Free Music!
I've not had nearly enough time to write here recently. If I had, I would have written a long and involved post that's been developing in my head since Radiohead first released In Rainbows. The general jist would have been this: it makes economic sense for artists to sell music directly to consumers, in fact it makes sense for them to give it away. When an artist signs to a big record label, they generally only see a few cents per record sold. It's peanuts. Nothing. And the record companies generally have them "pay back" the costs of publicity, studio time etc. out of those royalties before the artists get a penny. Economically, releasing an album through a record company doesn't really make sense for anyone except the most successful artists who can bludgeon their way to a better contract through competition.
Artists make their money through concerts. And concerts get filled through the public hearing material. That's been the underlying logic to signing for years now. But downloading offers another way. If you give your music away for free, fans and others will get excited about it, you might even make a buck, and hopefully you fill your concerts. No record company required.
So, anyway, that's the jist of the post. There's other economic stuff that if I have time, I'll dig up. Real numbers, showing that charging even only a couple of dollars per album is a significantly better deal for artists than selling CDs.
Trent Reznor, of Nine Inch Nails, gets this. Last month, he released Ghosts I-IV, 4 instrumental albums, direct from his website. The first you can download for free, and get the complete set for a measly $5. Download it here. It's good stuff. Try it out, and if you like it, buy it. Yesterday, he released a new single. Free. No charge, no option to even pay. Download it here. It's interesting. Almost dance music. Certainly not industrial metal. Heck, it might even be pop. It's sort of bob-ey (and I never thought I'd describe NIN like that). The tags on the track say to check their website May 5. Might even be another album.
And that's the other advantage to doing direct - no interfering record company. Artists can do what they want, release what they want, and get back to creating without anyone dictating schedule or what they should put out. For some, I'm guessing this'll mean they'll be a lot more prolific. And that should be fun.
Most of the arguments about Radiohead and others allowing people to pay what they want, or download for free, have been presented in absolute dollar terms. And sure, it's a losing proposition in those terms - free or $5 will never look as good as $15 for an album. But it's the wrong terms to look at this. For the artist, it's both an economic win, and a creative win.
Artists make their money through concerts. And concerts get filled through the public hearing material. That's been the underlying logic to signing for years now. But downloading offers another way. If you give your music away for free, fans and others will get excited about it, you might even make a buck, and hopefully you fill your concerts. No record company required.
So, anyway, that's the jist of the post. There's other economic stuff that if I have time, I'll dig up. Real numbers, showing that charging even only a couple of dollars per album is a significantly better deal for artists than selling CDs.
Trent Reznor, of Nine Inch Nails, gets this. Last month, he released Ghosts I-IV, 4 instrumental albums, direct from his website. The first you can download for free, and get the complete set for a measly $5. Download it here. It's good stuff. Try it out, and if you like it, buy it. Yesterday, he released a new single. Free. No charge, no option to even pay. Download it here. It's interesting. Almost dance music. Certainly not industrial metal. Heck, it might even be pop. It's sort of bob-ey (and I never thought I'd describe NIN like that). The tags on the track say to check their website May 5. Might even be another album.
And that's the other advantage to doing direct - no interfering record company. Artists can do what they want, release what they want, and get back to creating without anyone dictating schedule or what they should put out. For some, I'm guessing this'll mean they'll be a lot more prolific. And that should be fun.
Most of the arguments about Radiohead and others allowing people to pay what they want, or download for free, have been presented in absolute dollar terms. And sure, it's a losing proposition in those terms - free or $5 will never look as good as $15 for an album. But it's the wrong terms to look at this. For the artist, it's both an economic win, and a creative win.