Reznor Follows Radiohead, Offers Free Album 327
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."
Groan. (Score:4, Funny)
Gee, thanks for clearing that up. I thought it was some new direct injection content delivery method.
Re:Groan. (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Groan. (Score:5, Informative)
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! (Score:5, Informative)
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
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.
Alternative music.. alternative methods (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Alternative music.. alternative methods (Score:5, Informative)
You could check out Machinae Supremacy, Swedish band. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machinae_supremacy [wikipedia.org]
Lots of free songs on their website, which is of course under reconstruction now when I checked it...
Re:Alternative music.. alternative methods (Score:4, Interesting)
Thanks but, no thanks:
From wikipedia [wikipedia.org]
, 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: [wikipedia.org]
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: (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.archive.org/details/mtk144 [archive.org] has one release, the others seem to be there too.
Re:Alternative music.. alternative methods (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.playedlastnight.com/ [playedlastnight.com]
would be nice to see more artists follow suit
Re:Alternative music.. alternative methods (Score:5, Informative)
If you want something a little different, try some post-industrial music -- e.g. Combichrist, Funker Vogt,
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
http://thepiratebay.org/tor/3493606/VA_-_Industrial_Legacy_Vol.1.2006.MP3.Electro.Industrial.Collect [thepiratebay.org]
Or, if you have already hooked
http://torrents.thepiratebay.org/3493606/VA_-_Industrial_Legacy_Vol.1.2006.MP3.Electro.Industrial.Collect.3493606.TPB.torrent [thepiratebay.org]
Re:Alternative music.. alternative methods (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Alternative music.. alternative methods (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Re:Alternative music.. alternative methods (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Not Typical NIN, Give It A Listen! (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
Re:Not Typical NIN, Give It A Listen! (Score:4, Insightful)
There are a few groups out there, when they jam, it's better than most other's "polished" releases.
To clarify (Score:5, Informative)
Re:To clarify (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
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 (Score:4, Informative)
Re:To clarify (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re:To clarify (Score:4, Informative)
Reciprocity (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
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: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Reciprocity (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
Oh... this isn't news when anybody does it?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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)
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)
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)
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: (Score:2)
All the ones I've come across (after lots, and lots of looking) release either partial songs, one hit song from any album, or absolutely positively can't play worth a damn...
And those options aren't mutually exclusive, either... The vast majority that release a couple song sound like 4 people just bought their instruments, can't come up with lyrics that aren't completely banal, can't hold a tune, and often may be making
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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? A
Re:Reciprocity (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
You are going to get RSI in twenty years (Score:3, Insightful)
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 sti
I'll explain the future. It's easy. (Score:3, Informative)
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/ [pandora.com] and http://www.last.fm/ [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 pl
Rise of Internet Radio. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Reciprocity (Score:4, Insightful)
Labels will probably continue to have a place for a long, long time.
Community work (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
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-commen
Radiohead not the first (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Not only that (Score:3, Informative)
Re: DRM Laden? (Score:3, Interesting)
Bad Summary - only part is free (Score:2, Insightful)
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 re
Re:Bad Summary - only part is free (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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].
You just did what?! (Score:5, Funny)
You should have seen the faces of the band!
Nine Inch Nails IS Trent Reznor (Score:3, Funny)
You should have seen the faces of the band!
The bandmembers' names are Ghosts I - IV.
Hey, that's my idea! (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:2)
Out of curiousity, which club was that?
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Hey, that's my idea! (Score:4, Interesting)
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 $80 to see big-time rockers in a stadium if it wasn't for the promotional powers of the RIAA labels, and their ability to manufacture successful singles. Saying the music should be free and then the concerts would be the source of revenue ignores that indie musicians often give their music away freely, often have concerts that are cheaper and more interesting than big-rock-stadium concerts, and yet don't make very much money at it. Most of their money comes from selling CDs and other merchandise at the concerts.
It's hypocritical to bring up NIN or Radiohead. These are two bands who got big and made millions of dollars in the studio system, and now that their deals have expired, are able to cash in even more. Good for them, but more than anything this validates the studio system, it doesn't show any sort of new alternative.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why?
Because basing your money flow on reproducing and distributing an easily reproducable and distributable product is simply a bad idea.
It may have worked decently in the past because the reproduction and distribution wasn't as easy and protected by a goverment monopoly that most thought was a good idea.
However, with today's easy of distribution and reproduction even by private citizens the goverment monopoly is losing its morale stature. Every day more people begin understand how harmful the laws are and wh
Re: (Score:2)
Encryption (Score:5, Funny)
ok, bad joke. I've got a bad case of the Mondays.
excellent design, except for slashdotting (Score:4, Interesting)
A lot of people downloaded In Rainbows without paying because they didn't know or actually like radiohead, not just because they were free riders. Trent set the price low enough and provided enough options that he'll have a better idea of who likes his music and what they want -- people not familiar with him will sample and move on, but those that like the work will have to choose between waiting for bittorrent or paying a cheap 5$.
Starting to figure it out. (Score:4, Insightful)
thanks (Score:2)
I've been trying to download the flac version of this album all night, and the servers are already struggling to keep up. now that the sites been slashdotted, im sure my download experience will be even better!
actually, i'm impressed, this website succumbed to the slashtod effect 5 hours before it even made the front page. this year zero style time displacement stuff hurts my brain!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
http://thepiratebay.org/tor/4059158/Nine_Inch_Nails_-_Ghosts_I_(2008) [thepiratebay.org]
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.
Instrumental (Score:2)
This experiement shall prove my assertions I hope. (Score:2)
I'm going to predict that while the "product sales" will not quite match the historical model's returns, the artists themselves will see a HUGE difference in their profits from this.
I'm hopeful that this represents a shift back to the way things SHOULD be where the copyright holders are the artists themselves and the promotions an
Shareware (Score:2)
I wonder if Reznor looked at the model for Doom / Quake and realized how fast it spread. I wonder if him and Carmack ever bounced the idea back and forth way back in the Quake days.
Anyhow, good show.
NIN Official torrent (Score:4, Informative)
http://thepiratebay.org/tor/4059158/Nine_Inch_Nails_-_Ghosts_I_(2008) [thepiratebay.org]
The full 36 tracks are 5$. And are licensed under creativecommons for non-commercial copy/share/perform.
Re: (Score:2)
But noooooooo, you have to click through a dozen pages, figure out that you need to click on "order" the get the free,/b>stuff, enter an email address, pass a captcha, go check your inbox, go back to the site again to get the download....
So no, don't download the torrent, go to the site and slashdot it. Let's see if these morons will ever learn what "free download" means.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Trent Reznor and Saul Williams (Score:2, Informative)
mod parent up (Score:2, Informative)
interesting that they moved to sample/5$
Server torture (Score:2, Funny)
Need more to follow suit. (Score:2)
The Music Market (Score:2)
Basically the idea is to fund the production of each album using other people's money and then of course investors get to share it the proceeds.
The labels do this, why not the artists? Certainly there is a lot of legal overhead and a new set of laws and fiduciary duties to the shareholders, etc etc but that's a real business for you....
how dare that motherfucker give it away! (Score:5, Funny)
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)
Re:Real significance: Free as in Freedom (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
Direct Link (Score:3, Informative)
can't download (Score:5, Informative)
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: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Where's the beef? (Score:2, Funny)
the real problem with the music industry (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Two Problems with the Ghosts Release (Score:3, Insightful)
However...
there are two significant problems I see with this (and Radiohead's In Rainbows) otherwise brilliant execution of the freemium business model:
1. Radiohead's internet release of "In Rainbows" could've been a lot more lucrative for the band if their servers dolled out the files and accepted all the payments instead of quickly crawling into fetal position. The reality is many eager fans tried to pay Radiohead for their music (and symbolically give the bloated corpse of the traditional music market a bootheel in the ribs) but couldn't, because the website was felled by the massive demand. We're seeing the same tragic error perpetuated again with Ghost's, as fans attempt to pay via Paypal or some other mechanism and are rejected as if by the house of Mutombo. Whatever the cash intake for Ghosts ends up being (and I'm sure they will be amazing), it could've and should've been much more.
2. Ghosts(I) is good, but it's not great, and it's too short. More promising tracks reveal themselves when you listen to all four volumes (there are 36 tracks in all), but many people won't be able to make payment and download the complete Ghosts I-IV from the official website until tommorrow at the earliest. And if people forecast how good II through IV is based on what they heard on Ghosts I, they may not think it's worth downloading at all. My suggestion is arrange more listener-accessible tracks in volume one, and the more esoteric stuff as the premier content hardcore fans would pay for anyway.
Don't get me wrong. I think Trent scored bigtime with this internet launch/release, but I see these relatively easy problems throttling the possible revenue stream.
Re:Microsoft follows Radiohead (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Microsoft follows Radiohead (Score:5, Funny)
..and lets the users set the price they want... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)