 |
The Era Of Free Music Is Upon Us |
 |
I can see the writing on the wall. The album is dying.
Highly successful artists have started abandoning albums as a way to make money. They are now giving away their music for free. Instead of selling albums, they are concentrating on building their fan bases, putting out quality art, and making their bread through touring and merchandising.
First, Prince decided to give away his latest album Planet Earth in copies of the British tabloid The Mail this past summer. Predictably, the record industry was scared, with music retailers launching lawsuits and investigations and pulling Prince's other records from the shelves.
Next, Trent Reznor of Nine Inch Nails urged fans to steal his albums, saying, "If I could do what I want right now, I would put out my next album, you could download it from my site at as high a bit-rate as you want, [and] pay $4 through PayPal."
Finally, Radiohead has told the world that we should pay what we want for their upcoming album In Rainbows. The album will be available as a download and users will really be able to name their price, or even pay nothing at all.
Together, these artists have sold over 55 million albums. They have dozens of top 10 hits to their names. These artists arguably understand the record business better than anyone and they've collectively decided that the album isn't for making money anymore. This isn't an isolated incident. This is a trend.
Small bands have never made money off albums because they can't get signed or get a distribution deal. Now, the big guys are foregoing the album as well, giving up what was once their major source of income. The fans aren't moaning the loss either, being happy to download content piecemeal. In short, nobody has a use for albums anymore besides the record companies. It's pretty clear to anyone following musical trends that the era of the album is over. The file sharers have won and the era of free music is upon us.
I hope the music industry is ready for this change. I'm sure they see it coming, as they've taken steps to deal with the changing marketplace by selling digital downloads and ringtones on one hand and suing their file sharing customers on the other. But I wonder if a record exec has ever seriously thought, "What if nobody will buy albums anymore? What if the album goes extinct?"
The record industry is mammoth, corrupt, greedy, and above all, slow to change. They've already been caught flat footed by the digital music revolution. For their sake, let's hope they are looking a little farther into the future.
I personally won't morn the death of the album. If it does become extinct, so much the better. Do you think the future of the record industry lies with the album?
My friend Ryan has an article about the "album" in its current form. It's pretty insightful.
http://burnboy.net/index.php/2007/03/22/pristine-coasters
I think you need to define what you mean by "album." If you mean "a physical medium for music storage and playback," then yes, by moving toward digital distribution, bands are indeed abandoning the album. If you mean "a set of songs put in a certain order, usually intended to be heard in that order, usually purchased as a piece," then I think it's a little early to say that bands are abandoning the album. Radiohead's new one, for instance, is only (for a couple months) available online - but you still have to buy the whole thing at once, and one assumes that they spent at least time figuring out the track order. Bands like Radiohead, the Flaming Lips, and others release albums that, taken as a whole, tell a story - you can put them on shuffle if you like, but they lose something.
I think it's great that bands are moving towards digital distribution, but I hope they don't abandon the album. I like albums.
Good point Josh. I can say with confidence that the physical album is over. I would also think that the album as a construct is on its way out too, but you're right, it is too early to tell.
I agree with the above commenters, and i also think that now the size and length limits imposed on the album by the physical construct of a CD are out the window too. the potential for longer, more in depth collections of music, or concept albums with greater breadth, is far more likely to be developed than simply scrapping the album as a structure. at least, that's what i'd like to see. (anyone remember smashing pumpkins' machina II?)
The "album", generally speaking, has not been where the money is for the artists in a very long time. Most artists now get the bulk of their earnings from concerts.
The record companies are living on borrowed time, and they know it. They'll use leagal threats and bullying tactics to keep alive as long as they can, but that will only get them so far.
Dont forget that The Smashing Pumpkins also gave away their album Machina II for download on their site for free in like 2001.
as an independant musician, i can certainly say that equipment is very expensive. maintenance and upkeep is expensive. recording is expensive. being on the road constantly and having no home life is emotionally expensive, as well as financially, and even devastating to an already working (or nearly possible) family life.
i don't make much money with music, especially after splitting any profit with multiple band members. most bands don't make much money. however, all of the bands listed above can easily opt out of profits without causing themselves financial ruin. they've all already "made it", in their own terms. they do not represent the VAST majority of musicians in that light. they can afford to skip it here and there.
listeners make demands they're not even aware of when pushing for free music. does your job require you to invest your personal money to make it thrive? if so, do you recoup that money? would you do that job for free, and still invest all of your personal money? it's very risky territory.
it's expensive, and you might be able to push for free downloads, but you can't push for free instruments and amplifiers and recording time. you can't push the desire for musicians to be martyrs of art. if the musician wants to do so, fine, but you can't ask for it.
with all the money you've saved from free downloads in 5 years time, go buy someone a vintage guitar or something.
'Together, these artists have sold over 55 million albums. They have dozens of top 10 hits to their names.'
This is exactly why they can afford to give away an album*.
A young band will distribute an album for free to build its fan base; an old band will do the same because they already have a fanbase. For those in the middle of the road, it's another story, and I think this sets a bad precedent:
If I, as a songwriter, do not wish to perform my songs live, does that make my craft less worth than that of someone who does? Should I deserve nothing for my effort? Same for the poet who doesn't tell his own poetry?
I certainly believe the major labels, in their idiocy, have expedited the progression to the current situation, but let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater here - fame alone is a nice incentive, but not one you can live off of.
I ultimately believe this model will not work, or at best, choke the flow of new good music: simple economics apply - if you can't make a living off of songwriting, you must devote less time to it, and more time to those activities
that will make a living.
*Also, we could hedge our bets and declare that this is because the album is crap, and nobody wanted to distribute it. I am a Radiohead fan, so I believe this not to be the case, but it may be too early to link their motives (i.e., altruism) with the result (free music).
Thanks for some very good thoughts, and creating a forum to raise them and for them to be talked about. I agree with a lot of what you're saying here… and listening to outfits like the RIAA whine about how they are persecuting individuals who download "for the artists" is enough to raise irony to potentially toxic levels.
I don't agree though, that indie artists can't make money money from sales of their music. I work at a festival where an artist can sell anywhere from 50 to 900 CDs in a weekend, and we're part of a larger network where they can do that most weekends every summer. As they usually net about $10 a sale, it adds up.
There will always be a market for "the thing" as opposed to the download, I think - people like souvenirs of artists they have enjoyed in performance - could be CD, a live recording, a hoodie, whatever… especially if it's combined with a chance to get them signed afterwards, etc…
Many of the young artists I work with - from pickers to DJs - regard the music they put online as more of a loss-leader to spread to their name around and draw people to their live performances, but they haven't given up on selling things at those gigs.
"The Industry" has been fat and lazy for years, and that fact that they made mad money re-selling over-priced digital versions of old music way back but never saw the inherent possibilities of sharing those ones and zeros is an indicator of just how over they are. As McLuhan said "the dinosaurs didn't know they were going extinct either…."
Thanks again for a great site and thought-provoking words…
dugg
We don't tour. Period. Once, long ago. Now, we spend our time in the studio and develop everything there. We will never tour again. The only income we get is from cd sales and downloads. So count us out of your plan for sure.
Um, I don't know about the other artists, but Radiohead isn't doing this for the money. Why do people always think there's some kind of gimmick? Radiohead is making a statement: In this debate about downloading and prices, the industry have forgotten to ask the fans, the ones who are actually buying the music, what they think. Radiohead is doing precisely this: asking what fans feel the music is worth to them. And fans have generally said, "Well, if you guys are getting the money, I don't mind paying regular retail price." What was bothering us was that we knew we were giving the industry 14 dollars and the artists one dollar.
We also need to remember that, in a way, CDs are kind of a promotional tool to get people to come to live shows, which represent an enormous percentage of many bands' income.
What is going on in the minds of these people who believe music should be free to any and all?
Chris made a great point when he drew comparisons between any other workplace and that of a musician. Now come on, be honest, if your boss one day decided he no longer wanted to pay for your services but expected you to turn up to work no less, would that be okay with you?
Constantly you hear "free" music proponents bashing major labels for sucking the industry dry, and that may be true, but today, right now, it's music pirates that are causing the most damage.
J-Ro, I hope you'll be happy listening to bands that have already "made it" for the rest of your life because there sure as hell won't be anything new & decent coming through if new talent is forced to give away their music right off the bat.
If you're not willing to pay for music then you don't deserve to be graced by it, full stop.
"…Radiohead’s new one, for instance, is only (for a couple months) available online - but you still have to buy the whole thing at once…"
Where did you, hear or read this? The album isn't even released yet. I want supporting evidence that shows it'll only be for a limited time, not assumptions.
Why do you people still support the major labels? They're a broken and forgettable industry. Stop buying music, and more importantly stop LISTENING to their music. There's thousands of labels out there and a lot of them are putting out some great music. Unfortunately, proponents of the "free music" industry are so blind to everything outside the borders of mainstream music they don't even realize that there is already a free music industry out there. Get it into your heads people. The major labels aren't at all about making good innovative music anymore. There about manufacturing a product. They're the MacDonalds, Burger King, Wendy's and Taco Bell of the music industry.
Why does the album have to die? Why not do something to make it interactive - give the purchaser a chance to share in an "experience"? If you look at an "album" as a mere collection of promo pieces for touring and merchandising, then yes, it really doesn't give any value to the consumer. But with a bit of entrepreneurship and some jiggery-pokery, the album can achieve a form of metamorphosis.
If you go to a restaurant, you expect to pay for your meal. If you go to a restaurant that has bad service, crappy food, a poor dining environment, etc., do you go back the next week and "steal a meal" because you were unhappy with this establishment and their product(s)? You can. You may or may not get in trouble with the law. It all depends on the circumstances. You may even get some sort of compensation from said establishment in the form of a free meal.
But, no matter how often that happens, it will NEVER equate a state of communism in a capitalist society. It would have long-term, catastrophic consequences on all forms of commerce associated with food production that it would created quite an upheaval in the overall links of the economic food chain.
Now, you may think that my comparison is a bit grandiose, that music is not something as necessary as air, water, housing or food. But to some of us, it really is.
To keep this response on the shorter side, I am going to suggest an experiment: try and go an entire week without listening to music. Don't turn on your radio, don't turn on TV, leave the iPod tucked away, etc. If you're at all like me (and I have tried this experiment several times over my life) you may find that you become quite a miserable s.o.b.
Music does mean something. It IS important. One of the issues on that end, is that, like so much of our McDonaldized society, the bulk of the material is uneducated, non-thought-provoking, unimaginative, banal, niche-pandering drool in a styrofoam cup. We've become so accustomed to gallons of refined/processed sugar that the real thing is too bitter and foreign to contemplate consuming.
Anyway…
The true realization that artists are coming to is that you can't have free thought/action and a police state at the same time. So, yes you do have established acts that have already made their fortune and can turn off their concern to the piracy issue. They have the opportunity to indulge in a more philosophical aspect of their profession via circumventing the legal aspects.
That doesn't mean that paying for recorded music will cease as commerce.
It just means that artists on the whole know that there really isn't jack they can do to stop someone because they're not "in the restaurant", so to speak.
However, if this is a form of art, then you don't need to leave the commerce out of it just because people have taken work and distributed it freely. Think outside the box and give the listener something more to involve them with the music CD. Create a connection! The medium is not dead. It just needs a bit more creativity infused with the final production to jump start it back to life! Each and every forthcoming musical release needs 10cc's of imaginative adrenaline pumped into it.
The real argument isn't if music should be free, it's the fact that artists need a swift kick in the ass and need to do something drastically different with their chosen medium. The old school has run it's course. It's the format that's run the course (too many times) and needs to be put down! It's time to dig out a new breed!!
With very little advertising, I've been having some pretty great success with just such a model.
Check it out -
explanation here:www.paddyl.com
albumhere:http://cdbaby.com/cd/leitsch4
Thanks for reading!
P-Addy
I heard a comment from a consultant to US radio stations (heard this on Australia's Youth network, Triple J), who was basically saying that what's happening at the moment in music is great. Bands have more opportunity to get their music out there (through things such as myspace), fans have more opportunity to find excellent music (again, through things like myspace), this leads to more shows, more live music, more fans at shows, which means that bands can actually make a living without getting signed to a label.
In fact, he said that the only group that this isn't good for are the big record labels. Can you imagine what the world would be like if we didn't have SONY, BMG etc? I look forward to this, as when the consumer gets to decide, we will have quality music, and not have to put up with what the labels tell us that we'll like.
As someone who has been in the indie music trenches, I agree with some comments here. Certainly indie musicians will still make some money from "the thing," the album or the download or whatever that is.
I don't think that people will never stop paying for music. The Radiohead situation is an example of that. They will make money on that album. Some will download it for free, sure, but some will pay for it. Indie musicians can work in the same way. They will be able to sell albums sometimes. They will be forced to give them away sometimes.
Basically, it is about diversification. The working musicians I know make their money in all sorts of ways: touring, studio sessions, local gigs, album sales, etc… What I'm saying here is that the album, that one product, may no longer be the backbone of a musician's income. And that's ok. The album can be successfully used as a promotional tool and there is other money to be made in music.
Chris (#7). I'm not sure you've thought this through, or haven't articulated your point well. As you say, the "big" artists who have made it can give away music for free, yet you also state that you (and other small-time artists) don't make money off album sales. So which artists actually earn a living from album sales? The answer is none. Album sales have always been the labels' profit generator, not the musicians. Musicians make money from live shows, even the big names. It's not the musicians who lose money when the album disappears. In fact, with file sharing and download sites it is the unknown artists that have the opportunity to be heard and grow their fan base for shows.
Obsolescence will have the final say. Music is inherently free and it was just a matter of time before it asserted its own rights.
Death to the RIAA! Death to the corrupt music industry! Death to the Mi¢ro$oft Zune! Death to DRM! Death to Windows Vista! Death to … well, you get the point.
As with so many other things, this kind of blather is poorly thought out. Trust me…if you hate what the major labels are feeding you, you'll hate FREE music even more. The truly talented artist knows the value of his own work and won't be offering more than a small portion of it for free. You can say that we need a new monetization model, and that's fine…I'm certainly open to that as both a musician and a music buyer. But FREE gets you crap…because only people with no lives and no families have the time to sit around and make music to give it away. A gifted musician is worth paying…just like a programmer or a mechanic or anyone else. Get over this FREE idea…its a waste of time. Your ability to steal music does not give you the right to do so. If you want to stop supporting the major labels, fine. Live without their music…don't steal it. Invest your energy in building a new model. But don't pretend to be noble and revolutionary because you steal something that's difficult to protect.
do you think there is a direct correlation between this issue and the sky rocketing prices of concert tickets these last few years.just maybe, joe fan is paying for that album many times over.
I see the change in the industry not as a "era of free music", but an "era of FREEING music." This is just the beginning of the middleman being cut out of the picture. Artists don't need labels anymore for distribution and promotion. YouTube makes stars on a regular basis, MySpace is a great resource for budding bands, and who knows what the next big thing will bring. I think people will be much more willing to continue paying for music if they know that the money is going straight to the artist.
Imagine a world where all artists can grow an a level playing field. Stars would raise from talent, not from what some exec thinks will make him the most money. Music would be richer in quality and quantity, which is a benefit for everyone.
Support artists, not record labels!
to chad:
i understand your point about the job expenses, but the cost of recording is hyper-inflated. good art shouldn't require that amount of money to produce. not to mention the marketing you can do yourself on youtube, myspace and others cost fractions of what the companies spend. whether or not you agree with the fans, they have spoken. music is evolving. don't get stuck in the old cycle.
I for one will /not/ mourn the death of the album and hopefully the media companies that have for too long dictated how we consume music and tried too often to force feed us manufactured crap. For too many years good artists have received only a tiny proportion of the money paid for albums. Media companies are the former middle-man of the music industry.
I am more than happy to pay what I believe to be a fair price for an album directly to the artist safe in the knowledge my money isn't going greedy a greedy exec who spends his life on a golf course.
The next/current generation of music downloading and often sharing quite simply means we don't need them anymore, but you can be rest assured they'll do everything in their collective power to make the transition as difficult as possible.
—-
PS. Please change the colour scheme of your comments section, it's an eyesore for those of us on probably poorly setup TFT monitors.
The people who buy albums/8 tracks/cassettes/cd's etc, never paid for the first instrument a musician bought. We all buy our own gear, and try to make music. It's only after fans pay for our music/tours/gear, that we get to buy the sweet stuff. Deal with it.. If you can't make the same music on the 50$ pawn shop guitar that you can on the 1200$ Martin, find a new job.
That being said, and no offense meant to the person I quoted, this blog is spot on. The companies controlling artists and how they express themselves are on the way out. Any band selling their album for 4$ a shot direct is making more money than letting a 'distribution' company put their 'album' out at 12.99 per, even if distribution gets them double the local coverage.
And hey.. no breakage fees
to chad: i may have left out my perspective a little. my bands work with stable, prominent indie labels. we have a 50/50 profit split. that is a very good thing. i should be clear that i am not a fan of major label industry. they screw the artist in every contract one way or another. however, in the mid-level, sales plays a very important role in whether or not you can make a living. make it or break it, so to speak.
the problem with using these "tools to get attendance up" is that if you are making all your money at shows, and you want to make a living with music, you have to constantly be touring. this, of course, means compromise. your personal time and personal life are threatened as touring snowballs. if you're the type of musician who's not concerned with a good personal life, then it works out great.
as for the recording costs, i'm not referring to a ridiculously huge major label-style recording budget. that shit is just stupid. i'm talking about good, but down to earth, studios with good engineers who know and have good gear recording bands who pay for their time. $300 a day (that's cheap for a good studio) ain't cheap. if it only takes a week to record and mix a record (that's fairly fast) well, you do the math. it's a lot of money out-of-pocket. of course, you could go to a crap studio and have a shitty sounding record that people won't enjoy listening to as much, but that doesn't get as many people to your shows, or something…
also, i'm not concerned with a $1200 Martin. if all you play is an acoustic guitar, you don't need to be worried about $1000 amplifiers (more than one of them), $1000 speaker cabinets (several of them), $1500 drum sets, and the cost of repairing/maintaining them.
i guess i'm referring to quality mid-level bands with my posts. that's where this issue makes the biggest impact, i think. shit, i'm trying to sell lp's. vinyl rules.
and for artists needing a swift kick in the ass, i don't think that's right at all. thanks to dj's, vinyl is still around. oh, god, our parents' and grandparents' medium. the underground punk labels can't support that whole operation on their own these days.
by the way, doesn't anybody appreciate album art? like, really paying attention to it, right there in your hands? because that is an important part of any good record to me, and it took creativity and work to make that part of it, too.
Chris, just gotta chime in here. As a sound engineer and someone who's spent a lot of time recording others, anyone paying $300 a day these days to record is wasting their money. For less than $5k you can put together a decent studio that will get you 90% of the way to a professionally recorded album. For the vast majority of bands, 90% is fine. It's that extra 10% that costs thousands if not hundreds of thousands of dollars.
So, if you've got a 5 piece and everyone is semi-serious about the project, throw in $500 - $1000 each and buy a studio that can be used over and over.
I already miss the album. As has already been said, the long form allowed or inspired unique musical visions, as well as creative use of the packaging (from beautiful art to quirky designs and personal touches). And there is something special about starting an album at the beginning and following the music to the last sound…
…but realistically, that hasn't been with us for all that long. Before the mid to late 60's, albums were almost exclusively nothing more than recordings of live music. The idea of the "studio creation" is as recent as it is artificial (no value judgment, just a neutral fact).
For the objector that moaned about how expensive equipment is…no sympathy. The technology is there to make studio-quality recordings on a mid-performance PC for less than the cost of one "vintage guitar". In fact, part of the reason that music is so devalued in people's minds is that there are so many more semi-talented, semi-skilled, semi-inspired people making semi-music than ever before. Supply has far exceeded demand, if you must have everything in economic terms. To borrow another poster's analogy, the world is in fact flooded with poor quality restaurants- and nobody expects quality food or service because of it.
If you really want to dedicate your life to music, do it…but don't expect that there will be any money coming. When has financial success done anything but ruin real creativity and originality anyway? Or maybe you just wanted a "career" in music, or attention via music…in that case, keep whining about lost revenue all you want; the lack of priorities will certainly be obvious to anyone who can differentiate quality music from a well-marketed product.
I kind of disagree about the importance of that extra 10%, though, J-Ro (and whether or not it's actually 10% or more like 25%). I've done work at my home studio, at low level studios, and at a high level studio and I must say that from a musician's perspective, the extra fidelity from uncompressed tracks from the best studio was significant. Sure, a lot of it is lost because of compression but for the audiophile, the difference is really important (and I'm an audiophile so it matters a lot to me as a musician and as a listener). As much as I love DIY stuff, there is something to be said for an album with truly incredibly production value that can only be obtained through cutting edge technology and world-class talent.
That said, most consumers don't care about sound quality at all. Hell, my band had a track up on Youtube and the song, which normally sounds quite good, sounded like absolute ass. The vocals sounded exposed and too loud, the guitars became muddy, and the drums sounded…….weird. It doesn't sound like this at all even in mediocre headphones on my mp3 player. When it was selected as the music Pick of the Day, we got tons of viewers and listeners who basically told us, "Why should we buy this song when we can listen to it right here? Oh, and btw, your vocals sound weird."
It honestly didn't occur to them that A) the music sounded weird because Youtube does strange things to audio tracks, B) laptop speakers really suck, and C) it cost us a decent amount of money to produce that song and video.
Then again, the free music movement seems to be driven primarily by a sense of entitlement, specifically that the consumer has a RIGHT to listen to any music they want at any price they want (usually $0.00). While I totally get that album prices are way high, there is an alternative to illegally downloading songs; it is (gasp!) not buying the product. If you don't want to pay for a song or album at the price it's offered, fine. Just don't act like that's justification for pirating it.
well, j-ro, i suppose i shouldn't speak for the common, casual musician in this post. i sort of see your point, and agree with it to some extent. home studios are absolutely great. i have recorded in the most diy situations as well as professional studios many, many times. i also interned for quite some time in a very high-end studio.
however, there is a certain, special charm, in my opinion, to recording onto 2″ tape on a well-kept studer machine, with beyer, josephson, lomo, vintage rca ribbon, etc. mics and hand-crafted specialty compressors and other specialty outboard gear that your average home studio will never get their hands on. the same quality applies for my preference of amplifiers and cabinets, etc. you can buy affordable, dependable studio gear pretty easily, but if you want the good stuff, it's pricey, so the studio costs jump accordingly.
i have plenty of programs on my pc, and i know the recording and mixing processes quite well, but there's still a big gap when trying to compare those kinds of recordings. maybe not to the average listener, but definitely for the discriminating musician. and that's where my beef lies, i guess. quality musicians tend to have a different perspective on the issues that affect their career. moreso than the average listener's unintentional lack of knowledge for what goes into it.
and by the way, i've been making underground/indie records for 14 years, and i'll continue passionately and happy to do so, because i love it. it's just a bummer to not be able to make a living from it and to be in a position where you risk your livelihood with your dayjob every time you have to hit the road for tour. and to see the future where you've spent so much time doing it this way that your dayjobs aren't necessarily improving even though your other life demands are growing.
i suppose it's my fault for not compromising creative integrity to make more money, though. standard music, bar bands, radio hit factories, selling "the thing"… it's just not for me. other, more trendy, people can take care of that. thus, the situation is a difficult one. the end.
To Matt and Chris:
I understand the charm of a high end studio. I understand the increase in sound quality. But answer this question: As an indie band, with no record label, no distribution, and a small fan base, why do those things matter?
Now, if you are making this for the sake of art, fine. I understand audiophiles, I know that a great recording is a pursuit unto itself. But don't expect to make money with it.
For the vast majority of bands, that 90% (and it can be 90% if you know what you're doing) is way more than enough to please their fans, get them noticed by some bigger people, and generall allow them to spread their music. If you're making music for the ages, then sure, by all means go and spend $100 an hour in a studio. But if you're making music as a living, then you do what you do to get by and make you're bread. And that means do-it-yourself. Thankfully, today's technologies make DIY sound great.
true. for the majority, that recording style works. and i'm all for the spirit of a diy mentality. there isn't enough of it out there.
i'm just saying, though, that in this respect, if you ARE trying to make music for the ages, for the sake of origional art and creativity, in the pursuit of that perfect recording, that perfect album, you may be on (or headed towards) a solid independant label where the profit splits are commonly 50/50. and in that case, album sales are important and make a drastic difference. it's not a matter of a major label screwing you, it's a situation where both sides are trying to reach a greater goal than the mainstream provides: quality music through a fair deal. and there, where there IS more of a diy ethic, there is also more of a loss when album sales drop off. it's harder for the bands to make money without mass distribution and advertising competition in crappy chain stores, as well as it being harder for the independant labels to sell records and even stay afloat.
i think the hardship is felt most there. nobody with decent taste cares if the majors are losing their stronghold on a crappy industry. but i think this issue affects independant labels and bands waaaay before the effect will take place with powerful conglomerate labels. and that's pitiful.
the majors can afford to ride it out for a long time. just like how the successful bands at the very top of this post can afford to give away free albums without it hurting them much financially. by the way, i'm a fan of prince, nine inch nails, radiohead, and the flaming lips, and i think what they did is great. i'm just saying… people shouldn't expect all their favorite music to be handed over like that. it's not nearly that simple or easy.
i'd also like to note that with a 50% split, if you sell well, even though the presses are much smaller, your profits are doing really well. you won't make millions of dollars, but you don't end up owing the label a million bucks, either. so it's really feasible for indie artists to make a fine, but modest, living doing what they love.
i'm not just whining about lost revenue, i'm talking about people trying to do it right… make good music, shrug the mainstream, live well but not to excess, keep diy alive, etc. fuck all the fake shit. btw- in my earlier post, by "the thing", i meant "the image".
i'd be unbelievably surprised if those artists continue to ONLY release their albums as free. that was not a business model. that was a promotional model.
but, as i stated before, they can afford to do it. you will not see 95% of bands giving away all their music just because prince and trent reznor can afford to. they, in no way, are in an average situation.
and by the way, the newspaper that released prince's new record bought the rights to do so. they worked out a deal. they paid him. it wasn't free. it was just a free insert to whoever got the newspaper. it was the newspaper's promotional model, and one they'd repeated several times with various artists. come on. prince sold it, just not directly to the consumer. and the promotion was a great success. the newspapers were gobbled up, and prince made headlines. nuff said.
i do think radiohead's offer is a noble one.