REZNOR GIVES UP ON THE RADIOHEAD RELEASE MODEL?

[C DUB YA]

Seems this pay for it if you want to download thing - ain't all that it was cracked up to be a few months ago.

Nine Inch Nails frontman Trent Reznor admitted that he is "disheartened" by the results of a new music business model he attempted.

As producer of rapper Saul Williams' new album 'The Inevitable Rise and Liberation of NiggyTardust', Reznor decided to employ a similar business model to that of Radiohead, which gave listeners the option of paying nothing for a download of the album, or $5 for higher-quality MP3s.

In a posting yesterday (January 3) on Nine Inch Nails' website, Reznor revealed the sales figures, saying, "Perhaps by revealing of all our data -- our 'dirty laundry' -- we can contribute to a better solution."

Giving the background that Williams' 2004 self-titled album sold 33,897 copies, Reznor revealed the following data.

"As of 1/2/08, 154,449 people chose to download Saul's new record. 28,322 of those people chose to pay $5 for it, meaning: 18% chose to pay."

Reznor added: "Is it good news that less than one in five feel it was worth $5? I'm not sure what I was expecting but that percentage -- primarily from fans -- seems disheartening."

www.nme.com

[Neutral Milk Hotel]

Ouch.

[thelastgreatman]

I wonder how much they see out of the 5 dollars compared to the dollar per CD Saul made off his last release.

[Boourns]

Reznor also gave up on ever making another good Nine Inch Nails song.

But seriously, that really sucks. Most people are always going to want something in their hands for their money, it's just a fact of life.

[C DUB YA]

I wonder how much they see out of the 5 dollars compared to the dollar per CD Saul made off his last release.

Doesn't matter.

Unless you're a Radiohead (or NIN) you aren't in the position to "attempt" such things - realistically. You got to be pretty established to use the "Radiohead model", because without a fanboy type, built in audience of some sort - it simply does not work.

Too many cheap bastards out there - and not just cheap in a money sense. Cheap in the way they think about music and how important it can be... and is. They cheapen what they get for free or quickly even, they don't really care about music or the people that make it.

[roberto73]

Too many cheap bastards out there - and not just cheap in a money sense. Cheap in the way they think about music and how important it can be... and is. They cheapen what they get for free or quickly even, they don't really care about music or the people that make it.

I don't know what's worse: your self-righteousness or your gross misrepresentation of people who download music.

[thelastgreatman]

Jesus Christ you're a stupid asshole about this. You're in no position to say one fucking way or the other.

[C DUB YA]

If you are talking to me I'd like to know how I'm a (stupid) asshole about it?

Seriously.

[thelastgreatman]

Cause you keep starting fucking threads about it.

[C DUB YA]

Hmmm - thats a good reason - you dumbfuck.

You're an asshole period - all you do is post yourself into being a major league dickhead - that is a fact - o breath of the cock. You never have once offered up anything other than silly critisism or stupid insults - so even though I should say - fuck off and be done with you and your juvenille behavior (it really is sad) I'll answer your post anyway.

For an industry mainstay - with a rabid fanbase - such as Trent Reznor - this is kinda big news if you ask me. So I thought I'd pass it along here - you know on a MUSIC MESSAGE BOARD. Anyway, He's a rather big fish and to go against something he praised a few months ago - its news to me and others I'm sure.

[goodgrl]

For an industry mainstay - with a rabid fanbase - such as Trent Reznor - this is kinda big news if you ask me. So I thought I'd pass it along here - you know on a MUSIC MESSAGE BOARD. Anyway, He's a rather big fish and to go against something he praised a few months ago - its news to me and others I'm sure.

WOW! Good stuff CDUB. I find this very interesting and disheartening. Sadly though not surprised.

[ghettojournalist]

have they released an official word on the Radiohead download stats?

[C DUB YA]

Kinda. Well no, not really, nothing "official" - I doubt we see that.

They (Radiohead) haven't - but there have been several sources (comscore for one) that have offered differnet numbers. Most of the feedback has been bad when you look at the amount of downloads that where actually PAID for, but in terms of Radiohead's dollars - the results are pretty damn good. The last thing I read was the Spin and Blender polls about it, and both of those said over 40%-60% got In Rainbows for free.

Here's one article from cnet:

http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9832659-7.html

[ghettojournalist]

Kinda. Well no, not really, nothing "official" - I doubt we see that.

They (Radiohead) haven't - but there have been several sources (comscore for one) that have offered differnet numbers. Most of the feedback has been bad when you look at the amount of downloads that where actually PAID for, but in terms of Radiohead's dollars - the results are pretty damn good. The last thing I read was the Spin and Blender polls about it, and both of those said over 40%-60% got In Rainbows for free.

Here's one article from cnet:

http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9832659-7.html

there is so much to debate when it comes to this topic.

i don't really like what Radiohead did, much the way i don't like what Beck has done with his last few releases. i like the idea that one could get the downloads for free, but paying for inferior product, especially when the the product is available in a better format, is where RH went wrong.

in regards to Saul Williams, it seems like the new record made him as much money as the last one did, factoring in label and production expenses. Plus, any discussion that includes the fact that the numbers are down has to take into account whether the album is as good as one to which they are comparing the numbers.

[thelastgreatman]

This wasn't a NIN album. It was a Saul Williams album. But here, let's see what David Byrne has to say about it. Maybe he knows more about the music business than you.

http://www.wired.com/entertainment/m...16-01/ff_byrne

Full disclosure: I used to own a record label. That label, Luaka Bop, still exists, though I'm no longer involved in running it. My last record came out through Nonesuch, a subsidiary of the Warner Music Group empire. I have also released music through indie labels like Thrill Jockey, and I have pressed up CDs and sold them on tour. I tour every few years, and I don't see it as simply a loss leader for CD sales. So I have seen this business from both sides. I've made money, and I've been ripped off. I've had creative freedom, and I've been pressured to make hits. I have dealt with diva behavior from crazy musicians, and I have seen genius records by wonderful artists get completely ignored. I love music. I always will. It saved my life, and I bet I'm not the only one who can say that.

What is called the music business today, however, is not the business of producing music. At some point it became the business of selling CDs in plastic cases, and that business will soon be over. But that's not bad news for music, and it's certainly not bad news for musicians. Indeed, with all the ways to reach an audience, there have never been more opportunities for artists.

Some see this picture as a dire trend. The fact that Radiohead debuted its latest album online and Madonna defected from Warner Bros. to Live Nation, a concert promoter, is held to signal the end of the music business as we know it. Actually, these are just two examples of how musicians are increasingly able to work outside of the traditional label relationship. There is no one single way of doing business these days. There are, in fact, six viable models by my count. That variety is good for artists; it gives them more ways to get paid and make a living. And it's good for audiences, too, who will have more — and more interesting — music to listen to. Let's step back and get some perspective.

What is music?
First, a definition of terms. What is it we're talking about here? What exactly is being bought and sold? In the past, music was something you heard and experienced — it was as much a social event as a purely musical one. Before recording technology existed, you could not separate music from its social context. Epic songs and ballads, troubadours, courtly entertainments, church music, shamanic chants, pub sing-alongs, ceremonial music, military music, dance music — it was pretty much all tied to specific social functions. It was communal and often utilitarian. You couldn't take it home, copy it, sell it as a commodity (except as sheet music, but that's not music), or even hear it again. Music was an experience, intimately married to your life. You could pay to hear music, but after you did, it was over, gone — a memory.

Technology changed all that in the 20th century. Music — or its recorded artifact, at least — became a product, a thing that could be bought, sold, traded, and replayed endlessly in any context. This upended the economics of music, but our human instincts remained intact. I spend plenty of time with buds in my ears listening to recorded music, but I still get out to stand in a crowd with an audience. I sing to myself, and, yes, I play an instrument (not always well).

We'll always want to use music as part of our social fabric: to congregate at concerts and in bars, even if the sound sucks; to pass music from hand to hand (or via the Internet) as a form of social currency; to build temples where only "our kind of people" can hear music (opera houses and symphony halls); to want to know more about our favorite bards — their love lives, their clothes, their political beliefs. This betrays an eternal urge to have a larger context beyond a piece of plastic. One might say this urge is part of our genetic makeup.

All this is what we talk about when we talk about music.

All of it.

What do record companies do?
Or, more precisely, what did they do?

* Fund recording sessions
* Manufacture product
* Distribute product
* Market product
* Loan and advance money for expenses (tours, videos, hair and makeup)
* Advise and guide artists on their careers and recordings
* Handle the accounting

This was the system that evolved over the past century to market the product, which is to say the container — vinyl, tape, or disc — that carried the music. (Calling the product music is like selling a shopping cart and calling it groceries.) But many things have changed in the past decade that reduce the value of these services to artists.

For example:

Recording costs have declined to almost zero. Artists used to need the labels to bankroll their recordings. Most simply didn't have the $15,000 (minimum) necessary to rent a professional studio and pay an engineer and a producer. For many artists — maybe even most — this is no longer the case. Now an album can be made on the same laptop you use to check email.

Manufacturing and distribution costs are approaching zero. There used to be a break-even point below which it was impractical to distribute a recording. With LPs and CDs, there were base manufacturing costs, printing costs, shipping, and so on. It paid — in fact, it was essential — to sell in volume, because that's how many of those costs got amortized. No more: Digital distribution is pretty much free. It's no cheaper per unit to distribute a million copies than a hundred.

Touring is not just promotion. Live performances used to be seen as essentially a way to publicize a new release — a means to an end, not an end in itself. Bands would go into debt in order to tour, anticipating that they'd recover their losses later through increased record sales. This, to be blunt, is all wrong. It's backward. Performing is a thing in itself, a distinct skill, different from making recordings. And for those who can do it, it's a way to make a living.

So with all these changes, what happens to the labels? Some will survive. Nonesuch, where I've done several albums, has thrived under Warner Music Group ownership by operating with a lean staff of 12 and staying focused on talent. "Artists like Wilco, Philip Glass, k.d. lang, and others have sold more here than when they were at so-called major labels," Bob Hurwitz, president of Nonesuch, told me, "even during a time of decline."

But some labels will disappear, as the roles they used to play get chopped up and delivered by more thrifty services. In a recent conversation I had with Brian Eno (who is producing the next Coldplay album and writing with U2), he was enthusiastic about I Think Music — an online network of indie bands, fans, and stores — and pessimistic about the future of traditional labels. "Structurally, they're much too large," Eno said. "And they're entirely on the defensive now. The only idea they have is that they can give you a big advance — which is still attractive to a lot of young bands just starting out. But that's all they represent now: capital."

So where do artists fit into this changing landscape? We find new options, new models.

The six possibilities

Where there was one, now there are six: Six possible music distribution models, ranging from one in which the artist is pretty much hands-off to one where the artist does nearly everything. Not surprisingly, the more involved the artist is, the more he or she can often make per unit sold. The totally DIY model is certainly not for everyone — but that's the point. Now there's choice.

1. At one end of the scale is the 360, or equity, deal, where every aspect of the artist's career is handled by producers, promoters, marketing people, and managers. The idea is that you can achieve wide saturation and sales, boosted by a hardworking machine that stands to benefit from everything you do. The artist becomes a brand, owned and operated by the label, and in theory this gives the company a long-term perspective and interest in nurturing that artist's career.

Pussycat Dolls, Korn, and Robbie Williams have made arrangements like this, selling equity in everything they touch. The T-shirts, the records, the concerts, the videos, the BBQ sauce. The artist often gets a lot of money up front. But I doubt that creative decisions will be left in the artist's hands. As a general rule, as the cash comes in, creative control goes out. The equity partner simply has too much at stake.

This is the kind of deal Madonna just made with Live Nation. For a reported $120 million, the company — which until now has mainly produced and promoted concerts — will get a piece of both her concert revenue and her music sales. I, for one, would not want to be beholden to Live Nation — a spinoff of Clear Channel, the radio conglomerate that turned the US airwaves into pabulum. But Madge is a smart cookie; she's always been adept at controlling her own stuff, so we'll see.

2. Next is what I'll call the standard distribution deal. This is more or less what I lived with for many years as a member of the Talking Heads. The record company bankrolls the recording and handles the manufacturing, distribution, press, and promotion. The artist gets a royalty percentage after all those other costs are repaid. The label, in this scenario, owns the copyright to the recording. Forever.

There's another catch with this kind of arrangement: The typical pop star often lives in debt to their record company and a host of other entities, and if they hit a dry spell they can go broke. Michael Jackson, MC Hammer, TLC — the danger of debt and overextension is an old story.

Obviously, the cost of these services, along with the record company's overhead, accounts for a big part of CD prices. You, the buyer, are paying for all those trucks, those CD plants, those warehouses, and all that plastic. Theoretically, as many of these costs go away, they should no longer be charged to the consumer — or the artist.

Sure, many of the services traditionally provided by record labels under the standard deal are now being farmed out. Press and publicity, digital marketing, graphic design — all are often handled by smaller, independent firms. But he who pays the piper calls the tune. If the record company pays the subcontractors, then the record company ultimately decides who or what has priority. If they "don't hear a single," they can tell you your record isn't coming out.

So what happens when online sales eliminate many of these expenses? Look at iTunes: $10 for a "CD" download reflects the cost savings of digital distribution, which seems fair — at first. It's certainly better for consumers. But after Apple takes its 30 percent, the royalty percentage is applied and the artist — surprise! — is no better off.

Not coincidentally, the issues here are similar to those in the recent Hollywood writers' strike. Will recording artists band together and go on strike?

3. The license deal is similar to the standard deal, except in this case the artist retains the copyrights and ownership of the master recording. The right to exploit that property is granted to a label for a limited period of time — usually seven years. After that, the rights to license to TV shows, commercials, and the like revert to the artist. If the members of the Talking Heads held the master rights to our catalog today, we'd earn twice as much in licensing as we do now — and that's where artists like me derive much of our income. If a band has made a record itself and doesn't need creative or financial help, this model is worth looking at. It allows for a little more creative freedom, since you get less interference from the guys in the big suits. The flip side is that because the label doesn't own the master, it may invest less in making the release a success.

But with the right label, the license deal can be a great way to go. This is the relationship Arcade Fire has with Merge Records, an indie label that's done great for its band by avoiding the big-spending, big-label approach. "Part of it is just being realistic and not putting yourself in the hole," Merge cofounder Mac McCaughan says. "The bands we work with, we never recommend that they make videos. I like videos, but they don't sell a lot of records. What really sells records is touring — and artists can actually make money on the tour itself if they keep their budgets down."

4. Then there's the profit-sharing deal. I did something like this with my album Lead Us Not Into Temptation in 2003. I got a minimal advance from the label, Thrill Jockey, since the recording costs were covered by a movie soundtrack budget, and we shared the profits from day one. I retained ownership of the master. Thrill Jockey does some marketing and press. I may or may not have sold as many records as I would have with a larger company, but in the end I took home a greater share of each unit sold.

5. In the manufacturing and distribution deal, the artist does everything except, well, manufacture and distribute the product. Often the companies that do these kinds of deals also offer other services, like marketing. But given the numbers, they don't stand to make as much, so their incentive here is limited. Big record labels traditionally don't make M&D deals.

In this scenario, the artist gets absolute creative control, but it's a bigger gamble. Aimee Mann does this, and it works really well for her. "A lot of artists don't realize how much more money they could make by retaining ownership and licensing directly," Mann's manager, Michael Hausman, told me. "If it's done properly, you get paid quickly, and you get paid again and again. That's a great source of income."

6. Finally, at the far end of the scale, is the self-distribution model, where the music is self-produced, self-written, self-played, and self-marketed. CDs are sold at gigs and through a Web site. Promotion is a MySpace page. The band buys or leases a server to handle download sales. Within the limits of what they can afford, the artists have complete creative control. In practice, especially for emerging artists, that can mean freedom without resources — a pretty abstract sort of independence. For those who plan to take their material on the road and play it live, the financial constraints cut even deeper. Backup orchestras, massive video screens and sets, and weird high tech lights don't come cheap.

Radiohead adopted this DIY model to sell In Rainbows online — and then went a step further by letting fans name their own price for the download. They weren't the first to do this — Issa (formerly known as Jane Siberry) pioneered the pay-what-you-will model a few years ago — but Radiohead's move was much higher profile. It may be less risky for them, but it's a clear sign of real changes afoot. As one of Radiohead's managers, Bryce Edge, told me, "The industry reacted like the end was nigh. They've devalued music, giving it away for nothing.' Which wasn't true: We asked people to value it, which is very different semantics to me."

At this end of the spectrum, the artist stands to receive the largest percentage of income from sales per unit — sales of anything. A larger percentage of fewer sales, most likely, but not always. Artists doing it for themselves can actually make more money than the massive pop star, even though the sales numbers may seem minuscule by comparison. Of course, not everyone is as smart as those nerdy Radiohead boys. Pete Doherty probably should not be handed the steering wheel.

Freedom versus pragmatism
These models are not absolute. They can morph and evolve. Hausman and Mann took the total DIY route at first, getting money orders and sending out CDs in Express Mail envelopes; later on they licensed the records to distributors. And things change over time. In the future, we will see more artists take up these various models or mix and match versions of them. For existing and emerging artists — who read about the music business going down the drain — this is actually a great time, full of options and possibilities. The future of music as a career is wide open.

Many who take the cash up front will never know that long-range thinking might have been wiser. Mega pop artists will still need that mighty push and marketing effort for a new release that only traditional record companies can provide. For others, what we now call a record label could be replaced by a small company that funnels income and invoices from the various entities and keeps the accounts in order. A consortium of midlevel artists could make this model work. United Musicians, the company that Hausman founded, is one such example.

I would personally advise artists to hold on to their publishing rights (well, as much of them as they can). Publishing royalties are how you get paid if someone covers, samples, or licenses your song for a movie or commercial. This, for a songwriter, is your pension plan.

Increasingly, it's possible for artists to hold on to the copyrights for their recordings as well. This guarantees them another lucrative piece of the licensing pie and also gives them the right to exploit their work in mediums to be invented in the future — musical brain implants and the like.

No single model will work for everyone. There's room for all of us. Some artists are the Coke and Pepsi of music, while others are the fine wine — or the funky home-brewed moonshine. And that's fine. I like Rihanna's "Umbrella" and Christina Aguilera's "Ain't No Other Man." Sometimes a corporate soft drink is what you want — just not at the expense of the other thing. In the recent past, it often seemed like all or nothing, but maybe now we won't be forced to choose.

Ultimately, all these scenarios have to satisfy the same human urges: What do we need music to do? How do we visit the land in our head and the place in our heart that music takes us to? Can I get a round-trip ticket?

Really, isn't that what we want to buy, sell, trade, or download?

[bmack86]

Byrne's article is fantastic. Well written and intriguing. You can tell he's put quite a bit of thought into this issue.

[C DUB YA]

True. Very true.

I love Bryne and his article is great - but again - he is in a different position altogether on this. Not only is he financial set for life - he hasn't sold over 40k copies of any of his recent work - he's not really looking at it that way and he admits it by saying not one model works for every artist. Its hard without erasing every single Talking Heads royalty he's been given in the past, to look at things in some unknown artists' shoes. While the ideas he brings up may stay the same - his optimism might not be. I was speaking of unknowns, not the David Byrnes/Radioheads of the world. Byrne pretty much says this was a non-gamble for them (Radiohead). Until we have some figures that the DIY model works for those other than Radiohead - then it isn't all its cracked up to be - that's all. Obviously it will still work for some, but others - it will be a disaster. I kinda disagree with him on the devalue of music thing - I think it can devalue music in some cases, because as its been pointed out - there's a lot of cheap bastards wanting their shit for nothing - and the model in its own way takes the control and value the artist may have out of it. I'm not sure the power of placing a monatary value of music should be left up to the "buying public". To this point they haven't been buying much - interested yes - sustaining through support - not so much. Time will tell though, like he said the DIY model isn't for everyone - and that is what I'm (and Trent) talking about.

and lastgreatman - you ignore what i answer by offerring up other things after you call me an asshole - I know it was a Saul record - I read the article. You insulted me for posting this article - yet here we are - discussing it - see how this board thing works? Try not being a dick for one minute.

[Alchemy]

True. Very true.

I love Bryne and his article is great - but again - he is in a different position altogether on this. Not only is he financial set for life - he hasn't sold over 40k copies of any of his recent work - he's not really looking at it that way and he admits it by saying not one model works for every artist. Its hard without erasing every single Talking Heads royalty he's been given in the past, to look at things in some unknown artists' shoes. While the ideas he brings up may stay the same - his optimism might not be. I was speaking of unknowns, not the David Byrnes/Radioheads of the world. Byrne pretty much says this was a non-gamble for them (Radiohead). Until we have some figures that the DIY model works for those other than Radiohead - then it isn't all its cracked up to be - that's all. Obviously it will still work for some, but others - it will be a disaster. I kinda disagree with him on the devalue of music thing - I think it can devalue music in some cases, because as its been pointed out - there's a lot of cheap bastards wanting their shit for nothing - and the model in its own way takes the control and value the artist may have out of it. I'm not sure the power of placing a monatary value of music should be left up to the "buying public". To this point they haven't been buying much - interested yes - sustaining through support - not so much. Time will tell though, like he said the DIY model isn't for everyone - and that is what I'm (and Trent) talking about.

and lastgreatman - you ignore what i answer by offerring up other things after you call me an asshole - I know it was a Saul record - I read the article. You insulted me for posting this article - yet here we are - discussing it - see how this board thing works? Try not being a dick for one minute.

You didn't read the article did you...

[TeamCoachellaHellYeah]

I really think there are looking at this the wrong way....it is not like it was a NIN album...it was simply someone he produced no? I can't see why they would call it a Radiohead-attempt when Saul Williams isn't anyehere near as big...if you look at the figures anyway..the amount of people who paid for the album is almost the same as the amount who bought he last album...so it really isn't all bad considering he is a semi-unknown artist...and @ $5 a download he still probably made more $$$ then the last album..

[C DUB YA]

the money Saul mde is not discouraging - the amount of people willing to pay NOTHING is.

[Sexecutioner]

the money Saul mde is not discouraging - the amount of people willing to pay NOTHING is.

and as for this thing goes, those people would sure as hell not be buying a $12 cd either, so its not like hes losing money on that. most of those people that got it free were probably not big fans and were curious about his music, but didnt want to pay for something they might not like, rightfully so. the only thing that happened there was that saul got a lot of people listening to his music that wouldnt have if the only way to do it was by buying a $12 cd.

the fact is, to most people, music is not worth what they charge, and i love music, but agree with them. the key to this new model is finding the fairest value to charge for your album. digital songs are not fuckin worth a dollar each. i bet if he charged 3 bucks for the album instead of 5, more people would have bought it.

[karecares]

I'm a big NIN fan and have seen Saul open up for them, I am not a fan of his. Would I have paid to dl the album if i were a fan? Yes I would. If it were a NIN album most definatley would have paid and $5 is more than reasonable in my opinion. But I guess I'm kind of 'old school' where the bands I am most interested in I buy the actual CD, the extras some have added makes it worth it to shell out the $12-17 bucks for it ie: Tool's artwork, additional videos on the cd things like that.

But as everyone has said about this model, if your not a RH type of band or one with a cult like following who are big on bootlegs like a pearl jam or the gratefull dead its not going to work

[orbit]

You missed the positive note of the article

On the positive side, Reznor pointed out that they hardly spent any money marketing the album, adding, "Saul's music is in more peoples' iPods than ever before and people are interested in him. He'll be touring throughout the year and we will continue to get the word out however we can."

And that's important. I'd bet that most people who download the album for free weren't Saul Williams's hard fans. Maybe they did it only more for curiosity than to support his music or new business model experiment. Any model the artist choose to sell their music won't work if people don't like the music, and it has less chances to work if they don't know who you are.

Those 'cheap bastards' as you like to call them are the ones who actually will promote and make free publicity about your album. They weren't going to pay if you only released the album in physical form for $11.99 anyway. And now I bet that a lot of more people know who Saul Williams is and how his music is. He has more chances to get more people to his shows, he has more chances to get more people interested in his future works.

[Sexecutioner]

exactly orbit. cdubya, as always, is trying to make this whole new model look horrible, even though it is not.

the fact is: 28k people paid 5 bucks for this album, which is about $140k going straight into his pocket, minus whatever it cost to make, and market the album (which trent said was very little). just because he didnt get stinkin rich off the album, doesnt mean it was a failure.

thats the problem with musicians, they think they are entitled to get millions of dollars for writing songs. fuck that shit. they have the best job in the world, and real musicians should be content that they are making a living doing what they love, and as long as they make enough to survive and even live comfortably from their craft, then they should be happy.

finally, now that he record companies are losing their monopoly on the industry, do we the fans have the option to pay what we think its worth, making the value of music come down to its fair market value, not one thats pre set by the record companies. sorry trent that your music isnt worth as much as you thought it was, but thats the breaks. for so long, the music industry has raped us fans on cd sales, and now its our turn to rape them back. so cry me a fuckin river that saul (a relatively unknown artist) only made 6 figures off this album, and is now more popular than ever. so STFU ALREADY cdub!! no matter how much your dinosaur ass wants to cry about the current state of music sales, the fact is its more fair than ever, for everybody involved.

[microserfs21]

You missed the positive note of the article



And that's important. I'd bet that most people who download the album for free weren't Saul Williams's hard fans. Maybe they did it only more for curiosity than to support his music or new business model experiment. Any model the artist choose to sell their music won't work if people don't like the music, and it has less chances to work if they don't know who you are.

Those 'cheap bastards' as you like to call them are the ones who actually will promote and make free publicity about your album. They weren't going to pay if you only released the album in physical form for $11.99 anyway. And now I bet that a lot of more people know who Saul Williams is and how his music is. He has more chances to get more people to his shows, he has more chances to get more people interested in his future works.

That pretty much sums it up.

I downloaded the Saul William's album for free. I had no clue who he was but I was linked to it on a message board. I didn't get into the music, not my thing, but whatever. If I did like it I would have probably seen him in concert bought merchandise and maybe even the CD.

If a band that I loved did the same thing I would have no problem putting money down for it. In fact, I did put money down when I downloaded the Radiohead album just because I respect them.

Bands can make a good deal off of touring and selling merchandise on tour so even if people download the music for free, as long as it sparks an interest in seeing them live, it will have made the band money. Most people I know will not buy cds anymore for the simple fact that most of the money spent goes to the record companies and not the artist.

[shotglass75]

I think what part of the problem is is that a majority of NIN fans probably are not the biggest Saul Williams fans. But having Trent's name attached to the project certainly sparked interest in "Niggy Stardust" by many people. But not really knowing that much about him except that Trent produced his album wasn't going to make me fork over 5 bucks for an artist I never listened to. If this was a NIN album and they were releasing it via download I believe that a majority of the people would have paid $5 bucks for it. I know I would have. I paid $10 for "In Rainbows".

I sympathize with Trent and what he is trying to accomplish, even though I am one of the people he is complaining about. I just think that with such a uncertain time right now in how to distribute music, as an artist, you have to be well established at this time to offer to give it away or pay for it to make any sort of money . Unfortunately, I don't think Saul Williams is at the level to do that.

Touring and merch are probably the best ways for smaller artist to make their money. Saul Williams will probably have more people at his shows now because more people had an opportunity to hear his album. I don't think either Trent or Saul should throw in the towel with this. The plan just needs to be adjusted to the market.

[bballarl]

I think artists and people in the industry need to come to grips with free downloading. I know that sounds stupid and obvious, but it is logical. When the option of getting something for free exists, a lot of people are going to take that option. It is human nature. I cannot think of anything that will change that.

[wmgaretjax]

it's not disheartening. it was a bad fucking album. i downloaded it for free, if I would have liked it, I would have ended up doing it again and paying. but it was shit. so I deleted it.

[kreutz2112]

I didn't read the whole thread, but I wonder what percentage of people payed over $5 for In Rainbows download. Over 18%??? I only payed $4.

[thelastgreatman]

I just hate how against this new business model you are CDUB even though there's ample evidence that making this work is the only path the music industry can take. Guess what: artists are going to have to expect that they'll probably only get paid for about 1/5 of all the downloads. That's just a fact of the new reality. But I don't see where you get off condemning it when you take into account that artists probably make 5 times as much (or close to it, at least) off every one of those downloads than they would have from a sale of a CD or iTunes.

You act like you care about the artists, about the music, and that the fans are the villains in this. But you don't really care about the artists because if you did then maybe the many stories of artists who sold 15 million fucking copies and ended up broke from corrupt record label practices would move you. But they don't, because you're a naive old man. People like you cursed Henry Ford for destroying the buggy whip industry.