I paid my $5 and got my 36 tracks with some imagery and a PDF. It's not the best NIN I've ever heard but it was worth every penny.

This method of music release will only become more prolific and I bet we'll see some attempts at counteractive legislation by the record companies in the near future.

I like the idea of artists being able to release their material directly to their audience.

It worked for Ani DiFranco in controlling her own music, and enabling her to pocket her own profits. Others will be following this method, and you can bet that music industry types are going to be shiatting bricks as this catches on...

I D/L'ed the free tracks, they were decent, and for $5, yeah, I'll take another 25 tracks. They are definitely worth the 20¢/song.

Good on Reznor for making this work. The more you tighten your grip, RIAA, the more artists will slip through your fingers.

Yergela: Good on Reznor for making this work. The more you tighten your grip, RIAA, the more artists will slip through your fingers.

No more Starf*ckers, Incorporated.

Sprung for the ten-bucker myself, big-spender that I am (heh), and have been listening to it all day long at work. Very cool album and the added fact that no slug-farking record execs are getting a dime of what I paid makes it sound all that much sweeter.

More like this, all y'all musical types.

I paid my $5.

More like this. Please.

Cool. Just ordered my CD.

This is part of why I'm still such a fan of Trent Reznor.

I wonder how long it'll be until RIAA sues the band for copyright infringement?

I just gave some money to fund Jill Sobule's next album on this website which in turn, gets me a copy of the album too. (new window) I think the whole face of music is changing and we'll see much more cool innovation because of it. Thanks to the RIAA for messing it up so much.

stpauler: I just gave some money to fund Jill Sobule's next album on this website which in turn, gets me a copy of the album too. (new window) I think the whole face of music is changing and we'll see much more cool innovation because of it. Thanks to the RIAA for messing it up so much.

I think RIAA will sue their asses off.

Also get it because it has Adrian Belew on the album. Very cool.

Fark U: Yeah i guess once you've made your name and millions off of the record company's way for years, farking them in the end and cheapening the "game" for the next generation of newbs is the way forward.

If he was a new artist you'd never heard of, you guys wouldn't have spent $5. The only reason he's able to do it, is because he's already "rich" and can afford to lose out. A luxury that working newbs just don't have. But in your eyes, you guys are the King and all musicians are just jokers who should sing and dance at your request, and otherwise stfu when you don't want to be bothered.

QQ

Wow. It's almost like it works. Hmm. However, he has a fan base that's ready to drop big dollars on the high priced limited edition stuff. Unless you have something golden, this may not work for you.

Notice how Trent went from releasing an album every five years to being prolific? Must not be on the drugs anymore.

Weaver95: I wonder how long it'll be until RIAA sues the band for copyright infringement?

It's released under a Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial Share Alike license. You can essentially do whatever you want with it and share it as much as you want as long as you don't sell it or say you made it.

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/us/

lerxst2112: Also get it because it has Adrian Belew on the album. Very cool.

THIIIIIIIIIIIIS.

I agree Valdes, what happened after the Fragile? A 5 year coma?


But seriously, it obviously works for established artists, but what About emerging artists that need a buzz and exposure? Because that's what was the "use" of a label: a marketing dept that takes care of you

I heard lily allen broke out on her own thru myspace, I mean how did she market herself on a national level?

/where is your God now, Gene Simmons?

Oddly enough, Trent isn't my favorite artist, but it's one of only a handful that I become more and more entrigued of their music album after album. Radiohead seems to be the only other one I can immediatly name...

HappyHarryHardOn: I agree Valdes, what happened after the Fragile? A 5 year coma?


Drug and alcohol abuse put him out of commission for a fair while. A lot of With Teeth is about that... 'cause With Teeth was the first album he made clean and sober.

This was the first time in several years that I've spent money on music. Definitely worth my $5.

Fark U: If he was a new artist you'd never heard of, you guys wouldn't have spent $5.

MP3.com used to let you listen to an independent artists entire CD (streaming lower quality) beforehand and would allow you to purchase their CDs.

I bought a few CDs from groups that I never heard of, because their shiat was good.

The whole point is that it gave groups that I never heard of a chance to be heard. Because it's not like they were on the radio or in concerts.

Even if I don't like their whole CD, I might shell out 50 cents for one of their songs if I like it.

Because at the end of the day, I don't care if a group is popular, or has a studio backing them or anything else. What I care about is whether or not I like a particular song.

/then MP3.com sold out

HappyHarryHardOn:
I heard lily allen broke out on her own thru myspace, I mean how did she market herself on a national level?

Arctic Monkeys did the same thing. And they won a bunch of brit awards this year.

I picked up the $300 version, mainly as speculation, though I doubt I'll ever sell it. Either way, an excellent album (or set of albums, depending on how you look at it).

I bought it...

it's similar to an aphex twin album, short abstract songs that don't go anywhere but have a lot of cool production in them.

i usually just like nin for the production anyway, so it works for me. don't buy it if you are expecting longer well-crafted instrumentals akin to his remix records... most of it is 2 minutes of noises and some melody...

lordargent:
Even if I don't like their whole CD, I might shell out 50 cents for one of their songs if I like it.


Hell, if I truly think it will help the artist succeed, I'll shell out far more than 50 cents for a good song. I've dropped a few hundred spots on some local bands who are incredibly talented but just don't have the funding to get their first CD made -- can't really afford to do that too incredibly often though. None of them have made it internationally famous, but I consider it to be as well spent as paying for two or three friends and myself to go drink our brains out and not remember it the next day (last time that happened, it was about $200, before cabs -- ergh!).

Millzners: I bought it...

it's similar to an aphex twin album, short abstract songs that don't go anywhere but have a lot of cool production in them.

i usually just like nin for the production anyway, so it works for me. don't buy it if you are expecting longer well-crafted instrumentals akin to his remix records... most of it is 2 minutes of noises and some melody...

? When you get into Ghosts III-IV there are much longer songs that are much more developed musically. I don't think it's very Aphex Twinish, though. I've listened to almost all of his albums, and while I love his music a lot, it's usually more about sound effects and sound morphing than it is melody, IMO. The melodies Aphex does have seem more techno arpeggios than anything. Though some of his early stuff (under other names) was definitely pretty melodic.

FitzShivering: Hell, if I truly think it will help the artist succeed, I'll shell out far more than 50 cents for a good song.

The more awesome the song, the more I would be willing to shell out for it.

For example, something like Iron Maidens rhyme of the ancient mariner would easily be worth about $1.50-$2 since it's awesome and much longer than a regular song. Ditto for the full length version of rappers delight (which is like a 13 minute song).

Fark U: farking them in the end

you have any idea how the big labels fark artists? Just wondering.

Also even on the major labels, most stuff never gets promoted much at all. Also the form those promotions take isn't exactly anything desirable. Unless breaking the law forbidding payola is something desierable.

WhyteRaven74: Fark U: farking them in the end

you have any idea how the big labels fark artists? Just wondering.

Also even on the major labels, most stuff never gets promoted much at all. Also the form those promotions take isn't exactly anything desirable. Unless breaking the law forbidding payola is something desierable.

An Ex of mine made it onto a big label. She got an OK check up front, but she was never, ever promoted. It's a shame, given she was talented, a great song-writer, and hot to boot. Now she writes songs for other artists, and harbors a kind of unrelenting anger towards the music industry. :(

WTF? One of the auctions for this is over $1000 now. I may have to sell mine.

FitzShivering: She got an OK check up front, but she was never, ever promoted.

That's not at all surprising.

I just got home and downloaded my files (I bought the CD). I have to say the extras are kinda cool. This is shaping up to be the best $10 I've spent on music in a while.

Fark U: But i at least like to know that they put enough work and thought into a track for it to at least make it to a promo record press than just cheap little downloads spit out on some computer program. but hey, i guess whatever floats your boat. just stop with the ZOMG THIS IS THE FUTURE AND EVERYTHING ELSE IS DEAD HAHAHA crap because its very short sided sighted IMO.

you're switching your arguments now. the Boobies said we need the big corporations to promote artists, and this last one says we need a cost threshold to make sure that bands put effort into the music they make.

i think neither is true when you look at: a) all the shiatty bands that corporate suits ram down our throats and all the good ones left in the lurch, and (b) how many artists with huge budgets create shiatty albums.


now, i hear you on the point that this isn't 100% all-good. we *will* wind up needing to do a bit more work in order to find the good stuff as the corporate dinosaur sinks into its tar pit, but that's a fine trade-off IMHO. it also means that people more and more will be able to be rewarded at the early stages for their music as opposed to signing their souls away in order to get "a shot."


/would bite the hand that feeds
/would chew until it bleeds
/would get up off my knees

Fark U: Valdes: Notice how Trent went from releasing an album every five years to being prolific? Must not be on the drugs anymore.

Because he's making computer music now, with minimal effort.

You can tell when you listen for the quality, and it's not there.

/love the riffs and ideas, hate the method.

Um...Trent's been making "computer music" since 1987. He's been recording on a computer since the early 90s.

I got my free songs, and they're good but not my favorite NIN. I would pay $5 for the rest or for a few of them in garageband multi-track so I could remix them easily.

Fark U: cheapening the "game" for the next generation of newbs is the way forward.



Maybe it's just because I'm a jaded indie fanboi, but the idea of people making a living off of just making music just seems damn odd to me.

The days of the megaselling music act are pretty much over. There's too much diversity and different outlets for finding music that makes it near impossible to have it that way. Though I'm not a musician, I think I would be much more content with the fact that people even bother to listen my music and that maybe it would influence others.

Maybe next time it will be something actually worth five dollars.

Let alone $300. God damn. Never did like push button noise.

As others said, this only can work if you have a big fan base with their credit cards waiting for you. It doesn't mean anything to the other 99% of bands.

Don't really see a news flash here. Come back when a up and coming band pulls these numbers.

Fark U:
If he was a new artist you'd never heard of, you guys wouldn't have spent $5.

I threw Jonathan Coulton a buck or two for "Code Monkey" when it first came out, and eventually started buying a lot of his stuff, even though I already downloaded it for free.

Its strange how people are willing to buy stuff if your content is of quality.

Fark U: If he was a new artist you'd never heard of, you guys wouldn't have spent $5. The only reason he's able to do it, is because he's already "rich" and can afford to lose out. A luxury that working newbs just don't have. But in your eyes, you guys are the King and all musicians are just jokers who should sing and dance at your request, and otherwise stfu when you don't want to be bothered.

Tell that to MiSs Crazy, Stuck Mojo, Venus Hum, Flogging Molly, Tenpenny Joke, and all the other independent artists I've bought albums from over the past few years while not giving a dime to a major label.

HagarTheHorrible: Fark U: If he was a new artist you'd never heard of, you guys wouldn't have spent $5. The only reason he's able to do it, is because he's already "rich" and can afford to lose out. A luxury that working newbs just don't have. But in your eyes, you guys are the King and all musicians are just jokers who should sing and dance at your request, and otherwise stfu when you don't want to be bothered.

Tell that to MiSs Crazy, Stuck Mojo, Venus Hum, Flogging Molly, Tenpenny Joke, and all the other independent artists I've bought albums from over the past few years while not giving a dime to a major label.

Flogging Molly rocks.

rekoil: Um...Trent's been making "computer music" since 1987. He's been recording on a computer since the early 90s.

Music recorded on computer and "computer music" are two different things.

I respect the man a lot. Grew up listening to him, etc. etc.

I hate to say this, because it is so cliche, but I think if I spent a weekend and put my mind to it, *I* could create music of the same caliber as NIN nowadays.

But it wouldn't get me anywhere. People like the crap because its NIN more often than not now.

I put my music out there for free, fuhk it.

Put my money where my mouth is, so to speak, since I download it for free.

It's like the barter system, dude.

downstairs:
I hate to say this, because it is so cliche, but I think if I spent a weekend and put my mind to it, *I* could create music of the same caliber as NIN nowadays.


Speaking as someone who has written and recorded a lot of music, both computer based and otherwise, I highly doubt that. I understand the impulse, but it is much, much harder than it seems, especially to create something as atmospheric as he does without flat out ripping off others or being especially redundant.

There are certain kinds of music I don't doubt you could do that with (much rap and certain areas of techno), but his music is VERY well produced, and it's a lot deeper and more self-referential (to past motifs within prior CDs) than a brief listen would give credit.

I'm not a big NIN fan - I've always liked their stuff, but not enough to shell out $$ for any of their albums. I'm spending the $5 on this one, not just for the music, but in the hopes that this will spread.... as for new artist's music not being worth as much - I agree - they need to realize that they can sell digital albums themselves for $2 and makes more money on them per album AND sell more albums too. Put an album out there for $10 (low figure)hardcopy, and the same for $2 download and I'll guarantee you that you'll get more revenue off the downloads. A $2 "gamble" will attract far more buyers that a $10 CD - PLUS - if the album is good enough, people will end up shelling out the $$ for a hardcopy later if it comes with a bunch of goodies too!

great for NIN, somehow I don't think 10IN will be seeing the same love.

For an artist like Trent Reznor, there's not really any doubt that the $300 edition would sell 2500 copies. He has a huge fan base. This tactic has long been used by more experimental artists who have cult followings.

Coil, Nurse With Wound, Merzbow, :Zoviet*France:, etc. They didn't make as many copies as NiN did of course.

As of more recently, the underground techno scene is releasing singles with pressings limited to a few hundred and that's it. Actually owning a physical copy of the music is becoming more akin to owning a piece of highly prized art and not just some CD's you stick in a holder attached to your car's sun visor. It's an interesting direction and for an established artist like Reznor, not a problem.

It's also interesting to see more artists take on corporate sponsorship and simply prove themselves to be nothing more than whores. Mainstream music has become so disgusting to me that I can't stomach a second of it when the performer pulls out a name brand cell phone or flaunts a certain brand of clothing in a video. Or big banners flaunting a soft drink at their shows.

Hopefully, art will become more popular and commercials disguised as music will be realized for the garbage it is.

Fark U: If he was a new artist you'd never heard of, you guys wouldn't have spent $5. The only reason he's able to do it, is because he's already "rich" and can afford to lose out.

I'd spend $5 if I knew it was worth it. Which of course I do, since they posted the songs for me to download for free. It's basically an online tip jar, and I'm not so stingy I won't kick in a few bucks if the music is good and he's not being a jerk about DRM/copyrights.

It's too bad something like this probably won't become the norm. A guy like Reznor is most likely loaded, and can probably afford to take the hit (even though it sounds like a clever marketing ploy, what with the $75 & $300 versions). Smaller bands, on the other hand, don't have the network of resources he does, and are pretty much stuck with using a record label for the time being, although digital does hold some promise. Maybe, in the very least, this will teach the whiners like Metallica to shut the fark up.

I got the first part free and like it enough to spend $5 for the full album/whatever you want to call it. Kind of cool, mostly atmospheric. I'd like to see him find a balance between this and the more dynamic instrumentals like "Just Like You Imagined" or something.

Nice move, Trent...

downstairs: rekoil: Um...Trent's been making "computer music" since 1987. He's been recording on a computer since the early 90s.

Music recorded on computer and "computer music" are two different things.

I respect the man a lot. Grew up listening to him, etc. etc.

I hate to say this, because it is so cliche, but I think if I spent a weekend and put my mind to it, *I* could create music of the same caliber as NIN nowadays.

But it wouldn't get me anywhere. People like the crap because its NIN more often than not now.

so do it.........oh and NO YOU CAN'T