The Song Fight Bulletin Board

After a year or so of listening to Internet-based musicians, I’ve almost taken for granted that all the music is available online for free. A great example is BradSucks: you can stream his entire album from Magnatune, download and print out album labels from his website, or even remix his songs from source files he makes available. While I’ve gotten used to this type of distribution working perfectly for online independent musicians, I’ve also been spoon-fed the idea that this model does not work for signed musicians.

Well, right now I’m currently listening to the new Nine Inch Nails album. A week before it’s due to hit stores. Legally, too. Trent Reznor has convinced Interscope Records to put a stream of the new album online (myspace.com/ninofficial). On top of that they made the video and song for their first single available online before it was on MTV or the radio (nin.com). Also, all the new album art and the lyrics booklet that would normally come with the album will be made available on the bands website. Lastly, Trent recently posted a 70mb .sit file on the site for Mac users to download. It contains a full GarageBand project of the new single, every file included.

Huh.

So here’s the question: Is NIN the only big act (are they still big?) that has wholeheartedly embraced a form of digital distribution and band/fan interactivity that was previously only used by people like us? How the hell do you convince your record label to make the whole album available (in a restricted sense) for free before it comes out? Does this all fly in the face of conventional music industry “wisdom”? It has done a pretty good job of raising eyebrows in the internet community: for instance, it got the band’s website Slashdotted. But the real question for a band like this: How will it affect album sales?

Thoughts? Does any of this at all affect musicians here who have been doing this sort of thing for years?

i imagine it was because it's a full album stream, instead of track by track, that he convinced them to do that.
i remember when kid A came out, although they didn't stream the album on the internet, radiohead played the whole album on mtv2 one day.
i think it'll start becoming a pretty common thing, that's just me.

from my handclaps thread...

mkilly wrote:(For those that haven't heard of Tilly and the Wall, they're this adorable band from Omaha, Nebraska, on Conor Oberst's other label, Team Love. Their whole album is available on their Team Love website. They also have an official not-record label website. Instead of a drummer, they have a girl that tapdances, and everybody else in the band stomps and claps and God damn it's cute, so several (all?) of their songs would qualify but this one's my favorite.)

fodroy wrote:

mkilly wrote:

fodroy wrote: does anyone else find this extremely odd? it's cool, but it just seems like it defeats the purpose of being on a record label. they should just join up with dirt cheap music or something.

I dunno. Not so weird. It gets the music out there and if you dig it you can buy the album and support the band, and it gets the word out so you go see the live show when it's near, and you buy the t-shirt and whatever. Unconventional but sensible.

it may pay off in the long run, but they must have a lot of confidence in their artists to do something like that. i for one don't plan on buying the album and i doubt if they'll ever tour near me. central indiana gets shit for shows.

You've been able to stream Aimee Mann's album "Lost in Space" for a year or so, since before it came out. And she's doing a new-song-every-tuesday thing for her new album.

Now he just needs an alternate reality game.

Wilco allowed you to stream one of their recent albums prior to release. I can't remember which one.

frankie big face wrote:Wilco allowed you to stream one of their recent albums prior to release. I can't remember which one.

a ghost is born, via http://www.justafan.org/ ... Great idea, I thought.

deshead wrote:

frankie big face wrote:Wilco allowed you to stream one of their recent albums prior to release. I can't remember which one.

a ghost is born, via http://www.justafan.org/ ... Great idea, I thought.

"Ghost is Born" was leaked to the internet 3 months early, not by the band themselves. Justafan was set up to assuage the "downloader guilt syndrome" many felt by giving them a chance to donate money to a charity endorsed by the band. They ended up raising $10,600 from this for their charity of choice.

Both Chuck D. of Public Enemy and David Byrne were kind enough to lend me their loops to mangle.

The hugest problem with this whole argument is the concept of a "music industry", which is only an entity of the last 80 years or so. In human history, "music" and "industry" have not been spoken in the same breath. I hate to sound flakey, but the real truth is that music as an industry is dying, or at least, it's transforming beyond present day recognition. We're all on the cusp of something huge, historically speaking (music history, at least), and no, it won't make many or any of us monetarily rich. But it's coming, and this is the start of it. The "music industry" is a product of the difficulty in distribution of recorded music. That difficulty is almost history, so music is going to return to its traditional days of something for everyone. The pioneers of music today are economic pioneers, NOT techically musical pioneers. Ride it or be left behind. No one knows where it's going, but it's becoming history. And how cool is THAT!

Those people thinking "Gosh, how can I SELL this music I'm making for Songfight" are missing the point. Music will someday NO LONGER BE FOR SALE. Songfight and its brethren are the start of that. Enjoy!!

JIM FOR EL PRESIDENTE DE MUSICA!!!

Damn straight.

And look at the girl in my avatar. She is the future and she knows the truth. You can see it in her eyes. Go ahead and look. See?

Jim of Seattle wrote:Those people thinking "Gosh, how can I SELL this music I'm making for Songfight" are missing the point. Music will someday NO LONGER BE FOR SALE. Songfight and its brethren are the start of that. Enjoy!!

What point exactly are they missing? What is so bad about wanting to be paid for doing something well, and making people happy because of it? What events are going to happen to bring us to the point where all music will be made and obtained for free?

Jim of Seattle wrote:Damn straight.

And look at the girl in my avatar. She is the future and she knows the truth. You can see it in her eyes. Go ahead and look. See?

it looks more like she's thinking, "no, dad. stop taking pictures of me. 17 is enough for today. actually i like having these pictures taken of me. i secretly hope he doesn't stop." but then again, i'm not very good at reading people's thoughts through pictures.

that was a weird comment.

Puce wrote:After a year or so of listening to Internet-based musicians, I’ve almost taken for granted that all the music is available online for free. A great example is BradSucks: you can stream his entire album from Magnatune, download and print out album labels from his website, or even remix his songs from source files he makes available. While I’ve gotten used to this type of distribution working perfectly for online independent musicians, I’ve also been spoon-fed the idea that this model does not work for signed musicians.

I really enjoyed <i>I Don't Know What I'm Doing</i>. In fact, I would have bought it if it hadn't been for free (and I had heard it before), so I paid him for it. "Making Me Nervous" is so awesome.

Plat wrote:Now he just needs an alternate reality game.

ARGs are AWESOME. However, I may be biased, as I'm currently working on one...

Jim of Seattle wrote:The hugest problem with this whole argument is the concept of a "music industry", which is only an entity of the last 80 years or so. In human history, "music" and "industry" have not been spoken in the same breath. I hate to sound flakey, but the real truth is that music as an industry is dying, or at least, it's transforming beyond present day recognition. We're all on the cusp of something huge, historically speaking (music history, at least), and no, it won't make many or any of us monetarily rich. But it's coming, and this is the start of it. The "music industry" is a product of the difficulty in distribution of recorded music. That difficulty is almost history, so music is going to return to its traditional days of something for everyone. The pioneers of music today are economic pioneers, NOT techically musical pioneers. Ride it or be left behind. No one knows where it's going, but it's becoming history. And how cool is THAT!

It's terribly uncool. I love how you insinuate that no-one got paid for making music prior to recorded music and they were all just in it for the sake or art and charity. That's just simply not true. Are you an anarchist Jim? Is that what you want your daughter to be? Just because it's way easier to steal recorded music now than it once was doesn't make it right.

erikb wrote:

deshead wrote:

frankie big face wrote:Wilco allowed you to stream one of their recent albums prior to release. I can't remember which one.

a ghost is born, via http://www.justafan.org/ ... Great idea, I thought.

"Ghost is Born" was leaked to the internet 3 months early, not by the band themselves. Justafan was set up to assuage the "downloader guilt syndrome" many felt by giving them a chance to donate money to a charity endorsed by the band. They ended up raising $10,600 from this for their charity of choice.

Nah, I'm pretty sure the one I'm referring to is Yankee Hotel Foxtrot and I'm very sure the stream was from Wilco 's official site.

frankie big face wrote:Nah, I'm pretty sure the one I'm referring to is Yankee Hotel Foxtrot and I'm very sure the stream was from Wilco 's official site.

Right you are, sir! http://www.popmatters.com/music/reviews ... nkee.shtml : <i>"... At this point, Wilco also began audiostreaming Yankee Hotel Foxtrot on their website, a decision that raises a number of issues."</i>

Jim of Seattle wrote:The "music industry" is a product of the difficulty in distribution of recorded music. That difficulty is almost history ...

Though it's replaced by new difficulties. The exising paradigm frees artists from having to worry about their 'reach'. Without the label, distributor, and radio station/record store network, marketing music is a different beast altogether.

I say as long as musicians crave fame, there'll be a "music industry".

jb wrote:You've been able to stream Aimee Mann's album "Lost in Space" for a year or so, since before it came out. And she's doing a new-song-every-tuesday thing for her new album.

Which is ironic* because she's been so consistently good, I'm gonna buy it sight-unseen.

*in an Alanis Morisette kind of way

frankie big face wrote:

Jim of Seattle wrote:The hugest problem with this whole argument is the concept of a "music industry", which is only an entity of the last 80 years or so. In human history, "music" and "industry" have not been spoken in the same breath. I hate to sound flakey, but the real truth is that music as an industry is dying, or at least, it's transforming beyond present day recognition. We're all on the cusp of something huge, historically speaking (music history, at least), and no, it won't make many or any of us monetarily rich. But it's coming, and this is the start of it. The "music industry" is a product of the difficulty in distribution of recorded music. That difficulty is almost history, so music is going to return to its traditional days of something for everyone. The pioneers of music today are economic pioneers, NOT techically musical pioneers. Ride it or be left behind. No one knows where it's going, but it's becoming history. And how cool is THAT!

It's terribly uncool. I love how you insinuate that no-one got paid for making music prior to recorded music and they were all just in it for the sake or art and charity. That's just simply not true. Are you an anarchist Jim? Is that what you want your daughter to be? Just because it's way easier to steal recorded music now than it once was doesn't make it right.

I guess what I'm getting at is that music as an "industry", with thousands of non-musicians earning a living off it, is changing. Of course it's great for musicians to get paid for what they do, and of course that's been going on since forever. But when most music listened to became recorded instead of live, then there was a whole 'nother industry consisting of the people who could record, package and distribute that music. So musicians had a potentially much larger audience, and eventually, the idea of musicians being "successful" only when they make money for a whole lot of other people (who were not responsible for the original music but got them over that gigantic hurdle between the instrument and the ear) became the norm. Historically the distance between instrument and ear has been much shorter, and the digital music age is again shortening it, squeezing out all those other people.

I'm not talking about stealing music at all. I'm talking about basic economics. Supply and demand. Supply has been kept down over the past century because of this whole recording bottleneck. Digital music and people like us mean that the supply is increasing and will continue to. Prices will drop.

deshead wrote:I say as long as musicians crave fame, there'll be a "music industry".

Just because they crave it doesn't mean they'll get it. A whole different soapbox, but the whole idea of "fame" is relatively recent and is also going away to a large degree or at least morphing into something new. It's even in my signature below.

I know this will invite amusingly derisive posts, but I honestly am a little surprised that more people aren't seeing things my way here. Hmmm...

the difference between being an amateur and a professional entails more than just being paid for your work. there's a reason that people are willing to pay for the work of a professional. it doesn't mean that they are not willing to pay for the work of an amateur, but the amateur has to work harder to have their music heard and distributed. i agree that technology has made this easier to do. from a sheer promotional standpoint, we amateurs at songfight are able to reap thousands of hits off our music, which would have never been possible 10 years ago. we have a global fanbase not stiffled by barriers of logistics. we are able to produce recordings we couldn't do from home 10 years ago. and the old adage "you get what you pay for" is certainly still true as it applies here.

i think the point of contention is that technology has made it easier to distribute the music for free, and if that's what the artist wants to do, then great. if that's not what the artist wants to do, then that's not so great. technology may have opened up alot of virtual doors, or kicked down alot of virtual fences, but by doing this, you also let the rabble in.