tv and music don't have the same problem.

Filesharing has complicated things immensely for the music industry, and everyone knows this.  The core issue is that money used to be made selling CDs (or records, or tapes...) and now the industry needs to develop new revenue streams to solve that problem.

TV never made money selling TV.  The money comes from advertising aired during the programs.  Again, this is obvious.

The thing is, making it dead easy to access something means more people do it, and that people do more of it.  The average music collection size has skyrocketed due to filesharing.  The average amount of TV that people watch is likely similarly impacted by illegal downloads.

If what you sell is eyeballs aimed at a screen, and more eyeballs are watching your content for longer, this is a good thing.  If you can't find a way to make money from these added eyes and hours, you have forgotten what your business it.

Dear TV,

You create filmed content, and then sell advertising based on the data you can collect for who is watching individual shows.

None of this has to be tied to cable distribution, or TV screens, time slots, limited availability, production realities, or what came before.

You attract eyeballs, and then sell them based on demographic information.  Focus on doing that, rather than doing the specific version that worked perfectly, before everything changed.

Sincerely,

Jon

object vs content: direct conflict.

Intellectual Property companies (Recording Industry, Film Industry, etc) want to have their cake and eat it too.  At the core, they only really have two options: they can argue that the content they sell is worth money (digital information), or they can argue the format they sell is the element with value (CDs, DVDs, Theatre tickets. etc).  

They have been, unilaterally, claiming both.

If the value comes from the intellectual property, there is almost an argument for the criminalization of filesharing.  Said criminalization would still be horribly detrimental to both culture and business, but at least an argument could be made.  Frankly, I could almost live with this: if purchasing a CD meant I was allowed to play with the content in any way, in any format I wanted, as long as I did not create a rival (key word) commercial offering that hurt sales of the original intellectual property, I would buy a lot more music and movies.

If the value comes from the format the information is presented in, then any claim on infinitely copyable digital information is ludicrous - a downloaded mp3 isn't in competition with a CD, which will always be infinitely more 'real' and 'complete', incorporating the form, packaging and information that the creator intended.  Similarly, no one who argues that the object / experience is the value should care about bootlegged theatrical releases - the product is the theatre experience, not a poorly shot digital capture of the film.

You can believe one of these things, but not both.  Someone who argues that intellectual property is a protected right, and the source of all value can't justify trying to charge you 5 times for the same song, in CD, mp3, ringtone, FLAC, and Pro Tools formats.  Someone who argues that the packaging, the formatting is the key element of value shouldn't care if you interact with the content independent of it's format.

The fact that the IP obsessed industries have been doing both is a clear indicator that they either haven't thought this through in the least, or, as I assume, that they are grasping as straws to keep the stock value up until the current crop of executives can retire.

8 things from 08: music matures.

This happens every year, but 2008 was a great year to watch music grow up.

I could write an entire post only about Nine Inch Nails (and have repeatedly), but 2008 took the promise that I saw in Radiohead's pay-what-you-want release of In Rainbows, and continued to actually do interesting and innovative things with it.

2008 was the first year where established professionals, rather than people on the outside like myself, were advocating looking at what could be done with the current state of the music industry, rather than just complaining that people weren't buying enough CDs anymore.

Applications that add context, Album art that changes from song to song, products tailored to different consumer profiles, online streaming / music sharing services, new business models, etc etc etc.  New ideas are being tested.  I couldn't care less that we haven't found one that works yet.  I'm ecstatic that there is actually interest in fixing music rather than riding the current business model into the grave.

The two quickest summaries of what I observed / learned about music in 2008 are here and here.  

popularity and perceived quality.

I've listened to the new Kanye West album, 808's and Heartbreaks, a couple of times now, and I actually enjoy it.  But it's a massive departure, and not one that will easily be accepted by existing fans.  That said, I think it will be interesting to watch how the album sells.

808's is for Kanye the equivalent of Common's Electric Circus: a huge step away from what he has done before, and a huge step away from what anyone who is considered a contemporary is doing.  But, there's something interesting to point out here; that the album preceeding Kanye's big departure (Graduation) has sold three times as many copies in a little over one year than Common's pre departure record (Like Water for Chocolate) did in it's first five.

The question is, how big will the effect of popularity be?  It's impossible to measure, because you can't compare quality, and the music industry is a far different beast now than it was then, but it's still sticking in the back of my mind.  Is Kanye popular enough that he can still sell an admittedly odd record to a notable portion of his massive audience?  Will people be more willing to give the record the multiple listens it may need?

Either way, the more popular someone is, generally the kinder the perception of their work.  It will be interesting to see how far one of the most popular artists currently making music can push the envelope before it all falls apart.

iphone as music platform.

I will be the first to admit that owning an iPhone rather than an iPod has resulted in a massive shift from listening to music, to watching video.  That said, it's still my primary music device, and it opens some interesting possibilities.  Two notable things I've seen:

Perennial BrokenGent favourite Nine Inch Nails are featured in a special addition version of Tap Tap Revenge, a simplified Guitar Hero / DDR style rhythm game.  Included are 13 tracks from The Slip and Ghosts I-IV, apparently personally selected by patron saint of the Future of Music, Trent Reznor.  On sale for $4.99 on the iTunes app store, this is a potential, though clearly untested, additional revenue stream.  Like a Rock Band download pack for your pocket.

This idea further positions music as an additive experience, which I think has been the core impact of the iPod.  At least this implementation keeps the music as an integral element of the experience.

The second thing is the free Apps that have popped up which duplicate and expand the functionality of liner notes, including the Snow Patrol one released.  It's an interesting experience, letting users dig through origami stars that contain lyrics, behind the scenes videos, etc.  This lets the iPhone app act as both a promotional tool for the album, and an addition to the album.  Nice incentive for purchase.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again.  The music business isn't about selling music, or plastic slabs that contain music.  Sell simplicity, background, a datashadow, immersion, an experience.  The music is the core element, but not the merch is where the money is.

normative music and the personal touch.

I came home to a package from the Normative Music Company.  Two important things to point out: 1) Normative founder Jakob Lodwick made the offer to send out these CDs to anyone who send him an email, with no cost.  2) He sent them to me, in Canada, without a second thought.  These are important points that curry my favour.

First, the music.  It’s good.  Francis and the Lights is great walking around music.  Good to listen to, good to think to, good to type to.  I’d definitely go see them live, if only to see how it measures up to the video for ‘The Top’ that Normative posted online.  I’d already heard the Vulture Realty disc, but it remains good nonetheless.

Second, the idea – The CDs came with a personalized, typed note, addressed to me, signed by Lodwick.  A nice touch by any means.  The disks were packaged in simple sleeves, solid photography on the front, reflecting the character of the music fairly faithfully.

And now, because I’m me, the criticisms.  Well, the criticism.  Only one.  And it’s not really anyone’s fault, but a CD died in my superdrive, the top layer flaking off.

I like the Normative Music Company.  Hopefully the personal touch, and the quality of the product, don’t falter as it grows.

transparency as product.

Wired is doing something very interesting with Storyboard, a beginning to end blogging of an upcoming peice on Charlie Kaufman (the dude who wrote Adaptation, among other screenplays).  In doing this, they are increasing reader involvement with the peice, advertising the upcoming issue containing the peice, and creating a new revenue stream from the article itself (advertising on the blog).  This is both creative and innovative.  And I wonder how well developed it could be in other creative media.

For example, imagine if an established band decided to liveblog the recording process, etc, of an upcoming record.  They could post half finished lyrics, snippets of vocal and instrumental tracks, videos of rehearsals and discussions, explanations of the process, etc.  While the money generated by advertising wouldn't be absurd, it would serve as a great introduction to the record.  For certain bands with a large enough following, people (read: Me) would be willing to pay some small monthly amount to get a password and login to access the page.  You could include it in the physical copies of a release, offering the feed for the next upcoming record.  Throw it in a greatest hits package, for example.

Print media isn't dead.  Music isn't dead.  But we have to change what we're selling, and how we're marketing it.  That said, I'll admit the idea wouldn't work outside of an established magazine, an article on an established personality, with an established audience.  But figuring out how to transfer old media success to new media success seems like an important step in figuring out how to create new media success stories from whole cloth.  Transparency as product might be a part of that future.

six misconceptions about the future of music.

I had a great conversation with a friend from school today, and the following misconceptions about the future of music came to mind:

1. Piracy has ruined the business for everyone except the massive acts.  Actually, the massive acts were generally the only ones making lots of money (for the recording industry).  Piracy has cut back on that, so labels can no longer offset the losses from other projects with the massive income from a few hit records.
2. The label system / the recording industry is dead.  No way in hell.  What's dead is that entire engine existing to create recorded music, and make money off recorded music.  What's coming is a label system that focuses on it's ability to break acts, broker cross promotions, and generate income from it's network of merchandising partners.
3. Independent artists will suffer.  Independent artists always suffered, if we're defining independent as 'not a major act'.  If we're defining independent as 'mainstream but angrier', please go read a different blog.
4. 'Real Fans' will pay for music.  Music, now that it is available in unrestricted (and infinitely copyable) digital files, isn't worth money.  Real fans will pay for an experience, or a collectible, or a memory.
5. Fans will pay for ease of use, or a simpler experience.  Piracy is, for a notable segment of the population, easier than having a credit card.  Therefore, piracy is not going to be trumped in terms of ease of use, or user experience.
6. NIN / Radiohead / Livenation will figure it out.  These entities are going to figure out how established names continue to make large amounts of money in a changing marketplace.  But, this has no real bearing on discovering how to freshly establish names, and then make large amounts of money, in this new marketplace.

Keep this in mind while you consider how to change this industry.

perceived barriers and consumer behaviour.

The perception of a barrier is more important than the realities of that barrier.

This is equally true of whether or not you can get someone to pay for a product or service, whether they will pay twenty nine dollars but not thirty, whether they will change their behaviour around your product or service, or whether they will watch / eat / do what-have-you in a new location.

The issue isn’t simplifying the barrier, or even minimizing it.  The issue is the existence of that barrier.

The reason itunes is important is it carefully removed the perception of barrier from the music buying experience.  You use the same program to buy music that you use to play music.  Once your details are logged, you just click through.  In the same window you use to play your music.

Buying a song has the same fundamental user experience as playing a song you already have, or subscribing to a podcast.

So, to dispute a point I made earlier, it is still logical to attempt to make money selling music.  Assuming the manner in which you sell music is not too divergent from what your market would be doing anyway.  It’s not the price point that matters (25 cent MP3s are just as expensive in terms of time and effort as 99 cent ones).  It’s the perceived barrier.

why are you trying to sell music?

The majority of discussion when it comes to music and new media is the creation of new business models. This would be fine, except for one core problem; every innovation worth watching has been a product from an artist who was already well known (Radiohead, Nine Inch Nails, Saul Williams), or at the very least associated with someone well known.

I’ve talked ad nauseum about NIN, but the important thing to figure out isn’t how to monetize the music business at a time when digital files are free to the majority of consumers, but instead how to develop an interest and fan-base for an artist, and then transition it into income for that artist, without ANY DEPENDENCE ON THE ESTABLISHED SYSTEM. Why does the argument always include some method of selling recorded music?

That last sentence excludes every MySpace band that developed a following DIY style, and then signed to a major and sold a pile of albums. The prior ones discount anything innovative we’ve seen in distribution, because those moves have been made by famous refugees from the label system, who are inarguably still indebted to that system.

If we’re talking about someone who isn’t part of the system, won’t be part of it any time soon, and is well known, the only name that comes to mind is Girl Talk. And it’s impossible to say whether he’s avoided working with major labels, because the complicated pseudo illegality of his mash-ups (which are insanely great) means they wouldn’t touch him with a ten foot pole.

The short version? The money, from now on, is probably in performing. The money has always been in performing, to a certain extent. I wouldn’t focus entirely on how to sell music in light of our new digital reality. I’d focus on how to distribute music to the largest number of potential concert attendees / merchandise buyers. Your album is now a non-rival good, something that can be replicated endlessly for no cost. This makes it hard to argue it’s worth money. But if 1) music is a great promotional tool, and 2) it promotes rival goods, like a concert seat, a tshirt, or a poster, I don’t see the music industry falling apart, just the CD and mp3 selling industry

It just moves recorded music another level away from the money.

five things to learn from nine inch nails.

1. When selling a product, offer options that will appeal to your different types of consumer.  One offer, at one price point, is a massive number of potential consumers disappointed.
2. Offer an experience that goes beyond just the music – the music is essentially a digital file, a non-rival good.  It’s hard to convince people to pay for something that is infinitely copy-able, and therefore objectively valueless.
3. Offer both instant gratification AND a reward for investing.  If you’re competing with instant gratification (piracy), then that is your bare minimum offer.
4. The most mainstream products are both the most important from a promotional standpoint, and the most likely to be pirated.  Accept this, and use the mainstream product as a promotional tool, and the experimental product as the collector’s item.
5. Adapt your business model not to the differences in distribution, but instead to the differences in consumer behaviour and interests that those changes have enabled and created.

These points are examined at length in posts here, but I figured a quick refresher would make everyone stop and think about Trent Reznor’s recent contribution to figuring out how established acts can make money in a digital music marketplace.

nin, the slip, and tailoring your product to multiple consumer profiles.

Recently, Nine Inch Nails released yet another album, The Slip, online, for free. This was, for me, enough information to start speculating as to the strategy that Trent Reznor is going for. Frankly, if he's doing what I think he's doing, he's not just dedicated to figuring out a better way to sell music online, he's actively looking at how the online space fits into the greater business of music, including touring, promotions, etc.

Ghosts, which I wrote about at length, was released about two months ago. By any reasonable analysis, it was a product for true fans - instrumental, sprawling, beautiful and haunting, but without a single to drive it, or potential for much radio play, or even a great likelihood that an individual track would stand out, rather than the entire record being considered a singular experience.

NIN has enough of a true fan base that projects such as this will make money - knowing this, it was released in many forms, allowing real fans to spend as much as they wanted to a) support the band, and b) get a physical object at the same time as the instant gratification digital download. While nothing is piracy proof, pretty much the only people who were deeply interested in Ghosts already cared about the band. No one heard it on the radio and ran to the Pirate Bay for a copy.

Ghosts was an album for the real remaining market for albums. People who love the band, the album experience, and the cachet that comes with ownership and status as a real supporter.

After my copy of Ghosts arrived in the mail, about a week ago, I received an email from the NIN Store, informing me of tour dates, and tickets going on sale (as well as early chances to buy, for the 'true fan' faithful who purchased Ghosts).

The Slip is a more mainstream product. It's a rockier album, less sprawling, with lyrics, pounding beats, and radio play potential. It's a mainstream product. As such, it's prime piracy fodder - it will be publicized, popularized, and spread far faster and wider than Ghosts ever could have been.

I have a lot of trouble believing this didn't factor heavily into the decision to release it for free.

There will be a physical release later, to satisfy the 'trufans', and capitalize again on the segment of the market that buys albums, but think of the promotional potential. For the trufans, The Slip is a preview of what they'll see at the show they were just granted early ticket buying opportunities for. For everyone else, it's a reminder that the guys who made Year Zero are touring again, and this is what you will hear.

The release of The Slip is, in my mind, an admission that mainstream records are a promotional tool for ancillary goods, such as concert tickets and merch. They still have value to the dedicated trufan population as an individual product, and will be marketed to them as such, capitalizing on that loyalty. But now downloads aren't considered lost revenue, or theft. It's an expansion of the promotional process, one that uses the tools of the revolutionaries. (The larger versions of the record are downloaded via bittorrent.)

Therefore:

• If this is the reasoning / structure behind this release, recordings are both a promotional tool for the casual, and a product to the faithful, while diminishing neither.
• This option likely increases the potential for income related to the tour, and later release of the record (although that is a guess, educated or otherwise).
• The trufan population is rewarded with little enhancements like physical product, and early ticket sales, thereby granting them the special status that keeps them coming back, along with an innate sense of superiority.
• Trent Wins.

It doesn't hurt that The Slip is another great record, artfully packaged for the medium of it's release, with details like different album art for each song.

This is how you deal with change. You adapt your business model not to the differences in distribution, but instead to the differences in consumer behaviour and interests that those changes have enabled and created.

muxtape (curation).

As you well know, the entire internet is a-twitter over Justin Ouellette's Muxtape, a frankly brilliant and wonderfully simple social music site, that encourages users to make mixtapes, share the url with friends, and generally learn about new bands.

I'm not going to talk about how perfect the interface is, or how great the UX is, or how much I appreciate the singular focus of the site in a world where most services are incomprehensibly complex, for no reason.

Instead, I'm going to talk about what Muxtape is really about, in my eyes.  Not to point to my own writing too often, but I think the value of the service is one of microcuration.

In the post linked above, I talk about the internet as a taste economy, and the value of curation in sites like blogs, to learn more about the creator, and in creating an audience.  I also mention the ability to curate in smaller worlds, thereby justifying smaller audiences.  Muxtape takes this to another level, because it's curation for a select group, by an individual, and nothing else.

If you check out my Muxtape, you get a pretty clear view of my taste in music.  More importantly, you get a great view of how I want my taste in music to be perceived.  Curation is a two way street in this sense, and a muxtape has the benefit (unintentionally, and as a side effect of it's glorious focus on usability) of offering no distractions.  Everything there is an element of the creator's taste, and there's no space to editorialize and obfuscate the information offered by the selections with rationalizations.

Curation is the greatest thing the social web has to offer, and it's often confused with customization or personalization.  The value isn't in creating exactly what you want.  It's in creating something that gives off the cues, and the impression, that the creator desires.

Which is why I opened with CRS' us placers (heavily sampling Thom Yorke's Eraser), and closed with Thom Yorke doing an acoustic version of 'videotape'.  Given no space to create a narrative, I still can't abandon my inner english major, and the need for literary devices.  And having to do it without words, in some way, makes it clearer.

define revolutionary: Nine Inch Nails - Ghosts I-IV

The best way I can find to explain why Trent Reznor's method of releasing Ghosts I-IV is so important, is to adapt the model to another, related industry.

Imagine if, when Iron Man comes out in May, you could buy it online at midnight. Let's assume that, for the sake of this thought experiment, you get charged the full price of the DVD release for this purchase.

Now imagine that buying the film allowed you to download it in every format you could ever want, ensuring it would play on any PMP, iPod or computer, right away. Imagine that this download came with wallpapers, a soundtrack, production stills, all open for you to play with (but not for monetary reward) and all without intruding watermarks ruining them for use as wallpaper or avatars. Imagine that this purchase came with a ticket to see the movie in theatres, redeemable at any major chain.

And then imagine 2 or 3 months down the road (but preferably as soon as plausible), the DVD would arrive at your door, with special features that make it an entirely new experience.

What the release of Ghosts I-IV did was point out that information wants to be free not in terms of free beer, but in terms of free speech, and more importantly in terms of free from physical restraint. This doesn't even necessarily mean no DRM, even though it should. Purchasing something can't just be about the content anymore, because content is available free of charge via piracy. Trent Reznor realised that his customers are his fans. And what they want is to first enjoy the music as soon as possible, then be given context to engage with, then be rewarded for loyalty (shown by paying) by being given a physical product that expands upon the instant gratification of the download package. Ghosts wasn't sold as an experience that was inferior to that provided by piracy - it was sold as an experience that could not be fully replicated by piracy, or by any traditional retail model. I paid for that experience happily, as did several other people I know who wouldn't buy a CD normally.

If it wasn't for the collapse of the infrastructure supporting this idea, I think more people would have seen it for what it was - a complete acceptance than staggering release, and expecting people to abide by time delays and scarcities that information technology has made irrelevant won't work. The population of consumers is getting smarter about how they interact with media, and the barriers for entry are getting lower.

Nine Inch Nails offered fans, and the curious, a scheme that could not be replicated by a download, while still maintaining the best part of the (admittedly near-perfect) piracy experience. This is how a free market should work. Adapting to the reality of an industry, rather than attempting to legislate that time go backwards.

This idea can be traced back to a conversation with animation wizard Randeep Katari, a good friend of the broken gentleman.

memo to trent reznor (2)

I paid for the 2-disc set. I was happy to do it.

What I'm not happy about is having to try a dozen times to download the file I just paid for. It's still not working, so I've sent an email to the support staff, hopefully they can help me.

What kills me isn't that the download doesn't work. Or even that shipping and handling more than doubled the $10 price for the package. What bothers me is that the idea is so, so much better than anything else that's been tried in music distribution. What bothers me is how desperately I'd love to see it succeed. And how, to be honest, shocking it is that the absurd traffic that is ruining this experiment wasn't planned for - NIN has one of the largest, and most active, fan communities online. Did anyone think this wasn't going to be brutally hard on the infrastructure?

The point I always try to make about music isn't that free is impossible to compete with, but rather that ignoring price, illegal downloads are almost always a superior product. At last check there are nearly 3000 people seeding this album I paid for, and cannot listen to, on bittorrent. 10 dollars is reasonable, assuming the experience exceeds the one available for nothing.

Again, I don't want to crap on this model of distribution. It convinced me to pay, and is, in my opinion, a near-perfect next step from the 'Radiohead' model that had me dancing in the aisles. But if you can't compete on price, you have to compete on experience. The three-plus hours I've spent attempting to pay for, and receive, this album is not a competitive experience.

That said, I'm glad I've paid to support talented artists, an innovative delivery system, and creative commons licensed work.

memo to trent reznor.

NIN has released a new record online. Ghosts I-IV.

Trent Reznor has done everything right. Free sample, ability to listen, increasing price scale based on how much you are willing to pay, with a physical product thrown in to justify each increasing price point. All of it an excellent deal. All of it profoundly attractive, in a really well designed web package.

But I've been trying to give him my money for 30 minutes, and I can't. I'm actually trying really hard to give him my money, $10, in return for some undoubtedly great music now, and what I expect will be an attractive package later. This will be, to be clear, the first physical CD I buy in about three years. If I can get the page to load. Which I can't.

When it comes down to it, every business model of music is in direct competition with piracy. And now I'm sitting here, actively trying to pay for music, and I can't.

I'm not looking to see if there's a torrent of Ghosts available. Mostly because I actually want the physical product. But I have to admit, I've got my credit card on my lap, and I'm still tempted.

ignoring cost, piracy vs. legit retailers.

Sometime in the last year, I read a Yahoo exec (Ian Rogers) talking about the future of music. His major point was that the power legal alternatives to downloading had was the ability to add context to consumption - he was willing to admit that the legal music biz had already lost in terms of what people considered the first stop, to consider developing the creation of context and extra content to go with music as an alternative business model.

This is a very good approach to the issue of competing with piracy. If music is already free, what do you sell? However, it appears that the glacial reaction times of the music industry have struck again. The Pirate Bay, beloved destination of copyright criminals everywhere, has (I know not when) started to add context to the files available for download. The kind of context that, arguably, makes the sites illegal downloads a boon to artists, as it shares the albums available from the back catalogue, upcoming shows, and similar artists.

For a look at the Justice artist page, click here.

There is no huge incentive for those at The Pirate Bay to make provisions for this information, it just makes it a better place for users, and make the tools available more complete. Justice, or their label, aren't paying anyone to do this. But it's getting done.

This is why legal music always falls short of the service offered by the illegally downloaded content available. The format is always better, it's always easier (to the suitably tech-savvy), it always works, and there are less hoops to jump through. But most importantly, the focus is always on what will make the users happier - the music industry should be focused on the same thing (considering it would sell records), but instead they skip the keep-customers-happy step, and try to focus more directly on how to sell digital music.

And they fail. Again.

content management systems applied to the music business.

A friend of mine pointed this out to me: officialCOMMUNITY, a company that builds web-presences for musicians, including e-business and online communities. This is, in short, exactly what I feel the music business (the business surrounding music, not the business of making it) should be like - focused on creating a context for music.

I say context because, as I've argued before, the consensus we are dealing with is that the content is not something that can be charged for.

The future of music is in creating services that benefit both the artist, and the consumers, rather than just the system. Companies like officialCOMMUNITY expand my earlier comments on the music business re-imagined as a content management system, where services (expertise, information, connections, etc) are on offer, rather than a strict trade of control for access into a closed, but powerful system.

I'm still waiting, however, for the first targeted concert management company to come together. In a time when live performance revenue is the backbone of an artists earnings, I imagine it would be hard to find a bigger hook than guaranteed sell out shows. All you need is some way to gather the data... I've suggested a few options, if you recall.

music, albums, and metacontext.

I generally prefer a great EP to a great album. Mostly because 5-6 songs is perfect to make sure I get through it in one sitting.

As music has shifted from a separate experience, to an additive experience, albums are less likely to get listened to in one sitting. This is something that artists have flipped out over - and it makes sense; iTunes singles make the individual song the work of art, not the album. It removes metacontext. Metacontext is, in online terms, value.

Preserving metacontext is something that could be addressed by the idea floated by Jakob Lodwick, selling albums as an iPhone app.

Alternately, EPs could be sold in a one track format, with chapters (the way you can put chapter breaks in podcasts). I think this would be unwieldy in an LP format, but for 5 tracks, for 20 minutes, I think it would work perfectly. Maybe with a full-featured suite of album art and lyrics, similar to the PDF and mp3 package that went with the most recent Saul Williams release.

[this is slightly adapted from a post on my tumblr account.]

demonstrated economics of free music / niggy tardust

I was more than slightly excited when Trent Reznor decided record labels were an embarrassment, and he would go it alone. I was excited when he produced spoken work artist, poet, and hip hop artist Saul William's latest record, and decided that it would be put out in either a free 192kpbs version, or 5 dollar you call it. The results (for the moment) are here.

Trent was displeased with the results, and that's fair. Only 20% of those who downloaded the record paid, which isn't impressive or shocking.

At the same time, I have to wonder what the comparison in net profit is when compared with a the last album, released in 2004, that sold around 34,000 copies. With no label to pay, no packaging costs, I'd assume a hell of a lot more of that 5 dollars stuck around. At the same time (and you'd know this if you were reading the links) the production was expensive, with "an A-list team and studio, Musicane fees, an old publishing deal, sample clearance fees, paying to give the record away (bandwidth costs), and nobody's getting rich off this project."

I guess I'm thinking that no one was getting rich, or even comfortable off the last project, and now more people are listening, more people have the chance to become fans, and as mentioned, more people will come out to shows.

But my real question is this - is the failure we're seeing for audiences to respond to reasonable (arugably more than reasonable) pricing and conditions because people are unreasonable, or because after several years of having ethical justification for resorting to piracy, it's become enough of a habit that we don't have apologists anymore?

The Saul Williams record discussed above, 'The Inevitable Rise and Liberation of Niggy Tardust', is excellent, and really makes me hope for a future in which Reznor will produce further hip hop albums. It's good enough that I'd go see him in/when he plays in my area, and that I would consider purchasing merch, or a physical version of the album. It was my first experience with Saul Williams' work outside of books of his poetry. I downloaded the free version, and, to be honest, have no problems with that.