MOTUnation.com

kgdrum wrote: in my book thats Brilliant.
KG

I'm not saying it's not brilliant. I'm saying that he doesn't give a crap about the indy musicians he's hurting. That's what I'm saying.

James -I just don't get how you make that assumption.He is showing us all others ways you can make a living without relying on the record labels and he continues to make music on his own terms
KG

kgdrum wrote:James -I just don't get how you make that assumption.He is showing us all others ways you can make a living without relying on the record labels and he continues to make music on his own terms
KG

I think you misunderstand me. Hi is showing us "ways you can make a living without relying on the record labels" *if* you are Trent Rezor, that is, someone who has already made a name for himself by relying on record labels.

He has name recognition and reputation that was created under the old business model. That sort of name recognition and "brand awareness" is a residual effect of record company promotion in the 90s and a huge advantage and one of the reason's giving away music can make sense for someone like him. It will not make sense for artists that do not have his name recognition and brand strength.

James Steele wrote:I'm saying that he doesn't give a crap about the indy musicians he's hurting.

It's hard to say whether or not he's hurting anyone else. Your earlier gas station analogy doesn't really work here, because music in not a commodity like gasoline. You don't choose based on price and you don't limit yourself to just one or the other. The rules of competition are completely different.

Also, it's hard to establish what the "value" of music is to begin with, before you can start claiming that it is in the process of being devalued. Does $18 for a CD really fulfill the value of the music within? If you pare down all the costs of duplicating, marketing, retailing and middle-manning, you end up with just a fraction of that. For an artist , the only way to make a living of that fraction is to sell lots of copies. It's about quantity. The only way to sell quantity is to gain exposure through various promotional exercises and, in a lot of cases, musical homogenization. In other words, I would say music has already been devalued.

blue wrote:

James Steele wrote:I'm saying that he doesn't give a crap about the indy musicians he's hurting.

It's hard to say whether or not he's hurting anyone else. Your earlier gas station analogy doesn't really work here, because music in not a commodity like gasoline. You don't choose based on price and you don't limit yourself to just one or the other. The rules of competition are completely different.

Well, what I am saying is that he's contributing to, and reinforcing public perception that downloaded music should be free. How do I charge a fan for downloading my music when "Hey look... Trent Rezor's giving his album away! Why should YOU charge me??"

Granted, the gas station analogy is tenuous, I'll admit. Music is not a commodity... or is it? Frankly, I wish I believed that the general public were more discerning but I don't. I get comments from my MySpace "fans" all the time that although flattering, demonstrate that they aren't very discerning. I've been compared in print to guitar players who wipe the floor with me. You may think I've gone mad and many may not want to hear this, but look around. The vast majority of pop/rock music consumers aren't musicians and don't know crap about music and don't care to. It's all about packaging and image. Which is time better spent these days? Time practicing guitar, or time doing crunches to have flat abs? It's not so cut and dried any more.

There are oil companies that try to make an effort to fight commoditization. "Hey... we have Techron... your engine will be cleaner than if you buy ARCO!' This falls on mostly deaf ears. What I'm saying though is Trent is a big name. But it's a global market. The guy I might be trying to sell a CD to for $10 at a gig, just downloaded Trent's album in hi res the day before for free. And Trent's a star!! I must have some nerve! But Trent has many more options and revenue streams. He can *afford* to give his album away via download. It can make perfectly good business sense to him. But it does contribute to the devaluation of music in general.

Also, it's hard to establish what the "value" of music is to begin with, before you can start claiming that it is in the process of being devalued. Does $18 for a CD really fulfill the value of the music within? If you pare down all the costs of duplicating, marketing, retailing and middle-manning, you end up with just a fraction of that. For an artist , the only way to make a living of that fraction is to sell lots of copies. It's about quantity. The only way to sell quantity is to gain exposure through various promotional exercises and, in a lot of cases, musical homogenization. In other words, I would say music has already been devalued.

I would agree. Also, from the outset, I have never assumed I would be able to sell my CD when it is finished for anything NEAR $18. You can download an album on iTunes from a major artist for $9.99, correct? So how can one make the case that a CD by an obscure indy artist is worth $18? I submit that with each passing day, and with each new download "freebie" courtesy Radiohead, Reznor, et. al. you can't make that case. The small indy artist with a boxes of unsold CDs sitting in their closet is a cliche for a reason.

I have about 42,000 people on my MySpace page. About 6,000 of those have signed up for my email list. But converting a person from someone who really, really likes your music, to someone who will actually BUY your music when it comes available is the real trick. I've worked hard to lay the groundwork so that when my CD is finished, I'll sell some. But I don't have to tell any of the grown ups here about the discrepancy that will exist between the huge numbers of people that may RAVE about your music and say "I can't wait to buy your CD!" and those that are going to actually follow through. Frankly, if 600 out of the 6,000 people on my email list buy my CD, I'll regard it as an unqualified success.

James Steele wrote:Music is not a commodity... or is it?

Well, it has been commercialized. No one will debate that. But it is not consumed like gasoline (or other similar products) and is thus not subject to the same sorts of consumer decisions. That's all I'm saying. I do get your point, though, that offering something for free might set a dangerous precedent. But, I don't want to assume that NIN will offer everything from here on out for free. It's possible this is just a, well…freebie.

James Steele wrote:Also, from the outset, I have never assumed I would be able to sell my CD when it is finished for anything NEAR $18. You can download an album on iTunes from a major artist for $9.99, correct? So how can one make the case that a CD by an obscure indy artist is worth $18? I submit that with each passing day, and with each new download "freebie" courtesy Radiohead, Reznor, et. al. you can't make that case. The small indy artist with a boxes of unsold CDs sitting in their closet is a cliche for a reason.

The number was irrelevant, especially in light of the point I was making about determining value. Of course, an indy will sell a CD for $10 or so. That makes sense, since they are bypassing a lot of the cost-inducing elements that go into mass-producing and selling music. And it also makes sense that an album purchased off iTunes would also be less than the price of a CD, for some of the same reasons. But, the relative worth of both an indy CD and an iTunes album have been established from the reference point of what CDs typically cost in stores. The question is, how was that value determined and is it just?

blue wrote:The question is, how was that value determined and is it just?

Right. I guess the crux of the issue is how a major artist giving away an album for nothing figures into perceived value of all music on the part of the consumer. If this is a one-time freebie... okay. However if it creates a consumer *expectation* down the road... that will be tough.

but Reznor is approaching the marketing from all angles,some he gives away, some he sells as cd's and some (vinyl lp) he sells for premium prices(my last 2 NIN purchases were $35 and $45 in a real store ) so he is not just giving things away.
the conclusion he might be working with is the down loaders who want music for free probably aren't going to buy either way,the people who want better fidelity or who want to give him support, get a better sounding product and more people ultimately will hear his music.
he is setting his own standards and doing some very clever marketing that will make his music more well known while making more $$.
I respect anyone who is able to do this. he is breaking down barriers and setting new standards that I think many musicians can learn from.
the fact that he is also doing his music ,his way without compromise is pretty cool.
KG

kgdrum wrote:but Reznor is approaching the marketing from all angles,some he gives away, some he sells as cd's and some (vinyl lp) he sells for premium prices(my last 2 NIN purchases were $35 and $45 in a real store ) so he is not just giving things away.

Right... but that doesn't apply to small indy artists. As I said, it think Reznor can do this because he already *IS* "Trent Reznor." And it took record company clout to create that brand strength.

Btw..I listened to The Slip and heard something familiar, checked it out and it seems my ears still work:

Nine Inch Nails new album The Slip features Addictive Drums and Retro on several songs. Trent Reznor heard about Addictive Drums from Atticus Ross and ended up using it for the new album and single.

Yeah... I have Addictive Drums and like it.... although I don't have Retro which is an AD add-on kit, isn't it?

I think he can do anything he wants, and it doesn't affect other artists one bit, other than those who might have been trying to capitalize on being a cheaper version of NIN. If I release my stuff and people like it, they'll have to pay whatever price I set on it. They can't get it from Trent. Not at any price. Well... unless Trent buys it from me first.

Shooshie

Shooshie wrote:I think he can do anything he wants, and it doesn't affect other artists one bit, other than those who might have been trying to capitalize on being a cheaper version of NIN. If I release my stuff and people like it, they'll have to pay whatever price I set on it. They can't get it from Trent. Not at any price. Well... unless Trent buys it from me first.

Shooshie

I agree. The public has already decided that music should be free or very low cost, hence Bittorrent and iTunes. Like it or not, the market has changed. I don't know what the new model will look like, but the days of large labels being the gateway to the public are fading fast.

James Steele wrote:"Hi... I'm Trent Reznor. I'm already rich... already made my money... so I'm going to screw the smaller, struggling independent musicians just trying to break in, by helping reinforce the consumer perceptions that downloaded music should be free."

It's conceited and pompous for Trent to believe that he has any affect on the anything what-so-ever. He's a whiner. He always has been.

James Steele wrote:Yeah... I have Addictive Drums and like it.... although I don't have Retro which is an AD add-on kit, isn't it?

Yes, 3 kits.