Trent Reznor and downloading music - Is it downloading working for NIN?
- Thread starter TBJ
- Start date
...AndTimeBegan
Member
- Nov 6, 2007
- 543
- 0
- 16
Sorry I missed this dude. My bad I didn't respond earlier.
It's a viable model, but for the big guys in the music industry. It was not Reznor's goal to change how unsigned artists sell their product. If a label like Nuclear Blast wanted to give fans a choice as to whether or not to pay for an album, they could have went the traditional promotion/marketing route. Obviously that method is effective, since their bands indeed sell fairly well. We're not talking about the little guy here, we're talking about how the big guys can come up with an alternative to high priced CDs. The little guy already sets the prices of his CDs from the get go since his albums aren't in stores... trying to apply Reznor's model to unsigned bands doesn't make sense. It's like comparing Roadrunner to your band. Please don't take that as an insult at all, I'm just trying to say that the methods by which the two market their CDs is very different for very different reasons. Apples to oranges.
The Fiddler
Just Do It.
The fact that you are pro "free art" (or art for pennies) is what I find sickening. The fact that you "don't think the band cares" about loosing out on $126,185 if each downloader had just donated $1 for the band, shows that you could care less about the artists. Really, is $1 too much to spend to sample a full-length CD? You just want your art for free. That's very clear by now (BitTorrent Freak and The Pirate Bay are a couple of your favorite references).
As long as free≠not free, and as long as money doesn't grow on trees, my argument that there will always be a large percentage of people taking the $0 option versus the $0+ option is valid. Just because you choose to ignore human nature and continue to play naive by saying there is no way to know what people are thinking when it comes to spending their money does not make my argument invalid.
The Fiddler
Just Do It.
It's people like you who defend revolutionary ideas of musicians giving away 80% of their downloads for $0.00 is what will hold them back. Of course, your bank account moves forward because you don't spend anything to enjoy their art that inspires or motivates you.
List for me the bands you know who would be satisfied letting 80% of the general public download their latest release for $0.00 (even if the artist didn't have to spend a penny on marketing the release).
...AndTimeBegan
Member
- Nov 6, 2007
- 543
- 0
- 16
I'm going to say it once more and that's it. You cannot hold people accountable for NOT buying the album unless there is sound evidence that at least the vast majority of people that downloaded the album (in this case... LEGALLY) for free would have bought it if the internet didn't exist. Therefore, using logic (something you're clearly not familiar with), the band would STILL end up with nothing since these people wouldn't have bought it in the first place. Hell, one could even argue that those people wouldn't have even known about the band if they couldn't get that album for free.
Also, I don't think the band cares because if they did care, they don't deserve shit for working with someone who is "pro free art" in the first place. It's like when when Ralph Santolla, an open Christian, joined Deicide. You either don't care, and that's fine or you deserve what you get for not being intelligent enough.
And yes, I want art to be free. People should be able to decide whether they want to pay for art. Simple as that. You find that "sickening" because you are probably middle aged and grew up in a time where fat millionaires ran the music industry and decided what music YOU need to listen to. You were brainwashed, just like the rest and now that the standards are changing, you get up in arms about it. Now that we have the internet, anyone can record whatever, wherever, whenever and distribute their product to people all over the world. That is what art is about and I am 100% for this. I can understand being against illegal downloading even though I may disagree with that. It's a complicated issue and that's non-debatable. However, to be against the artist because he chooses how he wants to sell his product is just dumb and contradicts everything you've ever said about this subject. You claim to support the artist, but you bitch when an artist willingly chooses to change things up. You are a hypocrite and a product of a time that destroyed a form of art. I've proven your incompetence on this issue countless times. Just throw in the towel.
PS. I remember Glenn saying something about having an idea of changing the way promos were distributed. I believe it was something along the lines of releasing low bitrate versions of the album for sale alongside the inevitable "leak period" so that some money could potentially be made. Are you going to argue his ideas as well?
The Fiddler
Just Do It.
If you know Trent to be pro free art, why would he ask anyone to pay for this release in the first place?
...AndTimeBegan
Member
- Nov 6, 2007
- 543
- 0
- 16
http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=81116
http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=81475
Here he admits to owning an OiNK account.
http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=83892
And this time I really am done with arguing with you. Don't bother replying cause you'll just sound like a loser trying to get the last word in.
The Fiddler
Just Do It.
Thanks for being straight to the point about your philosophy and ideals.
uke: Obviously you have no creative talent to create anything that people are willing to purchase. If you did, you wouldn't expect yourself and your creative colleagues to give their creations away.And you pretty much summed up my situation. I'm 37 and have a Bachelor of Fine Art degree, a Bachelor of Science degree (Biology/Chemistry), run my own graphic design and photography business and have been employed by a world-class research university at the University of Wisconsin-Madison as an graphic artist and photographer for ten years.
And yes, the major record labels in the 1980s brainwashed me into listening to their puppet bands such as Iron Maiden, Judas Priest, Metallica, Slayer, Dio, Helloween, Black Sabbath, Fifth Angel, Deep Purple, Motorhead, Saxon, AC/DC, etc. Those bands were all slaves and did exactly what the record company told them to do, and because of that, the world of heavy metal today would have been much better off if all those big-label bands had never existed!
When you get a few more years beyond puberty, maybe you will see things differently, but I'm not holding my breath.
...AndTimeBegan
Member
- Nov 6, 2007
- 543
- 0
- 16
Thanks for being straight to the point about your philosophy and ideals.
And you pretty much summed up my situation. I'm 37 and have a Bachelor of Fine Art degree, a Bachelor of Science degree (Biology/Chemistry), run my own graphic design and photography business and have been employed by a world-class research university at the University of Wisconsin-Madison as an graphic artist and photographer for ten years.
And yes, the major record labels in the 1980s brainwashed me into listening to their puppet bands such as Iron Maiden, Judas Priest, Metallica, Slayer, Dio, Helloween, Black Sabbath, Fifth Angel, Deep Purple, Motorhead, Saxon, AC/DC, etc. Those bands were all slaves and did exactly what the record company told them to do, and because of that, the world of heavy metal today would have been much better off if all those big-label bands had never existed!
When you get a few more years beyond puberty, maybe you will see things differently, but I'm not holding my breath.
Once again you take only what you want to read from my comments out of context. Disgusting.
The Fiddler
Just Do It.
You did absolutely nothing to answer my question, which is, why did Trent ask people to voluntarily pay for the 'Niggy Tardust' download only if they wanted to? If he's pro free art, why did the donation idea even cross his mind? Could it be that he hoped to collect enough to pay the musicians and reimburse himself for the time he spent producing the release so he could at least break even?
The Fiddler
Just Do It.
Your full post is below. When your reply jumped from Christians joining Deicide to labeling me as "this" and "that", I wanted to respond specifically to your personal attacks on me which had nothing to do with Ralph Sontalla (so I left that part of your reply out).
You're good at throwing up your batches of smoke whenever you decide not to answer a question (or at least directly). :Smug:And here again is my full reply, which did not change:
Thanks for being straight to the point about your philosophy and ideals.
uke: Obviously you have no creative talent to create anything that people are willing to purchase. If you did, you wouldn't expect yourself and your creative colleagues to give their creations away.And you pretty much summed up my situation. I'm 37 and have a Bachelor of Fine Art degree, a Bachelor of Science degree (Biology/Chemistry), run my own graphic design and photography business and have been employed by a world-class research university at the University of Wisconsin-Madison as an graphic artist and photographer for ten years.
And yes, the major record labels in the 1980s brainwashed me into listening to their puppet bands such as Iron Maiden, Judas Priest, Metallica, Slayer, Dio, Helloween, Black Sabbath, Fifth Angel, Deep Purple, Motorhead, Saxon, AC/DC, etc. Those bands were all slaves and did exactly what the record company told them to do, and because of that, the world of heavy metal today would have been much better off if all those big-label bands had never existed!
When you get a few more years beyond puberty, maybe you will see things differently, but I'm not holding my breath.
Yippee38
Living the dream!
Let me just say that I didn't read this whole thread. I didn't feel like reading a pissing contest. Based on the first dozen or so posts though, I have something to add.
I think this model could possibly work for smaller, less known bands, or even new bands. In order for this to work, it would require a couple of things. First, the quality of the free version would have to be pretty crappy. People who really are into music are going to want a halfway decent copy of it. People who are just looking to consume "the next big thing" won't really care, and wouldn't be paying for the album in the first place. Second, this model would have to become established. In other words, rather than a one off experiment, there would have to be a whole label that distributed music this way. Imagine a place like The End Records or Laser's Edge having a huge selection of music available in this format. Instead of having to wait for the shipping on a CD, you could download the new <insert your favorite band here> CD now. Marketing would still be critical, but, you are cutting out so many middle-men, that your profit point would be much lower. The distributor doesn't have to carry inventory, or deal with shipping. They would have other, new, and largely technilogical costs though, so that would offset those savings somewhat.
However, think about going to your favorite web record store to buy some new CDs. While looking around, you stumble across something that you've never heard of. It's a new band in the genre you prefer. Maybe when you bought the CD you were looking for, it was listed under, "People who bought this also were interested in the following bands." So you download their album, but in a poor quality. After listening to it, you decide that you really like this band that you never heard of before, and who also hasn't been marketed to you other than on the distributor's site. So you spend the $10 to download the high-quality version of the CD. Now, an unknown band just sold a CD without a ton of marketing.
I think the point I'm trying to make is this: The recording industry needs a new business model. Everybody knows this except maybe the recording industry. Nobody knows yet what that business model looks like. So how do we determine what that business model looks like? We try things and see if they work. Something will work. Maybe it will be like this guy's idea. Maybe not. You'll never find the new business model without trying though. The person who figures it out, will make a fortune.
I think this model could possibly work for smaller, less known bands, or even new bands. In order for this to work, it would require a couple of things. First, the quality of the free version would have to be pretty crappy. People who really are into music are going to want a halfway decent copy of it. People who are just looking to consume "the next big thing" won't really care, and wouldn't be paying for the album in the first place. Second, this model would have to become established. In other words, rather than a one off experiment, there would have to be a whole label that distributed music this way. Imagine a place like The End Records or Laser's Edge having a huge selection of music available in this format. Instead of having to wait for the shipping on a CD, you could download the new <insert your favorite band here> CD now. Marketing would still be critical, but, you are cutting out so many middle-men, that your profit point would be much lower. The distributor doesn't have to carry inventory, or deal with shipping. They would have other, new, and largely technilogical costs though, so that would offset those savings somewhat.
However, think about going to your favorite web record store to buy some new CDs. While looking around, you stumble across something that you've never heard of. It's a new band in the genre you prefer. Maybe when you bought the CD you were looking for, it was listed under, "People who bought this also were interested in the following bands." So you download their album, but in a poor quality. After listening to it, you decide that you really like this band that you never heard of before, and who also hasn't been marketed to you other than on the distributor's site. So you spend the $10 to download the high-quality version of the CD. Now, an unknown band just sold a CD without a ton of marketing.
I think the point I'm trying to make is this: The recording industry needs a new business model. Everybody knows this except maybe the recording industry. Nobody knows yet what that business model looks like. So how do we determine what that business model looks like? We try things and see if they work. Something will work. Maybe it will be like this guy's idea. Maybe not. You'll never find the new business model without trying though. The person who figures it out, will make a fortune.
Kimavir
Metal Hippy
- Nov 13, 2003
- 412
- 0
- 16
+1
I don't see why he didn't just make it $1 for the best quality version. That's so ridiculously low, I'd say at least 3/4 of the freeloaders would have laid down a Washington. If my tiny brain calculates that correctly, then he would have come out even further ahead.
I also second the sentiment that the free version needs to be of a worse quality. Why not stick it in mono too?
I think Trent's close to a good idea, but a little off. My theory is that first jerk that stops selling CDs and just puts everything from his label on iTunes is going to get sickeningly rich. Just think about all the money saved on packaging, printing, payroll for tons of people. Just sign a band, record an album, throw it on every selling site that will let you charge $10. Then, use some of the money you're saving to make money off the band in other ways.
J-Dubya 777
It NEVER ends
And yes, the major record labels in the 1980s brainwashed me into listening to their puppet bands such as Iron Maiden, Judas Priest, Metallica, Slayer, Dio, Helloween, Black Sabbath, Fifth Angel, Deep Purple, Motorhead, Saxon, AC/DC, etc. Those bands were all slaves and did exactly what the record company told them to do, and because of that, the world of heavy metal today would have been much better off if all those big-label bands had never existed!
Add me to that same brainwashed club too.
ATB, be careful who you try alienate here, there's a lot of us old "middle-aged" fuggers who might not have forgiven the "youngsters" who bought into the whole grunge thing, effectively starting the demise of metal's popularity.
You want to talk about puppeteering, the youngsters of that era swallowed the whole hook, line, & sinker. See? the gate swings both ways...
I don't bear you any ill will, just throwing some unsolicited advice out there
(for free too!) :Smokedev:
rockyracoon
...
If this advice available in 320kbps for $1? Imagine the money you could make if it was.
skyrefuge
Member
To take one from "our" music, David Gold from Woods of Ypres just released their new album in its entirety as a free mp3 download. (it's awesome, btw)
Beyond that, http://freealbums.blogsome.com/album-directory-a-z/ is a list of what, maybe 1000 albums that artists have released for free.
Now, please don't use that list to contact all the artists so you can yell at them and second-guess their decisions!
Neil
skyrefuge
Member
No, because there is a cost to the user in making ANY payment. For me, it wouldn't be worth my time digging out my wallet, registering for the site, and entering my credit card info just to pay $1. So the conversion rate of free to paying downloaders would probably be almost the same whether the fee was $1 or $5, but then they'd only be paying $1 each, so the artist would make less. Once someone decides to go to the effort of paying, then that $4 difference isn't a big deal. But of course these experiments that are happening are a way to get an idea what the "ideal" price may be (where "# of people deciding to pay" x "price paid" = "maximum $")
Because the people like Trent who are doing these things are accepting the current reality. One person will pay for the high-quality version, and then release it for free to the world on a torrent site, so people who want a free version will just get it from there, and no one would even bother with the low-quality mono version. The way to compete with "high quality and free" is not to offer "low quality and free".
Their thought process is this: people are going to download our music for free no matter what. So, instead of letting them get it from ThePirateBay, or even worse, one of those old Russian sites where people PAY Russians to steal OUR music, let's make it available for free at our own site. Then we have a better chance of converting some of those visitors into paying customers, who might pay us for a higher-quality version, our merch, concert tickets, etc.
I don't have references, but it's been done, both by individual artists, and labels. I don't think anyone has yet gotten sickeningly rich, because to do that, you still need high volumes, and that the world just hasn't converted far enough yet to download-only music to enable those volume sales. By the time that that conversion is complete (when everyone who wants the new Rhianna album will be downloading it), the market will have likely adjusted the average selling price downwards to reflect the new reality, so still no one will be getting rich. However, I agree, those who are out in front on these ideas will probably do better than those who cling to the CD.
Neil
Unknown bands are trying this model. The following bands are providing free downloads of their albums:
Stormental:
Unleashing The Madness EP.
Stormental (Full album).
Mindflow:
Just The Two of Us... Me and Them.
Mind Over Body.
Crescent Shield also initially allowed free downloads of their debut "The Last of My Kind."
The question remains: If this album were released on CD, and there were no downloads of any kind. How many copies would have sold? As it stands this album made over $140,000 with little overhead save time invested in writing and recording. One cannot assume that the other 81.7% would have bought it if it was only available on CD alà 1990. It's rather dubious that they'd have sold >100,000 CD's. It's simply unrealistic to think that a Saul Williams CD with no other promotion other than his own name recognition and the Reznor association would have gone Platinum in two months.
I actually agree with you that those who choose art as a vocation should be paid for their labor like any other craftsman. If one chooses not to pay an artist for art one should also choose to not possess that art.
However, clearly the music industry has to come up with a new business model. It's really not helping your cause when you resist those who are trying new and revolutionary concepts. And it is their product to do with as they wish after all.
Sorry for the lame Title, I was gonna use something even more dramatic and cheesy like " Is Trent starting a revolution?" but I don't work for Rolling Stone Magazine
Anywhoo's,
I wanted post this excerpt from a Blabbermouth article to see what you guys think. What he is doing seems very interesting to me, mainly because I am starting to feel that Trent(along with other big names that are trying this) are probably starting a REALLY great trend in music marketing and distribution. Fuck Cd's, fuck Record Companies, do grassroots internet marketing and put different versions of your music online, charge a minimal fee for "great" versions and offer lower grade versions of songs for free.
Here is the post:
"Cortney Harding of Billboard.com reports that NINE INCH NAILS frontman Trent Reznor has posted the download and sales numbers for "The Inevitable Rise and Liberation of Niggy Tardust", the SAUL WILLIAMS album he produced and helped release.
The album was originally posted on Nov. 1 and offered for free as a lower quality, 192kbps MP3 download, or $5 for a higher fidelity 320kbps MP3 or FLAC version. On NIN.com, Reznor claims, "not one cent was spent on marketing this record," although he and Williams did launch a fairly comprehensive press campaign.
According to Reznor, since Nov. 1, 154,449 people had downloaded the record; of those, 28,322, or 18.3%, chose to pay anything for it. Of those paying, 3220 chose 192kbps MP3, 19,764 chose 320kbps MP3 and 5338 chose FLAC.
Read more at Billboard.com."
I think that so far the money he's made back from this venture is proving successful, assuming he used his own studio to record the album. He's giving people options, and even though there will always be lamers who will never pay for shit, he at least is building a loyal customer base who will probably support him even more now for doing this. I can see this working pretty well for well known groups, however, the formula might not prove so successful for unknown bands.
What do you guys think?
I think that threads like these are the "abortion debate" arguments for people into music. I think that nothing new will be said, and that the best thing a moderator to this forum could do would be to combine every single thread like this into one.
Or, short of that, I think that these kinds of discussions should be on a completely different site, because nobody will change their minds, and the opinions read are always the same.
I think that I hate myself for even posting in this thread because the 4 replies I read and the time I spent typing this are 5 minutes out of my life that I will never get back.
Thats is what I think.
Similar threads
