Trent Reznor Thanks For Helping To Screw The Industry That Made Your Dream A Reality

[turnstile]

If an artist wants to give away their art for free then so be it, however if by doing so the consumer 'accepts' that (all) art is free then there is a serious problem for future talent. Something that is free I feel has less substance to it, it's more disposable.

If you don't have to "work" for something, you value it much less.

Just my opinion.

[thx1138]

Originally Posted by TheArchitect

Trent is simply full of shit when he gives away product and then whines about people taking him up on the offer and claiming they see no value in his work.

Again:

Originally Posted by me

Before anyone continues to think that Trent released an album for free I might add that only the first 9 tracks are free. There are 36 new tracks on the album.

Check your facts guys.

[Clayphish]

Originally Posted by turnstile

If an artist wants to give away their art for free then so be it, however if by doing so the consumer 'accepts' that (all) art is free then there is a serious problem for future talent. Something that is free I feel has less substance to it, it's more disposable.

If you don't have to "work" for something, you value it much less.

Just my opinion.

I totally agree with you. Its sort of a hunter gatherer mentality.. which is why a good portion of successful musicians in the future will probably have to have two jobs - something which has been happening in Canada for a number of years due to a small market for music here.

[alexp]

Minipoodle - I have a shampoo recomendation for you. Johnston and Johnston no more tears.

Get over it.


The industry sucks. My band will not do anything through them, and we are doing just fine thank you. I work through a lot of labels for work, and you come to see how greedy and contrived the entire thing is. Its absolutely disgusting what they do to artists, and for you to sit there and bitch and moan that artists arent doing it "by the book" means that you are not siding with the artist. I can tell you have worked at a label as your attitude shows it. Your against the artist and for that I say .


Asshole.... **** these people piss me off.


Edit - sorry calmed down a bit now..... Still bs though.:)

[TheArchitect]

Originally Posted by thx1138

Again:

Semantics. He is giving away music for free

[drumzealot]

Originally Posted by minipoodle

Right, and what most people have ignored in their excitement over the "Radiohead model" and now the "NIN model" is that these bands had literally millions of dollars and fans already. These are NOT meant to be models for the record industry in general (i think both Reznor and Yorke would agree) but the mainstream press and regular observers act as though they are.

Of course not. The mainstream press has over generalized the situation. HOW SHOCKING!

If a viable new model is established by an industry veteran then artists with less or no name equity can tweak the model to suite their own needs. The paradigm needs to shift. A viable solution will never be found without experimentation, failure and tweaking.

I think it’s really cool that artists who are able to bankroll such experiments are taking risks and trying new things. This is a time of innovation and from and economic/business model perspective, I think this is quite fascinating. Other media industries, like newspapers and local TV channels, face similar low revenue challenges.

The people who are going to make a difference will not be the whiners and nay-sayers. Rather it will be the forward thinkers and the mavericks, the people who understand the problem and focus on finding a solution rather than those who focus on the problem and throw stones at those who try something new. Throwing stones is easy, innovation is not.

[Stevil]

imo, giving away some art for free is a small price to pay to sour the financial teat & hopefully rid ourselves of the parasites, leeches & vultures in the music business.

[nukmusic]

Originally Posted by Clayphish

When did the music industry ever invest while keeping the best interest of the artist in mind? Look, its all about making money.. period. The record companies know it and so does Trent. Its not some kind of "pat on the back", "you're my best friend" situation. The moment you don't generate revenues, you're dropped like dirt.

yeeeeeppp! XXXXactly!

[larry b]

Im not bothered by it. Trent has been doing things to make his music accessible in out-of-the-box ways for a while now. Most artists dont offer free Pro Tools sessions of their music for download and remix on their website either.

[filin]

Originally Posted by TheArchitect

Semantics. He is giving away music for free

It's his music, he can do what he wants with it.

Also, music in it's purely digital form (.mp3s, flac, etc) is essentially software. Most software has a demo or trial version you can use before paying for the full version. That's essentially what Trent is doing by giving 9 songs away free.

[drumzealot]

Originally Posted by filin

It's his music, he can do what he wants with it.

Fer REAL dough.

[idrinkalot]

has anybody been keeping up with the RIAA flat out NOT paying artists on the lawsuits it has won? nobody has your best interests in mind.. you need to stop relying on everything to fix itself and do whatever you need to do to survive.

[bkspitfire]

Originally Posted by filin

It's his music, he can do what he wants with it.

Also, music in it's purely digital form (.mp3s, flac, etc) is essentially software. Most software has a demo or trial version you can use before paying for the full version. That's essentially what Trent is doing by giving 9 songs away free.

I agree.

[minipoodle]

If you had bothered to read my posts you would have noticed that I said that I hated the label. You would also have noticed that I myself am a musician with a band.

Originally Posted by alexp

Minipoodle - I have a shampoo recomendation for you. Johnston and Johnston no more tears.

Get over it.


The industry sucks. My band will not do anything through them, and we are doing just fine thank you. I work through a lot of labels for work, and you come to see how greedy and contrived the entire thing is. Its absolutely disgusting what they do to artists, and for you to sit there and bitch and moan that artists arent doing it "by the book" means that you are not siding with the artist. I can tell you have worked at a label as your attitude shows it. Your against the artist and for that I say .


Asshole.... **** these people piss me off.


Edit - sorry calmed down a bit now..... Still bs though.:)

[gregohb]

Originally Posted by Clayphish

When did the music industry ever invest while keeping the best interest of the artist in mind? Look, its all about making money.. period. The record companies know it and so does Trent. Its not some kind of "pat on the back", "you're my best friend" situation. The moment you don't generate revenues, you're dropped like dirt.

Even at best, an artist gets what $1 out of a $15 CD sale, while the music industry and sales organizations gets $14. In affect they have had a cartel like OPEC. Its been a big system that makes tons of money for a bunch of untalented people off of various creative geniuses. I believe even the Beatles signed away the rights to their own songs when they were young. So Trent is not losing that much.

On the other hand, a consumer paying $15-20 for a CD that costs $1 is a ripoff too. If you have 1000 cd's thats $15,000 worth of investment. Both consumer and artist are ripped off. So of course, they are vindicative as hell that teenagers can download songs - because it affects their mansion payments.

So its time for some new thinking and new paradigms. Maybe existing music industry will morph or disappear, and Trent has got some plan - maybe to make it up on concerts, posters, etc.

[biggator6]

first having had TENS OF MILLIONS of dollars invested in him and his band

Umm.. Trent recorded Pretty Hate Machine pretty much by himself - there was no band, just him - at night, on his own dime. He was an assistant at a studio at the time and recorded it in the off hours. Nobody gave him squat to record..

Then he signed and was distributed by TVT (yes, Tee Vee Toons) records - not exactly a big-dollar major with big marketing budgets. That may be why nobody except a handful of people heard 'head like a hole' or 'down in it' until it had been out for damn near 3 years and MTV (when they still played music) and some radio stations started picking it up.

[Seth]

I think the album is beautiful, and I think the questions being brought up here are very important to discuss for both social and cultural reasons. The point seems to go past business models and lands pretty deep into the makeup of how we approach art.

[minipoodle]

Look, I don't love labels at all but he would not be where he is today without them.

Originally Posted by biggator6

Umm.. Trent recorded Pretty Hate Machine pretty much by himself - there was no band, just him - at night, on his own dime. He was an assistant at a studio at the time and recorded it in the off hours. Nobody gave him squat to record..

Then he signed and was distributed by TVT (yes, Tee Vee Toons) records - not exactly a big-dollar major with big marketing budgets. That may be why nobody except a handful of people heard 'head like a hole' or 'down in it' until it had been out for damn near 3 years and MTV (when they still played music) and some radio stations started picking it up.

[lpkyer]

I think it's a great move by trent.
I see this pretty much as an artist giving away pictures of his painting but selling the original at big bucks. It's brilliant.

As far as 'he wouldnt be who he is right now without major' is compltely false. If it wasnt interscope, it was another one. And yes they did invest but how much they did make ??

[minipoodle]

Believe me, it isn't just majors who are hurting and freaked out and afraid to take chances on talent people.

Originally Posted by lpkyer

I think it's a great move by trent.
I see this pretty much as an artist giving away pictures of his painting but selling the original at big bucks. It's brilliant.

As far as 'he wouldnt be who he is right now without major' is compltely false. If it wasnt interscope, it was another one. And yes they did invest but how much they did make ??

[midigod]

Originally Posted by gregohb

On the other hand, a consumer paying $15-20 for a CD that costs $1 is a ripoff too.

Ripoff though it may be, a CD costs more than a buck to make. Everyone here should know that.

Craig

[Johnny Wrong]

Originally Posted by TheArchitect

This pie in the sky BS about "supporting the artist" has got to stop. Supporting an artist does not correlate to paying for music. Its called the Music BUSINESS for a reason.

WTF

So, who put you in charge?

If some one gives away music as a way to market more expensive products, so what?

Supermarkets have been doing this for years, its called a "loss leader"

Just the nature of capitalism and marketing my friend, and unless you start the revolution to change the entire fabric of our society, it isn't going to change any time soon.

Just relax, set your creative mind free instead of getting uptight and angry, and come up with new ways to make your living from your music.
Don't be scared, I'm sure you have it in you to cope with the changes that are happening to ALL of us...................

[ignatius]

Originally Posted by lanervoza

I think a crucial, overlooked point is that only 25% of the album was given away for free...which I think is brilliant, but perhaps only in the case of a 36-track album.

it's a teaser. i think it's a fine idea. why not pass on a few tracks for free to people. maybe get some new fans that way.. not that NIN is short on fans but there's always some kid someplace who hasn't been exposed so why not reach out w/an olive branch of free tracks in hopes that if the free ones go over well then people will pony up some cash for the full 36 tracks.

i don't know why people are all up in arms about this.. it's just marketing and promo of a different kind because that's what is called for this day and age.

[theblue1]

Originally Posted by minipoodle

A writer for the NY Times wrote that the NIN move "is the latest in a running series of experiments that counter the music industry’s typical sales and marketing tactics."

Different than the tactics of The MUSIC INDUSTRY? Doesn't he mean EVERY INDUSTRY?

Trent Reznor would never be in his current position without first having had TENS OF MILLIONS of dollars invested in him and his band. I mean this is a guy who spent thousands of dollars to rent out Sharon Tate's house for a recording just for the ambiance of the place.

This is too ridiculous.

I'm sorry -- did I miss something?

Has someone given away something that belongs to someone else?

What's the problem, here?


I did a Google News search and it looks like NIN is raking in cash hand over fist. Supposedly the $300 Limited Edition already sold out. According to someone else's math, that's revenue of $750K right off the top.

[minipoodle]

If you read my posts you'd see that it isn't so much Trent's experiment that frustrates me, but the fact that the media and the public seem to think these experiments will work as a new paradigm for the general music industry and that music should be free. Obviously most people don't look into the details or think about context.

Originally Posted by theblue1

I'm sorry -- did I miss something?

Has someone given away something that belongs to someone else?

What's the problem, here?


I did a Google News search and it looks like NIN is raking in cash hand over fist. Supposedly the $300 Limited Edition already sold out. According to someone else's math, that's revenue of $750K right off the top.

[Clayphish]

Originally Posted by gregohb

Even at best, an artist gets what $1 out of a $15 CD sale, while the music industry and sales organizations gets $14. In affect they have had a cartel like OPEC. Its been a big system that makes tons of money for a bunch of untalented people off of various creative geniuses. I believe even the Beatles signed away the rights to their own songs when they were young. So Trent is not losing that much.

Just to add what you stated: Artists, most of the time, have to pay back their Advance, tour support fees, CD promotion fees, CD packaging fees, video production fees, warehouse fees, etc. before they can make a cent in royalties. This is why a lot of bands that release successful albums can still end up in debt to the record company they're signed to. All this, while the record company profits. In fact, its only when a band had a long standing success that they'll see a profit.

So yeah, to say that the record companies some how unfairly lose out when artists like TR find ways to avoid them is ludicrous. To think I only touched the surface of how things work. See Redoggs post for more of it.

Originally Posted by gregohb

So its time for some new thinking and new paradigms. Maybe existing music industry will morph or disappear, and Trent has got some plan - maybe to make it up on concerts, posters, etc.

I totally agree. I also think Trent and others like him are experimenting in order to find a way to make the system work now that Pandora's box is open. There is no going back, we all know this except for the majors, so its basically a fight to find what will work under the shitty circumstances. Anyways, as I've said before: The only way I see the industry surviving as we know it is if there is a tax levi put on ISP subscriptions and mp3 players; because as of right now the value for music to the average listener is getting closer and closer to 0. Its either this, ad based download sites or a new marketing plan (like Trent or Radiohead's) to try to get some sort of interest back in music as a valuable product.

[Stevil]

Originally Posted by theblue1

I'm sorry -- did I miss something?

Has someone given away something that belongs to someone else?

What's the problem, here?

I did a Google News search and it looks like NIN is raking in cash hand over fist. Supposedly the $300 Limited Edition already sold out. According to someone else's math, that's revenue of $750K right off the top.

you are missing the imaginary numbers.
the million or so people that heard the album & didnt pay $18.95 for the experience.

[nostudio]

Music has a greater value than a monetary one. And this album, the free tracks at least, are great, I think. I fall squarely into the category of "broke young musician / studio assistant", so Trent will have to wait a few weeks for his money.

[alexp]

Originally Posted by minipoodle

If you had bothered to read my posts you would have noticed that I said that I hated the label. You would also have noticed that I myself am a musician with a band.

Thank you yes I did see that. Which is why I was so disturbed by what you said.

As for hating the label, clarify what part of the job you hated, and we can take it from there

[minipoodle]

I hated long hours with neglible pay and no benefits. The top executives were huge jerks who cared little about the music and more about appearing powerful. I hated the fear and excuses they cited in their refusal to take chances on talent. Among many other things...

As far as what I said, what frustrates me is that while these are perhaps interesting experiments for acts that have significant finanical resources and existing fanbases, the public and mainstream media takes them as possibilities for the entire industry which they obviously aren't.

And oh yes, the title I gave the thread was perhaps slightly inflammatory...

Originally Posted by alexp