Slashdot Mirror
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."
In one community I hang out in (one full of musicians), a bunch of them get together each week and write a song on the spot, sometimes in an hour or so. They all work individually, and judge who came up with the best music. Looks like this fellow stumbled onto the same idea.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Funny that Trent should do it, he was a regular at a nightclub in Chicago over a decade ago that I was a part owner in, and used to scream about the record label monopoly even back then. Wonder if he ever remembers it...
I've helped a few bands over the years break free from relying on the distributor monopoly by providing their easily-copied material for free, while providing hard to copy material at great cost (or higher cost). Bands should make their big money by providing the hardest to mimic items at the higher cost, and the easy to mimic items at a lower cost.
The hardest to mimic? Playing live. This is where bands should make their money -- performing for fans. Those of us who are not musicians make our money, generally, by ongoing work. We don't get paid for previous work (often), we get paid for current and future work. Bands should be no different.
Trent has a unique set of prices on his site: $5 for a download, $10 for a CD+download, $300 for a CD, 180gram LPs, a DVD with 36 tracks of each song (to remix), and a giclee printbook. Great idea. The multitrack DVD idea I came up with many years ago for bands to release to fans to remix. David Crowder Band is one band that did this to great acclaim (and even released a few of his fans' remixes).
Trent is ahead of the game. I'm prebuying the $300 kit because I want to support Trent's ideas, music, and astounding insight into why the RIAA and other monopolists have no place in the new digital world. If it can be copied easily, the price should fall to near zero. If it can't be copied easily, the limited supply should dictate the price based on whatever the demand level is. Supply and demand, the most important aspect of a market economy.
This is NO experiment for Trent, this is his step into the correct version of the current music market. He doesn't need monopolized distribution from the RIAA, he has distribution. Even small bands are doing just fine distributing their music via iTunes, and touring, touring, touring. Selling t-shirts (which can be copied, but are a hassle to do a dozen cheaply), giving away hundreds of stickers for fans' cars (cheap), selling albums (LPs, impossibly expensive to duplicate), signing posters, and other options are a great way to provide a consistent income. Touring just 8 months a year, a few bands I've consulted with are already pushing nearly $50k per year per member in profit. Yes, it is hard work. Isn't what you're doing hard work, too?
I'm not going to check the pirate bay from work, but I seem to recall that he posted that he expects that parts II-IV will be available for download from the same bittorrent network from which you get part I. I get the feeling that he doesn't really mind, and the stuff for sale is just for people who want to support him or get tangible goods in some way.
Offers multiple formats, and multi packages, and a free sampler (the free one which includes 9 tracks) so he can get a better idea of what's going on and also make money (the full download is 5 dollars).
A lot of people downloaded In Rainbows without paying because they didn't know or actually like radiohead, not just because they were free riders. Trent set the price low enough and provided enough options that he'll have a better idea of who likes his music and what they want -- people not familiar with him will sample and move on, but those that like the work will have to choose between waiting for bittorrent or paying a cheap 5$.
I don't think we need broadcast radio anymore. Most new cars have Audio in Jacks, or iPod specific jacks. Or you could just use the old cassette deck with those snazzy adapters. Just download the podcast of your choice, and plug into your stereo system.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
And why isn't there a site devoted to aggregating and promoting these albums that are getting released for free but with no publicity? I can imagine a site where you can legally, freely download music with a little "donate" button to pay the artists being wildly popular. MySpace already does this to a degree, but the social networking aspects of it (and the crappy music player) make it extremely bloated and not worth visiting.
This is true and not true.
Each band will of course need to market themselves as they see fit and in line with what sort of audience they think they can get. Amazing artists won't have to try too hard (just hard enough to build a decent grassroots following) as their music will speak for itself... OTOH artists that are just another music group or yet another boy band (YABB) are going to find it difficult to stand out from the crowd and may end up needing to sign with a promotions company (a music label or touring company - the new label these days).
Amazing artists will still need to do the leg work that has been traditionally necessary to get the word out, ie: touring a lot, playing small venues, giving away the first album, etc. and will probably have to work day jobs in the beginning. BUT if they can hold off on becoming celebrities for a year or two and just work their butts off to get out there, they WILL find success and lots of money.
A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
You could check out Machinae Supremacy, Swedish band. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machinae_supremacy
Thanks but, no thanks:
From wikipedia
, the band's first commercial album was released in 2004 through MbD Records UK. The band is currently signed to Spinefarm Records
Also from wikipedia:
Since 2002, Spinefarm has been part of Universal Music Group.
I am not looking for free music. I am looking for music distributed through non-RIAA channels (i.e., new distribution models).
Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
hundreds, never mind millions, aren't going to be made.
/. RIAA story and he included a link that unfortunately wasn't modded up (he posted it too late I think). Here's that fellow's link again; it fits here perfectly.
modded -1, inaccurate. I have friends in many bands, and all have CDs they they sell at their shows, and all give away MP3s on the internet.
Most are making a living at it, albeit a modest one. One fellow that used to be my neighbor made so much mooney singing in bars with his band he quit his day job as a union carpenter!
The RIAA is no longer needed to record and distribute music. I suspect that the reason this century's music mostly sucks is that the labels can't get decent bands any more. I know my friend Joe Frewe was approached by two different labels and he told both of them to fuck off.
Someone commented on a comment I made in the last
-mcgrew
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
Yup, think about it. This changes everything. When the RIAA goes after someone, they'll have to consider what type of license the music is released under. They can't have a blanket statement, "we distribute all music so therefor any and all copying is illegal." Now, some copying(/distribution) is illegal, guess who decides what will be successful, when the consumer has a choice?
FLR
But that's the same for major label deals. They work okay-ish if you're Radiohead or NIN, but not further down the line. In fact, musicians are (as this Steve Albini essay implies) better off not signing to a major label, and following this new route instead.
How is Amazon DRM laden? I've purchased a few hundred $$$ worth since they launched. I downloaded to my home server, and I can play the resulting files on anything i have.
What's wrong with that? I've gotten together with other musicians just to jam, and we've come up with some really good stuff like that. When you get into a groove with other musicians, it's magical, and if you can capture it on tape (or whatever), then why not release it? There's a mood, an energy, to live music that you often just can't recreate in the studio (think "Cocaine" by Eric Clapton for a good example).
There's this dude I know named Dennis who is a very talented, very passionate musician. I've watched him play several times, and he never does a song the same way twice because he understands that making music is a creative process. Therefore, he follows the music; he doesn't script it. The result is that his music is honest and soulful. I'm trying very hard to learn to make music like he does, and just let it out rather than trying to direct and control it.
That, in my mind, is the mark of a real musician. Making it up on the spot isn't the sign of a clueless amateur; it's the pinnacle of musicianship.
MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
The American Autumn follows Reznor & Radiohead, Offers Free Album!
Oh... this isn't news when anybody does it?
Steal my band's record! Seriously,
A different way to look at it is that when fewer people buy music from the standard industry, there will be more money available to go directly to the smaller bands. Instead of paying $10-15 for a single CD of some band that is high in the charts, you could buy $4-5 for music from three bands. One big name band and 2 small local bands.
As an added bonus, if the big name band is not using a big label, then you could give them $5 directly, which means they might be getting the same money either way. I would greatly prefer more of my money going to the artist that created the music, and less going to the various departments (execs, HR, Marketing, etc) of a big record company.
Entirely possible, except that I've also been present when other musicians played off the cuff, and dude, it rocked.
or have horrible taste in music
Entirely possible -- you certainly aren't the first person to suggest this.
I like the energy that good bands have when playing live. To suggest that a group of talented musicians cannot create something phenomenal on the spot is, in my opinion, elitist. Do you think people like B.B. King, Clapton, Miles Davis, or David Sanborn play the same songs the same way every single time? At the core, rock and jazz are improvisational art forms. The best rock and jazz musicians make a lot of it up as they go. If you prefer music that is set in stone, then there's a place for that (classical). You take a great risk when you try to make it up as you go, and yeah, you can fail spectacularly when doing so (been there, done that...). But when it works, it really works and nothing else comes close.
MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
Ghosts I-IV is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial Share Alike license. http://ghosts.nin.com/main/faq The whole album is licensed under a Creative Commons, not just the first 9 tracks. I still don't know what did he share onlt 9 of the 36 tracks if the album is meant to be "Share Alike"