Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Reznor Follows Radiohead, Offers Free Album

Posted by CmdrTaco on Mon Mar 03, 2008 09:39 AM
from the third-time-makes-it-real dept.
Media Music
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."
+ -
story

Related Stories

Submission: Reznor releases new NIN album via 'net experiment by Anonymous Coward
[+] NIN's Music Experiment Sells Big Numbers 452 comments
An anonymous reader writes "It looks like Trent Reznor's new Nine Inch Nails album experiment is a success. Among the various options he gave fans, the most expensive was the $300 Limited Edition Ultra Deluxe Package. It took just over a day for that package to completely sell out, earning Reznor $750,000 in revenue from just that option alone."
[+] Entertainment: Metallica May Follow In Footsteps of Radiohead, NIN 673 comments
fireheadca writes "Metallica, once strongly opposed to file-sharing, has hinted at going 'free' in the style of NIN and Radiohead. Having heard success stories about releasing music online, Metallica has decided it wants a piece of the action. Radiohead, as a pioneer of online 'pay what you want' music, has shown the world it is possible to profit by releasing music online, but would not post those profits. NIN, on the other hand, has reported at least $1.6 million in revenue. In hindsight, many people remember Metallica as the band that helped shutdown Napster. I purchased the NIN album, after many years of free downloads of the NIN collection, to help support the band. Would you buy a Metallica online album despite their former views?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Reznor Follows Radiohead, Offers Free Album 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • Groan. (Score:4, Funny)

    by Funkcikle (630170) on Monday March 03 2008, @09:42AM (#22623170)

    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. (Score:4, Funny)

      by somersault (912633) on Monday March 03 2008, @09:46AM (#22623214) Homepage Journal
      Well, it is Trent Reznor after all..?

          • Re:Groan. (Score:5, Informative)

            by De Lemming (227104) on Monday March 03 2008, @02:23PM (#22626630) Homepage
            The main page [nin.com] 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.
  • From the site where this is hosted [nin.com]:

    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! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by sm62704 (957197) on Monday March 03 2008, @10:22AM (#22623572) Journal
      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! (Score:4, Informative)

        by JDWTopGuy (209256) on Monday March 03 2008, @11:49AM (#22624636) Journal
        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! (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Machtyn (759119) on Monday March 03 2008, @11:04AM (#22624086) Homepage
      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.

  • To clarify (Score:5, Informative)

    by brian0918 (638904) <brian0918@@@gmail...com> on Monday March 03 2008, @09:44AM (#22623188) Homepage
    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.

  • Reciprocity (Score:5, Insightful)

    by TheMeuge (645043) on Monday March 03 2008, @09:44AM (#22623192) Homepage
    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 (Score:5, Insightful)

      by gsslay (807818) on Monday March 03 2008, @09:53AM (#22623274)

      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.
      • 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 (Score:5, Insightful)

        by guruevi (827432) <evi@NospAM.smokingcube.be> on Monday March 03 2008, @10:20AM (#22623552) Homepage
        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: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by foniksonik (573572)
        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 to

        • Re:Reciprocity (Score:5, Insightful)

          by element-o.p. (939033) on Monday March 03 2008, @12:54PM (#22625470) Homepage
          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: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by sm62704 (957197)
        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 l

      • Re:Reciprocity (Score:4, Insightful)

        by routerl (976394) on Monday March 03 2008, @10:38AM (#22623802)
        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 (Score:4, Interesting)

        by h4ter (717700) on Monday March 03 2008, @11:28AM (#22624404) Homepage

        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 [arancidamoeba.com] implies) better off not signing to a major label, and following this new route instead.

    • Re:Reciprocity (Score:4, Insightful)

      by cgenman (325138) on Monday March 03 2008, @10:27AM (#22623644) Homepage
      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: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by CastrTroy (595695)
        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.

  • Community work (Score:5, Interesting)

    by bluefoxlucid (723572) on Monday March 03 2008, @09:46AM (#22623210) Journal
    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.

  • Radiohead not the first (Score:5, Informative)

    by Shawn is an Asshole (845769) on Monday March 03 2008, @09:47AM (#22623228)
    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 [slashdot.org]

    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.

  • You just did what?! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Bromskloss (750445) on Monday March 03 2008, @09:50AM (#22623262)

    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! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by dada21 (163177) <adam.dada@gmail.com> on Monday March 03 2008, @09:50AM (#22623264) Homepage Journal
    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! (Score:4, Interesting)

      by kamapuaa (555446) on Monday March 03 2008, @10:44AM (#22623868) Homepage
      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.

      • 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.

  • Encryption (Score:5, Funny)

    by digitalderbs (718388) on Monday March 03 2008, @09:53AM (#22623278)
    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 (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Bored MPA (1202335) on Monday March 03 2008, @09:56AM (#22623314)
    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. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by CastrTroy (595695) on Monday March 03 2008, @09:56AM (#22623316) Homepage
    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.

  • NIN Official torrent (Score:4, Informative)

    by Bored MPA (1202335) on Monday March 03 2008, @10:12AM (#22623472)
    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) [thepiratebay.org]

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

  • how dare that motherfucker give it away! (Score:5, Funny)

    by jollyreaper (513215) on Monday March 03 2008, @10:43AM (#22623848)
    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.

  • Real significance: Free as in Freedom (Score:5, Insightful)

    by chainLynx (939076) on Monday March 03 2008, @10:52AM (#22623938) Homepage
    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 (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Piata (927858) on Monday March 03 2008, @11:16AM (#22624248)

      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 (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Cytlid (95255) on Monday March 03 2008, @11:26AM (#22624374) Homepage
        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?

  • can't download (Score:5, Informative)

    by lophophore (4087) on Monday March 03 2008, @11:29AM (#22624408) Homepage
    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:Bad Summary - only part is free (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Galaga88 (148206) on Monday March 03 2008, @09:54AM (#22623290)
      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.

    • 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 [nin.com].

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.