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

Groan.

[Funkcikle]

Ghosts I -- IV (Ghosts Volumes One though Four)

Gee, thanks for clearing that up. I thought it was some new direct injection content delivery method.

Re:Groan.

[somersault]

Well, it is Trent Reznor after all..?

Re:Groan.

[De Lemming]

The main page states:

Update: The response to this album has been overwhelming, causing our website to slow to a crawl. We THOUGHT we were ready, but...
We've been adding more servers to accommodate the unexpected demand and we expect to be running smoothly in the next few hours. In the meantime, if you've had any problems with downloads from the Ghosts site, don't worry - you'll be able to use your download link again when the site is more stable. Thanks everyone for making this such an immediate success.

posted by Trent Reznor at 5:47 PM pst, from hong kong.

Not Typical NIN, Give It A Listen!

[eldavojohn]

From the site where this is hosted:

This music arrived unexpectedly as the result of an experiment. The rules were as follows: 10 weeks, no clear agenda, no overthinking, everything driven by impulse. Whatever happens during that time gets released as... something.

The team: Atticus Ross, Alan Moulder and myself with some help from Alessandro Cortini, Adrian Belew and Brian Viglione. Rob Sheridan collaborated with Artist in Residence (A+R) to create the accompanying visual and physical aesthetic.

We began improvising and let the music decide the direction. Eyes were closed, hands played instruments and it began. Within a matter of days it became clear we were on to something, and a lot of material began appearing. What we thought could be a five song EP became much more. I invited some friends over to join in and we all enjoyed the process of collaborating on this.

The end result is a wildly varied body of music that we're able to present to the world in ways the confines of a major record label would never have allowed - from a 100% DRM-free, high-quality download, to the most luxurious physical package we've ever created.

More volumes of Ghosts are likely to appear in the future.

- Trent Reznor, March 2, 2008 For those of you that don't like the same sounding music on an album or the yelling vocals, I heavily recommend downloading this and listening to it for free. I emphasized the "wildly varied" as some of this music is very cool calm and collected easy listening with very orchestral sounding builds.

I'm glad to see an artist as respected as Reznor do this. It kind of makes sense though, as you see this music only took him 10 weeks to do and doesn't have any vocals--lowering the number of takes and the difficulty of quality lyrics.

With the digital age and the ability to produce easily and quickly accessible DRM free music, we may see the beginning of a whole lot more material coming from artists with either an ad-based revenue or charging for particular tracks that required more studio time and refinement.

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.

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:Not Typical NIN, Give It A Listen!

[JDWTopGuy]

Actually Reznor did the soundtrack for Quake (a great work IMO), but for whatever reason was not involved with the sequels. (Wikipedia says "The soundtrack for Quake II was mainly provided by Sonic Mayhem, with some additional tracks by Bill Brown.") IIRC he was approached for either Doom 3 or the movie of the same, but I'm too lazy to check.

Re:Not Typical NIN, Give It A Listen!

[JimNTonik]

While this practice hasn't been common, it has been happening for a while now. Harvey Danger released an album maybe 3-4 years ago on this model, and I'd really like to see them getting more credit for it. They're not as popular as Radiohead or NiN, and I think that should earn them some extra credit. The more we talk about smaller bands doing this, the better.

To clarify

[brian0918]

To clarify, only the first 9 songs are available for free. The rest are still available a price well below what you could get anywhere legal.

Re:To clarify

[mh1997]

It's about time somebody came up with a method to get free music off the internet!

Re:To clarify

[monkeyboythom]

If we are speaking of clarifications...then it must be admitted that Trent is not using this as a marketing gimmick but is really just trying to get anyone to listen to his stuff

Re:To clarify

[Danathar]

Actually, I think the entire set is under the creative commons license. The first nine are free off of the site, but technically it's legal to get the whole set from somewhere else if you want (please somebody check this as I'm not sure as well)

Re:To clarify

[Southpaw018]

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

Re:To clarify

[\\]

The music is released under the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial Share Alike license. Doesn't that mean it is free to distribute for non commercial purposes by anyone as long as credit is properly attributed?

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.

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

[Xzarakizraiia]

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.

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

[foniksonik]

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.

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

[sm62704]

hundreds, never mind millions, aren't going to be made.

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 /. 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.

-mcgrew

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

[ichthyoboy]

You mean like Jamendo?

Re:Reciprocity

[h4ter]

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

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.

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

[element-o.p.]

and often may be making up music and/or lyrics on the spot.
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.

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.

Re:Reciprocity

[DorkRawk]

The American Autumn follows Reznor & Radiohead, Offers Free Album!
Oh... this isn't news when anybody does it?

Re:Reciprocity

[gambino21]

And when fewer bands go through the standard music industry, less money will be there for signing deals with small bands.

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.

Re:Reciprocity

[jsdcnet]

check out amiestreet.com. bands upload their music, it starts out free, but as it gains popularity, it starts to cost money, until it hits the cap of US$0.98 per track. they just partnered with some well known indie labels (4ad, beggars banquet) so you can get a lot of the old cocteau twins and gary numan catalog legally for free (or very cheap) :) artists get 70% of the revenue once each song has sold $5.

Re:Reciprocity

[element-o.p.]

You are either heavily biased (for obvious reasons)
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.

Community work

[bluefoxlucid]

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.

Re:Community work

[glavenoid]

Reminds me of a story, er, legend really:

JS Bach and one of his contemporaries made a friendly wager (of a cask of very fine wine) one night over who could create the best music in the course of an evening. Since they were familiar with each other's music, they would know if the other was cheating, thus forfeiting the prize. After several new tunes, the inspiration was running a bit thin, and as no clear winner was apparent, they decided to drink a little of the wine. The improvisation challenge re-commenced, and continued on through the night, into the next morning composing fresh solo pieces, duets and arias until finally exhausted they decided that each other's compositions were equally good.
It was about then that they discovered the cask was empty, but agreed that a good time was had by all.

And, just to keep this on topic, Suck it, RIAA

Radiohead not the first

[Shawn is an Asshole]

Radiohead didn't come up with this idea. Harvey Danger did it back in 2005 and they probably aren't the first. Here's the Slashdot article:

http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/10/02/2056210

Anyway, this NIN album is very good. If you're anxious for it and the NIN servers are still too slow, Amazon's MP3 service has it for $5. Amazon finally released a Linux version of the downloader, btw.

Re:Radiohead not the first

[op12]

Also, this form of distribution isn't a first for Trent either...he released an album he produced for Saul Williams back in November of last year, with the option to get it free as 192kbps MP3s, or for $5 in lossless formats or those same MP3s.

Re:Radiohead not the first

[jsdcnet]

Amazon is DRM-free.

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.

Re:Bad Summary - only part is free

[Galaga88]

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.

Re:Bad Summary - only part is free

[Shawn is an Asshole]

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?). The 2CD set is $10, but when you check out it shows the shipping price: $6.99. That's a bit high...

4. A deluxe, signed, and limited CD set is available ($75?). The signed one is $300.

http://ghosts.nin.com/main/order_options.

You just did what?!

[Bromskloss]

Nine Inch Nails front man, Trent Reznor, released his band's new album

You should have seen the faces of the band!

Hey, that's my idea!

[dada21]

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?

Re:Hey, that's my idea!

[dada21]

We ran the Nexus at Aftermath over on Evergreen. Long gone, now, but those were the good days when Industrial was "fresh" and artists were everywhere unemployed. Wonder who has that domain name now... I can't even remember what it was. The club's first site was at mcs.net, scary.

Re:Hey, that's my idea!

[kamapuaa]

The hardest to mimic? Playing live. This is where bands should make their money -- performing for fans.

Why? What about the Beatles? Their best music was made after they were able to stop performing live and concentrate on making albums. Dvorák didn't get up and wow the crowds with his latest number. Selling music has dominated the industry for centuries, it seems to have done a pretty good job of it.

Anyway, concerts come out after albums for a reason - nobody would want to pay $80 to see big-time rockers in a stadium if it wasn't for the promotional powers of the RIAA labels, and their ability to manufacture successful singles. Saying the music should be free and then the concerts would be the source of revenue ignores that indie musicians often give their music away freely, often have concerts that are cheaper and more interesting than big-rock-stadium concerts, and yet don't make very much money at it. Most of their money comes from selling CDs and other merchandise at the concerts.

It's hypocritical to bring up NIN or Radiohead. These are two bands who got big and made millions of dollars in the studio system, and now that their deals have expired, are able to cash in even more. Good for them, but more than anything this validates the studio system, it doesn't show any sort of new alternative.

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.

Encryption

[digitalderbs]

Users couldn't figure out how to decrypt it until they figured out that the music was suppose to sound like that.

ok, bad joke. I've got a bad case of the Mondays.

excellent design, except for slashdotting

[Bored MPA]

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$.

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.

Re:Rise of Internet Radio.

[CastrTroy]

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.

NIN Official torrent

[Bored MPA]

He actually did torrent the free as in beer sampler (9 tracks). Please don't slashdot the site if you just want to check the sampler out.

http://thepiratebay.org/tor/4059158/Nine_Inch_Nails_-_Ghosts_I_(2008)

The full 36 tracks are 5$. And are licensed under creativecommons for non-commercial copy/share/perform.

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:Microsoft follows Radiohead

[StingRay02]

Offers free Vista. Gets no downloads.

Trent Reznor and Saul Williams

[Bipedal Shark]

Trent Reznor already has some experience with this sort of delivery method. Saul Williams's The Inevitable Rise and Liberation of NiggyTardust! was a semi-collaboration with Reznor.

Re:Microsoft follows Radiohead

[calebt3]

Well if that happened, there would be no reason not to switch to Linux. People say they use Windows because it costs money and therefore has value, while Linux is given away and therefore is worthless.

Re:Alternative music.. alternative methods

[pipatron]

You could check out Machinae Supremacy, Swedish band. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machinae_supremacy

Lots of free songs on their website, which is of course under reconstruction now when I checked it...

Server torture

[Tiger]

All I can say is... thank god for "wget -c". Their server room must be filling with smoke as I speak.

mod parent up

[Bored MPA]

they tested this out last year with a free/5$ setup

interesting that they moved to sample/5$

Re:Alternative music.. alternative methods

[xtracto]

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).

Re:Alternative music.. alternative methods

[xaxa]

I second the Machinae Supremacy recommendation.

If you want something a little different, try some post-industrial music -- e.g. Combichrist, Funker Vogt, ... in fact, find Industrial Legacy vol 1 on the Pirate Bay. I bought 12 CDs because I found that mix, I think all except one were on a small record label.

At the moment, I can buy CDs from Americans on Amazon Marketplace for about £6, the price of two drinks in a bar in London, and they arrive in about two weeks. In the mean time, I'll listen to the download.

how dare that motherfucker give it away!

[jollyreaper]

Does he not realize that there are business models at stake here? Listen here, you little cockstain: you're our dancing monkey. You dance when we tell you to how we tell you to. We're not paying you peanuts, we're paying you peanut shells and you're going to yum them up, smack your lips and say "Please, sir, may I have some more!" You're going to do this or we'll fuck and chuck your sorry ass out the door and bring in some new wide-eyed innocent ten years younger and dumber than you and build them up to be the new you. You hear that, you shit, you worm, you groveling clown? You are a commodity, a consumable, something that is used up and replaced by an interchangeable part. You stand up to us and we'll pound your ass until you're shitting blood. This is our industry, our money, and you are nothing, nothing!!!

This message brought to you by the RIAA. Go out and buy something, you mindless sheep.

Re:how dare that motherfucker give it away!

[vodevil]

This is our industry, our money, and you are nothing, nothing!!!

Isn't (wasn't) his record lable Nothing Records...he was a nothing all along.

Re:Rise of Internet Radio.

[tepples]

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. I've been in several cars whose head unit has only an audio CD player and an AM/FM radio, and many of these don't take CD-RW. And a decade ago I've been on a school bus with an FM radio and a blanket ban on portable audio players and other electronic devices not authorized by faculty or staff.

Re:Alternative music.. alternative methods

[xaxa]

They do both, scroll down the wiki page a bit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machinae_supremacy#Webography

http://www.archive.org/details/mtk144 has one release, the others seem to be there too.

Re:Alternative music.. alternative methods

[cyxxon]

Uhm, I always find that there are really a lot of interesting metal bands that are NOT on any major label... try Nuclear Blast, or Century Media. Non-RIAA, and a wide range of metal bands from all styles.

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:Real significance: Free as in Freedom

[Cytlid]

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?

Re:Real significance: Free as in Freedom

[Guillaume Castel]

Don't forget The WIRED CD compilation that was bundled with the november 2004 issue of Wired Magazine, and featured somewhat high profile artists such as Beastie Boys, Danger Mouse, Chuck D, etc... Three tracks were released under the Noncommercial Sampling Plus Creative Commons license, the rest under the Sampling Plus license. For me, that was the real start of that trend, although it took quite some time to catch on.

Direct Link

[dlim]

It's a little late, but here's the official site. I clicked the link to the article, and most of my browser window was an ad. I had to scroll down to even scan (not read) TFA. Lame.

Re:Alternative music.. alternative methods

[pipatron]

Yes, I think most of their fans disliked their signing to Spinefarm, but that doesn't change that all or most of the songs before 2006 was distributed through their website, in mp3 and ogg formats.

I think they said that their reason for signing with Spinefarm was that it was their only way to be able to get a gig at the big music festivals in Sweden, apparently they don't take on bands that are not on a label, even if they have a large fanbase.

can't download

[lophophore]

I am a bit of a NIN fan...

I went to the site, paid $16.99 for an immediate download of all 36 tracks and the promise of the 2-disc CD set mailed to me in April. The download site is totally swamped. I tried to download the music, my downloads would just die before I even got a few percent of the archive. I tried again, then again, and now it hates me: "download limit exceeded." Hopefully, they'll get their shit together, unblock my access, and I'll be able to get the music I paid for.

The moral of this story is: "You might want to wait a couple days before trying to download."

Re:can't download

[ZenHarbinger]

Everyone is hitting the servers, here's an update from the NIN fan news site.

If you've used up your three downloads, contact support@help.nin.com, although you'll likely get this response: Dear Customer,

Due to overwhelming response, you probably have experienced technical difficulties purchasing or downloading your copy of Ghosts I-IV. We are currently working diligently to address these issues, and will do everything in our power in ensure that your download will be successfully completed. If you have hit your download limit, we will be resetting the download attempts as we resolve the technical issues within the next 24 hours. We do apologize, and thank you for your interest and response to our offerings to the fans of nine inch nails.

Re:can't download

[babbling]

From http://nin.com/ :

Update: The response to this album has been overwhelming, causing our
website to slow to a crawl. We THOUGHT we were ready, but...
We've been adding more servers to accommodate the unexpected demand and we expect to be running smoothly in the next few hours. In the meantime, if you've had any problems with downloads from the Ghosts site, don't worry - you'll be able to use your download link again when the site is more stable. Thanks everyone for making this such an
immediate success.

Re:Alternative music.. alternative methods

[InsertCleverUsername]

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. <sarcasm type="GoodNatured">Wow, you really had it rough --it's truly an inspiration to us all that you were able to overcome such a traumatic upbringing.</sarcasm>

I was the first child in my household and the soundtrack was non-stop Neil Diamond, Barry Manilow, and the Carpenters. I didn't even know how awful it was, until I was old enough to have friends with musical taste. I'm just damned lucky it didn't drive me to suicide.

Where's the beef?

[seanonymous]

I've tried downloading this several times and the server keeps giving up before the download completes. So far, I have some wallpaper. Can everyone else please stop trying to download so I can finish this, then I'll let you all know when I'm done so you can resume? Thanks!

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.

Nine Inch Nails IS Trent Reznor

[poot_rootbeer]

"Nine Inch Nails front man, Trent Reznor, released his band's new album"
You should have seen the faces of the band!

The bandmembers' names are Ghosts I - IV.

Re: DRM Laden?

[SithLordOfLanc]

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.

Not only that

[commodoresloat]

But this isn't even the first time Trent Reznor did this; he worked with Saul Williams on the Inevitable Rise and Liberation of Niggy Tardust, and they gave it away for free in 192 kbps format with a $5 download for 320 or FLAC. It's a great record too, download it yourself and see! They sold over 150,000 downloads at $5 a pop and then Trent took down the freebie link and posted to his blog whining that it wasn't enough, but they recently put it back up. The Ghosts announcement is good news alongside this fact, because it means that he still believes in alternative distribution channels (and free music) despite his earlier whining.

the real problem with the music industry

[mrscorpio]

The problem with the music industry is cost and profit margin expectation. Unlike professional sports, in music there are "amateurs" that put out a product every bit as good or better than that of the major labels. There will always be a handful of performers that transcend the rest from each generation and become rich, and that won't change, but for everybody else...record your album for $10,000 (or less) instead of $100,000 (or more), stay in cheaper hotels when you tour (or maybe a bus is cheaper, I don't know). Make sure your first contract is good, which might mean you don't get quite the signing bonus or promotional weight you might expect, but carries less risk for financial ruin if you don't make it.

Money and rewarding experiences are still out there for musicians to obtain. But the days of easy money by signing a deal and selling 2 million CD's are over. You're going to have to work harder, operate more efficiently, and be better, with a more innovative business model. In other words, the music industry has caught up with the rest of the business world.

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:Alternative music.. alternative methods

[PMBjornerud]

Ok:
http://thepiratebay.org/tor/3493606/VA_-_Industrial_Legacy_Vol.1.2006.MP3.Electro.Industrial.Collect

Or, if you have already hooked .torrent files start your client automatically, allow me to present 1-click piracy:
http://torrents.thepiratebay.org/3493606/VA_-_Industrial_Legacy_Vol.1.2006.MP3.Electro.Industrial.Collect.3493606.TPB.torrent

Re:Alternative music.. alternative methods

[Jon_E]

Sam Beam (Iron & Wine) is doing this with his concerts here:
http://www.playedlastnight.com/
would be nice to see more artists follow suit

I'll explain the future. It's easy.

[PMBjornerud]

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. If enough artists release for free, services like http://www.pandora.com/ and http://www.last.fm/ will be built to make use of it.

Then you don't even have go looking to find those new artists. You'll just assemble a musical profile, and whenever some artist anywhere in the world release his music - it will get tagged and matched with your peers and slowly work its way into your personal radio channel.

That is what the music industry is fearing, and what will indeed kill them. Very soon, artists will just plug their masterpieces into the net, and after a while their music will have played for thousands of people interested in just that kind of music. Why should you sell your future profits for marketing when you'll hit your key audience automagically, at zero cost?

Just make great music and drop it on the web. If an artist is good enough to become famous doing that, all that is needed is to think of a way to convert fame into money. But that's a lot easier than making great music.

This will be a network effect. Just wait for critical mass and enjoy the ride.

Readme.txt from the torrent

[Anonymous Coward]

Nine Inch Nails: Ghosts I (2008)

This torrent is an official upload from Nine Inch Nails.

We're very proud to present a new collection of instrumental music, Ghosts I-IV. Almost two hours of music recorded over an intense ten week period last fall, Ghosts I-IV sprawls Nine Inch Nails across a variety of new terrain.

Now that we're no longer constrained by a record label, we've decided to personally upload Ghosts I, the first of the four volumes, to various torrent sites, because we believe BitTorrent is a revolutionary digital distribution method, and we believe in finding ways to utilize new technologies instead of fighting them.

We encourage you to share the music of Ghosts I with your friends, post it on your website, play it on your podcast, use it for video projects, etc. It's licensed for all non-commercial use under Creative Commons.

We've also made a 40 page PDF book to accompany the album. If you'd like to download it for free, visit http://ghosts.nin.com/main/pdf

Ghosts I is the first part of the 36 track collection Ghosts I-IV. Undoubtedly you'll be able to find the complete collection on the same torrent network you found this file, but if you're interested in the release, we encourage you to check it out at ghosts.nin.com, where the complete Ghosts I-IV is available directly from us in a variety of DRM-free digital formats, including FLAC lossless, for only $5. You can also order it on CD, or as a deluxe package with multitrack audio files, high definition audio on Blu-ray disc, and a large hard-bound book.

We genuinely appreciate your support, and hope you enjoy the new music. Thanks for listening.

http://ghosts.nin.com/

That indicates the whole thing is CC (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/us/), and that they acknowledge you can download it without paying, yet encourage you to throw them some cash.

Note that's what Radiohead did (minus the CC AFAIK).... "Here's the music, pay as you will"

Re:Readme.txt from the torrent

[esquizoide]

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"

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.