It's getting trendy these for top-tier musical artists to buck the music labels and release their albums as free or cheap downloads via the Internet or some other means. The latest to do so is Trent Reznor's Nine Inch Nails, which today uploaded part one of its new four part album Ghosts I-IV to BitTorrent sites (you can grab it here). The free piece encompasses the first 9 tracks of the 36 track instrumental effort which was recorded over a 10 week period.
"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," wrote the band in a text file distributed with the BitTorrent release.
That's very much like the advice that Marshall Kirkpatrick gave to Reznor writing on this blog in January after Reznor complained about the download-to-pay ratio the pay-if-you-want Saul Williams album that Reznor produced received late last year. "Times are changing and if you can, it's better to work on innovating along with them than it is to make dragging your feet and suing people your business model," advised Kirkpatrick.
At the time, Reznor wrote that he was "disheartened" that just 28,322 of the 154,449 people who downloaded Williams' album chose to pay the $5 for a higher quality copy. At the same time, though, that's nearly as many as who bought Williams' previous traditional CD release in 2004 (which sold 33,897 copies) and far more who are hearing his music -- which could theoretically translate to increased concert ticket and merchandise sales. Further, because by not dealing with a label the artist is likely taking a much larger cut of the download revenue than they would receive of CD sales revenue, Williams probably made more money on fewer transactions this time around.
Clearly, Reznor was not disheartened enough to forgo trying a similar type of release for his own new album. Ghosts I-IV part I is available as a free download on the NIN site, as well as on BitTorrent. The entire album is available as a $5 download, a $10 double CD, a $75 "deluxe" package with CD, DVD, and Blu-Ray copies, and a $300 "ultra-deluxe" edition that also includes vinyl copies and signed giclee art prints. The $5 download can also be had via Amazon -- where the album has quickly shot up to the #1 spot on the sales charts.
The 9-track free edition of the album is licensed under a Creative Commons license and is free for non-commercial use. "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." said the band in release notes.
While it is impossible to predict how this release will fare compared with previous traditional NIN releases, that may not be a fair question. The dynamics of the music industry have changed and artists like Reznor and Radiohead are blazing new trails as they attempt to figure out how to best release music under these changing market conditions. If 18.3% of downloaders pay -- as they did for Williams -- then that's probably not a bad number for NIN, who can bet that they'll get far more downloads than Williams (Ghosts is already the most downloaded torrent at The Pirate Bay) and will presumably be pocketing most of the revenue.
What do you think? Is Reznor's release a harbinger of the future of the music industry? Let us know your thoughts on the issue in the comments.
Comments
Subscribe to comments for this post OR Subscribe to comments for all Read/WriteWeb posts
The music industry may be changing rapidly, but we're still nowhere near the point at which the major labels will become irrelevant. To date, there has not been a single artist who has gone from obscurity to popular mainstream success without the help of the majors. The majors still play a vital role in building careers, and that doesn't seem likely to change anytime soon.
Posted by: Marcello | March 3, 2008 1:42 PMAdoption of new distribution methods is great. It forces the industry to rethink its business model. The more artists adopt new technologies as far as distribution goes ... the better.
Posted by: Fabian Schonholz | March 3, 2008 1:55 PMI think this is a sea change:
http://thanks.to/nin
Posted by: chantelle oliver | March 3, 2008 5:22 PMThis just upsets me. NIN is releasing an all instrumental album! Now if this album does not do well in its digital sales, Trent Reznor will chime back in with a 'See I told you so' consumers today just want everything for free and will not pay for anything. It will have nothing to do with NIN releasing an album that does not (necessarily) follow the groups catalog. I am a NIN fan, but I want an album that sounds like NIN. I want to hear Trent Reznor sing along with his incredible music. Not listen to Philip Glass' latest instrumental soundtrack.
Although at $5 on Amazon it really is hard to say no. I guess it will just be something I put on when I want to read book, and if I want to listen to NIN I will grab my "Broken" album.
And to say he is "disheartened" by the sales of a relatively unknown artist. One who has not sold a large number of albums before. Come on, Williams does not fit in the style of music I like. Just because Trent Reznor's name is on it does not mean I am going to shell out my hard earned money for it, YES I may download it for free and listen to it. But if I don't care for it, I am not going to buy it.
Posted by: Justin | March 4, 2008 12:17 AMAlready the ultra deluxe edition which was limited to 2500 copies (and was signed w/limited edition prints as well as the vinyl etc) has sold out. So that's $750,000 already just there.
And, I'd say, rather immediate proof that the model of a super premium edition can work very, very well for certain artists with die hard fans.
Shannon
Posted by: Shannon Clark | March 4, 2008 12:30 AMNine Inch Nails has once again released a rich and unique set of tracks. The fact that NIN does something different and daring musically every time they have an album released is refreshing in a world of pop tarts who all sound the same. I'm a bit partial to NIN as they have yet to release an album that I dislike. I guess I'm just short of being a fan boy. LOL
Posted by: DATmafia | March 4, 2008 12:44 AMDATmafia
I downloaded the Ghosts I, and it was so good I went back and paid $5 for the rest. I think he could have easily asked for double the amount.
I look forward to seeing the result of this experiment. You have to admire Reznor for not giving up after his first try. The man's determined to find a way to make this type of business model work, and I believe he's on the right track.
Posted by: Eric Gruber | March 4, 2008 6:12 AMThe album is amazing, the sounding is great. This people is so creative :)
Posted by: Danny | March 4, 2008 6:17 AM"TTo date, there has not been a single artist who has gone from obscurity to popular mainstream success without the help of the majors. The majors still play a vital role in building careers, and that doesn't seem likely to change anytime soon."
ha ha ha... I think you meant to say : "there has not been a single bad musician who has gone from obscurity to success without being scientifically engineered by the majors."
What about John Coltrane, Miles Davis, Sonny Rolling, Clifford Brown, Max Roach, John Scoffield, and thousands of others?
Yeah, you could argue that they're not "main stream" but that doesn't change the fact that the major are nowhere near "vital" to an artist's career, unless they lack real talent and need someone to "build" it for them to reuse the very appropriate term you employed in your initial comment.
In "music industry" they're 2 words. "Music" and "industry." The "industry" is always working very hard to try to make people believe that the "Music" needs it when in fact it's obviously the opposite. Music existed centuries before the "industry" that's been profiteering from it in very recent history.
"Vital"? For Britney Spears, probably... but for real musicians, not even close...
NIN release is the future. the RIAA and its antiquated distribution system is a dinosaur, it didn't evolve with technology and condemned itself to a slow and painful death. Bad thing for the "industry" but a very good thing for "music" indeed.
Posted by: wack | March 4, 2008 8:13 AMOr for that matter, I think Jack Johnson did a pretty good job of getting big just based on his first (independent) release "Brushfire Fairytales," just to put it in context of more mainstream music.
Posted by: Dan | March 4, 2008 8:28 AM> ha ha ha... I think you meant to say : "there
> has not been a single bad musician
> who has gone from obscurity to success
> without being scientifically engineered
> by the majors."
No, that's not what I meant to say. I meant exactly what I said. If you read the biographies or autobiographies of any of the artists that you mentioned, you'll find that big business was involved every step of the way. That's not necessarily a bad thing, because Miles Davis might still be a footnote of jazz history if it weren't for Columbia Records. Miles Davis speaks highly of many of the people he worked with there. Even Miles never believed that he could have done it all on his own. He had help from a large, well-financed label. As did Nine Inch Nails and Radiohead.
Talent and hard work in no way guarantees an income or a career. That's why talented musicians often turn to business professionals to help them with their careers. They provide financing, guidance, and access to promotional avenues that a musician working on their own simply wouldn't have.
As for Jack Johnson, he did pretty well on his own, but he didn't achieve mainstream success until he signed with Universal. So my point still stands.
Posted by: Marcello | March 4, 2008 3:41 PMYeah, and Mozart would never have made if it wasn't for... huh.. ho yeah... I guess they didn't have labels then... What was your point?
Posted by: wack | March 4, 2008 8:16 PMThat's right, they didn't have record labels back then, because they didn't have records and they didn't have labels. But Mozart didn't pay for those orchestras out of his own pocket. He had investors who wanted to make a profit. That's pretty much what a record label is, just under a different name.
Posted by: Marcello | March 5, 2008 4:30 AMJust as a reminder, your point was: "To date, there has not been a single artist who has gone from obscurity to popular mainstream success without the help of the majors."
And my point was that music doesn't need the majors, it's the majors that need music.
I obviously never said that musicians should pay for everything out of their own pocket and that nobody should ever help them. You're talking about 2 completely unrelated issues and somehow trying to link it back as a justification for your sophism.
Now, if you're going to argue that anyone who's involved in helping a musician is in fact a major in disguise, go ahead... but I'm afraid the only person you'll be able to convince of that is yourself.
Posted by: wack | March 5, 2008 7:11 AMI'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. I'm merely pointing out the realities of how musicians and the music industry have always interacted, and probably always will. Whether anyone believes it or not makes no difference to the musicians, and no difference to the music industry.
Posted by: Marcello | March 5, 2008 8:22 AMdownloading now heaps quick for torrents too, gonna love it. . . welcome to the future!
Posted by: Toobee | March 5, 2008 9:16 AMWell I will tell you... After my post yesterday I did go and buy the album on Amazon. And I will say, Trent Reznor got my $5 just for his name, not for the album. If this was not Nine Inch Nails and I had just previewed it online, I don't care that it is 36 tracks, but I would not have spent my money on it. I bought a name, but I would have rather paid $10 for a 9-track Nine Inch Nails album with vocals and something more interesting than this.
Posted by: Justin | March 5, 2008 12:00 PMJohn Coltrane, Miles Davis, etc. not on majors? Jazz is entirely the reason we consume music the way we do now.
I think the analysis here of record labels is pretty poor. Critical success--as measured by a "critical" number hearing an album--IS contingent upon being on a major, having solid distribution, and an advertising budget. Something to sell, a way to sell it, and the ability to inform people that they can buy it. 1, 2, 3.
Best-selling album by an independent artist? Smash by The Offsping--16 times platinum. Could not have happened without major-label support at some point in the picture. But, yes, good for Jack Johnson and his Rolling Stone cover.
Ghosts I-IV is already a critical success in the sense that it's a great album with a brilliant marketing scheme. I'll buy it and I don't like Ninch Inch Nails anymore.
Posted by: Jeff Rambert | March 5, 2008 5:46 PM