Nine Inch Nails frontman Trent Reznor has posted the download and sales numbers for "The Inevitable Rise and Liberation of Niggy Tardust," the Saul Williams album he produced and helped release.

Read the rest of the article at the following source:

http://www.billboard.com/...1003691881

As for me, I downloaded it for free, as it was only a day or two away from payday, and then bought the album at the 320 kbs quality, and I did so because I feel it's important to pay the artist if you feel they deserve it. After all, the artist has put in God knows how much time on the project

And the album was offered for only $5! You can't beat that.

Thoughts anyone?

ok, well, i've never heard of this person before and the web site gave people a chance to preview a new artist for free, and if by chance people knew what they were getting into, they could throw a few bucks his way. are they saying they're SURPRISED only 18% of the people who downloaded it paid for it?!? seems kinda no-brainer-ish to me.

Anxiety said:

Same here.

There's a similar thread about this, here: http://prince.org/msg/8/257039

All those who complain about the crappy landscape of today' music..here's why. People would rather steal than support an artist and that's not going to change anytime soon.

popgodazipa said:

two things:

i think a new artist is going to get a LOT more exposure if they do something like this, and if someone is going to check this guy out because of a NIN connection, chances are likely that trent reznor can easily find a way to finess his fans into buying a physical copy of the CD, though it seems exposure is more crucial than sales from all appearances.

with all the talk lately of artists getting ripped off on digital sales by record companies, it seems like online download album sales is a no-win situation anyway. might as well at least use it as a marketing tool.

i didn't pay for this album. then again, i didn't download it, either.

I think you'd find this same figure would be applicable to albums not solely available for free via digital download, what with procuring CD-R copies and the inevitable P2P...

better to get 18% of the people who downloaded it to pay for it than to get 0% of people to download it OR pay for it. otherwise it's a "who? what?" situation, so he actually sold a few copies that he wasn't going to in the first place.
[Edited 1/5/08 4:34am]

Anxiety said:

Perhaps it's because of the NIN connection that Trent was hoping more of his fans would automatically pay for it out of loyalty to him.

I've seen a few of Saul Williams' videos on 120 Minutes/Subterranean so I know his music and the idea of him collaborating with Trent had me intrigued. If I ever do download the album, I would pay the $5, but I'm principled like that.

grammar
[Edited 1/5/08 10:54am]

I downloaded it for free and don't even remember listening to it, so there's that section of the pie to consider.

Cinnie said:

So you are saying the number of people exposed to Saul are even less than the number of downloads because some people don't remember what it sounds like?

grammar
[Edited 1/5/08 11:05am]

sextonseven said:

Just saying that a number of "free downloads" should be considered digital waste not as a type of "sale".

Cinnie said:

That's pretty much the same in that the positive of the final number isn't so positive.

sextonseven said:

yeah but that is 18 per cent of the total downloads including digital waste.

sextonseven said:

Okay, what does principles have to do with it. You can't be surprised if you offer people the option to pay for your work, or get it free, and they choose to get it free.

I honestly don't get this "moral judgement" stuff that people spew on this subject - everyone seems half a step away from comparing the people who didn't pay (myself included) to homicidal maniacs or something. It's not that serious.

Not only that, musicians have always made little to no profit from disc/album sales, so this isn't anything new. They make their money primarily through touring and merchandise sales.

Oh, Yeah - Trent steals music, too.

Cinnie said:

I guess I would consider some of those as "promo" copies.

GreenLeaves said:

I believe if someone worked hard on something then they should be rewarded for it.

I never said I was surprised by the results. I never said the people that didn't pay were thieves. I never said Trent never "steals" music.

sextonseven said:

Then, shouldn't Reznor pay for all the music he downloads, too?

GreenLeaves said:

I'm not here to judge anyone. I can only stick to my own beliefs whenever possible.

sextonseven said:

I know, but earlier in this thread, you said you'd pay the five bucks because you were "principled like that". So, anyone who doesn't pay for the music, isn't principled, and isn't being loyal to the artist?

If that's how you see it, then why won't you judge Trent? He apparently isn't "principled" enough to always pay for all his music either - shouldn't he be "loyal" to the artists he's a fan of and show his appreciation for their hard work by paying for it, too?

What's so different, really?

1. Niggy Tardust.

Saul's trash.

2.

That's what all the shitty artists, studio artists, and record execs say.
[Edited 1/6/08 9:18am]

GreenLeaves said:

Maybe others felt the music was crap and wasn't worth $5. I can't argue with that. Whatever their reasons, I'm not going so far as to say anyone including Trent that doesn't pay for music is unprincipled. I don't know them.

sextonseven said:

So you don't feel you're any more principled than anyone else because you'd pay for it.

That's good.

sextonseven said:

-----
If you steal something you are unpricipled. If artist are offering the option of free or payment they should not be surprised that people are not paying.

Everybody wants something for free no a days.

GreenLeaves said:

Okay, so maybe "principled" was the wrong word to use in this case. I just feel that if someone is going to put a substantial effort into a piece of work and like in this particular situation asks for donations then the donation should be given.

I'm sorry, but the guy is making music.

Donations my ASS.

He's not housing runaways.

If he wants money, his ass can go get a real job.

sextonseven said:

And you feel that goes for Trent too, right?

I'm just saying that I think people should do away with this double standard shit they're pulling. What, it's Okay if Trent doesn't always pay for the music he listens to (people always want to overlook THAT), but if YOU don't pay for his, then you're a bad person? Come on, now.

So therefore, if I steal some NIN music I don't really want to log on and read about Reznor whining like a little bitch about it.

Turnabout is fair play.

laurarichardson said:

Then Trent Reznor is unprincipled too.

Hey, do you pay for all your music?

I agree with the last part of your post about payments, though.

GreenLeaves said:

I feel that goes for me. Again, I don't think if someone doesn't do what I do then they are bad. I only feel it would go against my beliefs if I didn't make the donation when the option was there.

sextonseven said:

Okay, then.

In other news, I paid for a physical copy of Radiohead's In Rainbows today (previously downloaded for free), so hopefully that evens out my mirror of reality.