|
Trent Reznor talks openly about his experience with giving away music
|
|
The following comments relate to this news article:
article published on 16 January, 2008
In a pair of interviews published on CNet last week, Trent Reznor and Saul Williams talked extensively about their joint experiment to distribute Williams' latest album online, with consumers given the option to download for free in MP3 format or pay $5 for CD quality audio. 2 weeks ago Reznor revealed that just more than 18% of those downloading the songs chose to pay for the higher quality format.
... [ read the full article ]
Please read the original article before posting your comments.
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
17. January 2008 @ 02:26 |
Link to this message
|
|
The better option is "option'S'"
songs at 0.30 online
albums at 4$ (or 18 songs)
CDs would start at 5$
Build your own CD and have them print the inserts and what not for it for 8$
Collections and special disc releases can be 20$
Run a free for ,run the top selling 10-20 songs changing the songs every week offer them for free or donations.
It comes down to options and that is what the media miffa lacks or restrict because tis looking out for it self not the artist.
|
|
Advertisement
|
 |
|
|
|
OhCrap
Suspended permanently
|
17. January 2008 @ 09:32 |
Link to this message
|
|
First off it helps to produce a great album much like what Radiohead did. I mean they are giving away one of their best albums to date. Then when it released to CD it cost me less than 7 bucks for the better quality. It's pretty bad that Trent Reznor can barely even give his music away.
|
|
BludRayne
Junior Member
|
17. January 2008 @ 12:30 |
Link to this message
|
|
Trent is too close to this to be able to think rationally about it. Most albums suck, and this one sucked. That's why people weren't paying up. I've never heard of Saul Williams until now. I listened to some of his stuff and it was awful. It's not worth a cent!
|
|
emugamer
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
17. January 2008 @ 13:18 |
Link to this message
|
|
Yeah, it's about time artists start stepping back to reflect on their work. It just may not be as good as they thought it would be. I didn't buy Radiohead's album, and I'm a fan. I just didn't think it was worth it. I just gave them a few $$$ for the couple songs I did like. Just because Trent realeases something, doesn't mean it's going to be liked. What an ego. He actually has the nerve to blame the consumers, "giving them too much credit."
|
|
varnull
Suspended permanently
|
17. January 2008 @ 13:39 |
Link to this message
|
But you did give them a couple $$ for a couple of songs. If your choice had been limited to "pay for all or have nothing" something like $15.. would you have bought at all, or looked for the pirate free option first before deciding?
It is good that some artists are starting to see that the riaa way isn't the only way, and are prepared to test the water.
Even more impressive is the way they are prepared to be open and honest about the total sales from this method.. Good on em, whether you think they are crap.. not your thing, or the most mega performers on the planet matters not..
It's good to be allowed the choice.
|
|
emugamer
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
17. January 2008 @ 15:42 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by varnull:
But you did give them a couple $$ for a couple of songs. If your choice had been limited to "pay for all or have nothing" something like $15.. would you have bought at all, or looked for the pirate free option first before deciding?
It is good that some artists are starting to see that the riaa way isn't the only way, and are prepared to test the water.
Even more impressive is the way they are prepared to be open and honest about the total sales from this method.. Good on em, whether you think they are crap.. not your thing, or the most mega performers on the planet matters not..
It's good to be allowed the choice.
I would not have dropped $15 on Radioheads album if that was the only other choice. And I would not purchase DRM ridden music. What's left after that? Well, I would pirate the songs I like if there was absolutely no other way to pay the artist for what I like in the format that I want.
Trent should have given his listeners more of a choice. $5 for an album that you may only like 3 songs may not be the best choice for most. Maybe he should have said $5 an album or $1/track.
But yes, choice is good. And we are getting there!
|
|
M4DHATT3R
Newbie
|
18. January 2008 @ 01:18 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by OhCrap:
First off it helps to produce a great album much like what Radiohead did. I mean they are giving away one of their best albums to date. Then when it released to CD it cost me less than 7 bucks for the better quality. It's pretty bad that Trent Reznor can barely even give his music away.
It wasn't his music, it was an artist that has toured with him and that he's trying to prompt
|
|
Baccusboy
Junior Member
1 product review
|
19. January 2008 @ 01:17 |
Link to this message
|
|
I agree. It just wasn't a style of music that many people feel like buying in to. If it had been something more interesting to a broader fan base, it would have sold more. It just wasn't something I would want to pay for (this kind of music).
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
6 product reviews
|
15. February 2008 @ 18:49 |
Link to this message
|
|
I feel that they wanted to test the market which they did and they got a feel for wat is too be expected.
|
