
Ghosts I-IV cover
This is a Listen In feature.
Nine Inch Nails (NIN) is now a big time rogue band - since its contract with Interscope expired in October - with a cult following and in what some have likened to a Radiohead-esque move, have released their latest album Ghosts I-IV, on their official website only. Ghosts is an instrumental collection of "almost two hours of new music composed and recorded over an intense ten week period" and what Trent Reznor called "a soundtrack for daydreams."
While there are certainly parallels to Radiohead's In Rainbows release, how quickly people forget that just under a year ago, NIN made a revolutionary move by making Year Zero available for streaming on their website as well as allowing fans the opportunity to "Listen. Change the tempo. Add new loops. Chop up the vocals. Turn me into a woman. Replay the guitar. Anything you'd like." Make no mistake, NIN is no stranger to pushing the boundaries of the music distribution.
So what's the difference between the release of Ghosts in comparison to that of Year Zero and why is it being compared to the release of In Rainbows? Not attached to any label this time, NIN and has decided to distribute their album themselves, via the NIN site. For free anyone can download Ghosts I, which contains the first nine songs of the collection, for $5 you get the full 36 song download with 40 page digital booklet, and for $10 you get the download plus 2-disk CD set in the mail. For die-hard fans, there are a couple, more pricey deluxe packages including a sold out limited edition package for $300.
With this price hierarchy, NIN distinguishes themselves in terms of more sophisticated business savvy by setting the value of the collection. I expect that like Year Zero, this album will remain available on website and even if all physical formats sell out, it will stay available as a digital download. If this is the case, it is certainly a departure (and upgrade) from what Radiohead did with In Rainbows, removing it from their website after the release date and eventually releasing a physical CD through an independent record label.
Pushing the intellectual property and copyright envelope even farther, NIN has also released Ghosts using a Creative Commons license, which is far less restrictive than traditional album copyrights, and will make the album available for remixing. Thousands of fans have already shared their deconstructed versions of NIN songs as part of the NIN remix community, the same concept will be applicable to this latest release.
I'd say Nine Inch Nails has definitely made some improvements on the model presented by Radiohead and incorporated them quite nicely into its own mission to bring fans closer to the music.
Edit: The New York Times reported that NIN also uploaded Ghosts I to BitTorrent, a haven for illegal file sharing. That's a pretty big deal, and even though that particular part of the collection is available as a free download on their website, a move like this goes a long way to lending some credibility to the file sharing site.
Check out more music news, reviews and opinions by Kymlee.
This article is cross-posted to Vinyl Notes
© Kymlee for Know More Media and Newsvine Music: Listen In. Some rights reserved.
I personally think this shouldn't be looked at as "this thing that Radiohead did." I think bands have been looking for ways to circumvent majors since the first indie label put out the first indie record. They did what they did in high profile and dramatic fashion, sure, but bands have and will continue to look for ways to record and release music taking advantage of new technologies.
how quickly people forget that just under a year ago, NIN made a revolutionary move by making Year Zero available for streaming on their website as well as allowing fans the opportunity to "Listen. Change the tempo. Add new loops. Chop up the vocals. Turn me into a woman. Replay the guitar. Anything you'd like."
I'm not exactly sure how revolutionary that is considering many artists have been streaming their entire albums for a while now, while way back in 2002, The Dismemberment Plan made the tracks and loops from their 2001 record Change available for anyone to remix and play with, even releasing some of the best fan-made remixing in their 2003 album A People's History of The Dismemberment Plan.
Though a band this big releases under a CC license is kind of a big deal. A lot of people at this point probably still don't know that Creative Commons exists.
Didn't Harvey Danger release their last album for free too? Not sure about the distribution or licensing, but it was free if memory serves.
I grabbed NIN's Ghosts I off TPB last night (from the NINOfficial user, no less). I just finished listening to it for the first time on my iPod this morning. First impressions: Definitely a NIN sound; mechanical in places (like a cold, heartless factory in the dystopian future), and also warm tones featuring electric guitar and piano. There are no vocals, and no crescendo/build towards some musical release. This album is exactly as advertised, and unless someone is familiar with the NIN sound, they might not identify it as such if asked.
My question is this: if artists give away the music, how do they make money? *stirs pot*
First, I think a reputation is of the utmost importance for this to really work. A band has to have a following. No name bands pimp their stuff on MySpace all day long, but unless they have some recognition it won't do any good.
Second, I think that the opportunity for making money occurs when you offer something that can't be downloaded. Notice how NIN gave away the first CD, makes you pay for the rest to download, and has incremental packages for various fan levels. That's where the highest margin/profits are -- even touring has an overhead that must be accounted for. Producing something with a smaller overhead (and limiting its supply) can really increase demand and drive money up. That's why shirts and such were always the money maker on tours.
My question is this: if artists give away the music, how do they make money?
First off, except for the really big names, most artists really don't make all that much money off of their album or single sales. Royalties from the major labels suck (plus they know how to get much of it back through recording session fees and the like), and most indie artists just don't sell enough.
Albums should more or less be thought of as promotional material for tours, which are real money makers (again, relative to the bands size). Big names like the Rolling Stones can make tens of millions of dollars on a single tour, far more than even a platinum album would ever make them. Even smaller indie acts that tour nationally can make a couple of thousand per show. Any money an artist makes off the album is almost a bonus.
Brad Sucks releases all his music under the creative commons and lets you download it for free.
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |