2. Ghosts(I) is good, but it's not great, and it's too short. More promising tracks reveal themselves when you listen to all four volumes (there are 36 tracks in all), but many people won't be able to make payment and download the complete Ghosts I-IV from the official website until tommorrow at the earliest. And if people forecast how good II through IV is based on what they heard on Ghosts I, they may not think it's worth downloading at all. My suggestion is arrange more listener-accessible tracks in volume one, and the more esoteric stuff as the premier content hardcore fans would pay for anyway.

Don't get me wrong. I think Trent scored bigtime with this internet launch/release, but I see these relatively easy problems throttling the possible revenue stream.

Re:To clarify

[alexgieg]

Pirate Bay is an official distribution channel. (Yes, really.)

Hehe, I liked your "yes, really". But seriously, being friendly towards the topmost torrent trackers and using them as a marketing tool rather than looking at them as your enemy is a clever approach for anyone who knows anything at all about how the Internet works.

I am contrary to copyright on libertarian grounds, as it's a violation of property rights. But I've also incorporated in the form of a small movie studio owner to help a friend direct a low budget movie. So, barring any legal impediment, as said budget comes from a Brazilian government program that allows corporations to redirect part of their income taxes for cultural endeavors, I'll do the exact same thing.

Registering a tracker on Pirate Bay, then promoting it as an official distribution channel (and maybe making a deal with the site operators for them to promote it openly too), is a damn good way to get it to be known all over the place, all the while lowering bandwidth costs and, if some downloaders like it well enough to purchase official products, earning some reasonable profits.

Heck! I might even go so far as to distribute it under a share-alike commercial license. After all, what's there to lose in doing so? The fact I won't "control" someone making Tagalog subtitles and selling the subtitled DVDs in the Philippines? Give me a break! The more people coming into contact with my small studio and my friend's ability as a director, the better for us both, not the other way around!

Copyright has no future. Those who understand it and act on it now are also the best posed to come on top once said future arrives. Let's see if I manage to be there when it happens.