Of Rainbows And Freeloaders II: The Trials Of Tardust

AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
edited January 2008 in Debate and/or Discourse
A while back, I made this thread, which posited that the number of people who just took Radiohead's new album In Rainbows online was not exactly a good sign for the "new music economy". I was told by various posters that I was, well, an idiot.

After reading this, I'm starting to think that I'm not.

To summarize, Trent Reznor released Saul Williams' newest album in two formats - a free 192kbps MP3 and a $5 320kbps offering. Today, he released the numbers:
  • 154,449 people downloaded the album.
  • Of those, only 28,322 ponied up the five-spot.
  • In comparison, approximately 34,000 people purchased Williams' 2004 album in stores.
  • The album was completely funded online - the purchases go to pay for the production of the album

Reznor himself isn't sure what to make of this:
I'm not sure what I was expecting, but that percentage—primarily from fans—seems disheartening.

Personally, I think this vindicates my earlier observations - reliance on a donation model does not appear to be sustainable in the long run.

XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
AngelHedgie on

Posts

  • Ninja BotNinja Bot Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    This doesn't seem surprising at all. I think a large portion of those 154,449 people (myself included) were people who were curious because of Reznor's involvement in the album, and who's going to risk $5 on an artist they've never heard of?

    Besides that, I'm sure a lot of people don't really find any tangible reason in paying for what they can easily and legally get for free, whether that's from bystander effect, pure apathy or whatever.

    Ninja Bot on
  • nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Maybe the album just sucks and people downloaded it and didn't feel like paying for it?

    nexuscrawler on
  • lo-rezlo-rez Registered User new member
    edited January 2008
    I paid the $5 because I liked the remixes Saul Williams did on Year Zero Remixed. I can't feel too good about this, however, because my copy of Year Zero Remixed was pirated.

    lo-rez on
  • flamebroiledchickenflamebroiledchicken Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    For a lot of those 154,449 people, I bet this was their introduction to Saul Williams. They downloaded a free album to see if they would like the artist, and if they did, maybe they'll pay for his next release or go see him on tour.

    28,322 * $5 = $141,610
    34,000 * $15 (a fair average) = $510,000, of which the artist only gets 10% so = $51,000

    so Saul Williams made more on this album than on his last album even though more people bought that one.

    flamebroiledchicken on
    y59kydgzuja4.png
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    For a lot of those 154,449 people, I bet this was their introduction to Saul Williams. They downloaded a free album to see if they would like the artist, and if they did, maybe they'll pay for his next release or go see him on tour.

    28,322 * $5 = $141,610
    34,000 * $15 (a fair average) = $510,000, of which the artist only gets 10% so = $51,000

    so Saul Williams made more on this album than on his last album even though more people bought that one.

    Except you forgot point 4. Which completely invalidates your math.

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • flamebroiledchickenflamebroiledchicken Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Yeah but they released it completely independently so they didn't have to give a lot of that money to a record label.

    Without telling us exactly how much they lost on recording/manufacturing fees, the info is useless.

    flamebroiledchicken on
    y59kydgzuja4.png
  • PlutocracyPlutocracy regular
    edited January 2008
    Or maybe Radiohead just have way more fans than Saul Williams?

    .....Wait a sec.

    Who the fuck is Saul Williams anyway?

    Plutocracy on
    They fuck you up, your mum and dad.
    They may not mean to, but they do.
    They fill you with the faults they had
    And add some extra, just for you.
  • AdrienAdrien Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Plutocracy wrote: »
    Or maybe Radiohead just have way more fans than Saul Williams?

    .....Wait a sec.

    Who the fuck is Saul Williams anyway?

    These two products aren't equivalent for quite a few reasons, but this is a big one.

    Adrien on
    tmkm.jpg
  • AdrienAdrien Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    For a lot of those 154,449 people, I bet this was their introduction to Saul Williams. They downloaded a free album to see if they would like the artist, and if they did, maybe they'll pay for his next release or go see him on tour.

    28,322 * $5 = $141,610
    34,000 * $15 (a fair average) = $510,000, of which the artist only gets 10% so = $51,000

    so Saul Williams made more on this album than on his last album even though more people bought that one.

    Except you forgot point 4. Which completely invalidates your math.

    Which could be $100,000 or it could be $20,000.

    So what you're saying is these numbers are meaningless.

    Adrien on
    tmkm.jpg
  • GimGim a tall glass of water Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    $5 for 320 kbps mp3s?

    Aha. Ahahaha.

    At least Radiohead gave me a choice. I paid them $2 for mp3s, and I only did that because they have album credibility. $5 for something without packaging and in a lossy format can go kiss itself.

    Gim on
  • muninnmuninn Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Also, this album had nothing in the promotion department, and only the prospective fanbases of Reznor and Williams knew that there is an album coming out. If the same ratio applies to In Rainbows, its no wonder that they made $Texas, as everyone and their mother love Radiohead, while Reznor has a much smaller (but fanatical) group, and Saul Williams is not widely known at all. i mean 18% of a giga-billion is still a lot of money, ond only bandwidth costs scale with the number of downloads.
    I wonder what is the ratio of NIN fans to Saul fans in the original number, as they tend to play rather different kinds of music, and i could see a lot of Reznor fans (the bigger fan pool of the two) not digging a hip-hop act.

    One way to look at it, is that they got out the album to many more people than through regular channels. But if you read in between the lines in the original article, they didnt make much profit off of it.


    also:
    Gim wrote: »
    $5 for 320 kbps mp3s?

    Aha. Ahahaha.

    At least Radiohead gave me a choice. I paid them $2 for mp3s, and I only did that because they have album credibility. $5 for something without packaging and in a lossy format can go kiss itself.

    I believe you could also choose to get it in FLAC

    muninn on
  • GimGim a tall glass of water Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    muninn wrote: »
    also:
    Gim wrote: »
    $5 for 320 kbps mp3s?

    Aha. Ahahaha.

    At least Radiohead gave me a choice. I paid them $2 for mp3s, and I only did that because they have album credibility. $5 for something without packaging and in a lossy format can go kiss itself.

    I believe you could also choose to get it in FLAC

    Ah, now see, this information was not in the OP. That changes my opinion somewhat. If they sold it at a fair price with some nifty good-res PDF artwork, then they were offering a good downloadable product, assuming they weren't charging an arm and a leg for something that is still ultimately a virtual item.

    Gim on
  • an_altan_alt Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    I paid the $5 without hearing it first, but that's probably because I like Reznor collaborations (he produced it, but it has his prints all over it) and I want to encourage this type of release. Had I actually listened to the free version first, I probably wouldn't have paid the five spot to have it in higher quality.

    Thinking about the numbers themselves, the first album sold 34,000 copies over three plus years and NT sold 28,000 copies in three months or so. Sales are weighted towards the release date, but I'll bet a few thousand copies of the last album were sold in the past two years. I don't know what kind of marketing the previous album had, but this one had none aside from word of mouth. Also, the number of 18% having paid doesn't take into account those who downloaded the free version and went back to pay for it later, so the 18% figure could be significantly lower than the actual number.

    I certainly wouldn't call this experiment a failure, but I wouldn't call it a success either.

    an_alt on
    Pony wrote:
    I think that the internet has been for years on the path to creating what is essentially an electronic Necronomicon: A collection of blasphemous unrealities so perverse that to even glimpse at its contents, if but for a moment, is to irrevocably forfeit a portion of your sanity.
    Xbox - PearlBlueS0ul, Steam
    If you ever need to talk to someone, feel free to message me. Yes, that includes you.
  • RichardTauberRichardTauber Kvlt Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    How long did it take for that last album to sell 34 000 copies and how long has this new album been released? The difference between 192kbs and 320kbps is not gigantic and combine that with the fact that most people heard about this as Trent Reznors pal who made a hiphop album and you've got a lot of people checking out of just curiosity which perhaps explains why they sold 28 000 copies and a far greater number downloaded it.

    (28 000 isn't that much less than 34 000 even so I guess a couple of thousands who bought his last album realized it sucked and stopped caring)

    edit: ah, so they offered it in a better format, well, nevermind that part then.

    RichardTauber on
  • muninnmuninn Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Gim wrote: »
    muninn wrote: »
    also:
    Gim wrote: »
    $5 for 320 kbps mp3s?

    Aha. Ahahaha.

    At least Radiohead gave me a choice. I paid them $2 for mp3s, and I only did that because they have album credibility. $5 for something without packaging and in a lossy format can go kiss itself.

    I believe you could also choose to get it in FLAC

    Ah, now see, this information was not in the OP. That changes my opinion somewhat. If they sold it at a fair price with some nifty good-res PDF artwork, then they were offering a good downloadable product, assuming they weren't charging an arm and a leg for something that is still ultimately a virtual item.

    Ah, yes, it also came with a high rez PDF booklet (printable, I presume).

    I think that the initial reasoning was that most people rip their CDs anyway, so having the end product read for you at one third the price would be a desirable item. From a value standpoint, I thought it was great. FLAC quality, no DRM, PDF booklet and at the price of a McDonalds meal, where all the money goes to an artist I enjoy.

    muninn on
  • SeptusSeptus Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Gim wrote: »
    $5 for 320 kbps mp3s?

    Aha. Ahahaha.

    At least Radiohead gave me a choice. I paid them $2 for mp3s, and I only did that because they have album credibility. $5 for something without packaging and in a lossy format can go kiss itself.

    Well, then I take it you laugh at the iTunes store? This is far better value than you see there.

    The only reason I'd still buy CDs is so I can have DRM free music, and so I have starting material of high quality. This deal would give me the former, and probably the latter as well to my ears.

    Septus on
    PSN: Kurahoshi1
  • GimGim a tall glass of water Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Septus wrote: »
    Well, then I take it you laugh at the iTunes store? This is far better value than you see there.

    You would be correct, to a degree. They offer a hell of a service, but it's not for me. Most people are fine with mp3s/m4as and sort of shrug off audiophiles (boy, do I wish there was a less loaded term than that), and lossy files obviously require less bandwidth than lossless ones, so it's not like they're making bad decisions here. I'd just rather have pricing that reflects the final product, as well as the option to buy something that is as close as possible to the physical album.

    Gim on
  • ElkiElki get busy Moderator, ClubPA Mod Emeritus
    edited January 2008
    I downloaded it for free, and never listened to it.

    Elki on
    smCQ5WE.jpg
  • ZsetrekZsetrek Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Personally, I think this vindicates my earlier observations - reliance on a donation model does not appear to be sustainable in the long run.

    A product distributed under an alternate sale model can still be a poor seller. If I tried to sell Waterworld .mpg files under the same donation system, one would be unwise to say that the model itself was flawed because the tubes weren't jammed by eager Kevin Costner fans.

    Zsetrek on
  • The Green Eyed MonsterThe Green Eyed Monster i blame hip hop Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    For a lot of those 154,449 people, I bet this was their introduction to Saul Williams. They downloaded a free album to see if they would like the artist, and if they did, maybe they'll pay for his next release or go see him on tour.

    28,322 * $5 = $141,610
    34,000 * $15 (a fair average) = $510,000, of which the artist only gets 10% so = $51,000

    so Saul Williams made more on this album than on his last album even though more people bought that one.

    Except you forgot point 4. Which completely invalidates your math.
    Which was already responded to by the other poster, as well as the consideration that many artists pay for their own studio time, anyway.

    The Green Eyed Monster on
  • astrobstrdastrobstrd So full of mercy... Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    We also should wait to see if tour revenue shows an increase. 150,000 or so more people have been exposed to his music than would have been otherwise.

    astrobstrd on
    Selling the Scream Podcast: https://anchor.fm/jeremy-donaldson
  • fjafjanfjafjan Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    I don't see why the percentages matter? I mean even to the most casual observer it should be obvious that with free downloads, wether they are legal or not, people will download ALOT more music. So if you compare a record which they sell in stores and the number of people who download that album, surprise, alot of people are going to download it and not like it alot. I mean hell this goes for virtually everything that is free on the web, how many people who read Penny arcade buy PA merch? or xkcd? maybe 10%?
    I wouldn't deem those failures either.
    So is this some kind of stunning success? No, but then I havn't listened to the record, it might very well be that it's A not spectacularily good and so the reason there is no massive new audience is there "shouldn't" be one, B a niche genre, if you release an avant garde Jazz album online don't expect downloads in the millions, Cs it's the music industry, it's flooded with talent.

    But why would it be a failure? He quite possibly made more money from this record than from his previous.

    fjafjan on
    Yepp, THE Fjafjan (who's THE fjafjan?)
    - "Proving once again the deadliest animal of all ... is the Zoo Keeper" - Philip J Fry
  • devoirdevoir Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    It's like any try before you buy scenario that's taking a small (3 months or so?) breakdown of its lifetime as a product especially for something that's relying on word of mouth. It's going to be very much quality based and whether it connects to the potential buyer.

    As an artist who wasn't signed with a large record label, it's a fair chance that his type of music is fairly niche. Add in no marketing budget and you're firing a shotgun into a large lake and hoping for every fish to turn bellyup so you can pluck them out of the water with ease.

    Also, if Trent was expecting that a whole bunch of people were going to fork out money for something they didn't like just to support the artist, then he was essentially hoping for skewed numbers that would potentially give a false impression to future artists as to whether this is a reasonable means of distribution?

    devoir on
  • The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited January 2008
    I think Reznor kind of stuffed it up by offering the free version at anything over 128kbps. Only music snobs care about anything fancier than 192.

    The Cat on
    tmsig.jpg
  • Fallout2manFallout2man Vault Dweller Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    A while back, I made this thread, which posited that the number of people who just took Radiohead's new album In Rainbows online was not exactly a good sign for the "new music economy". I was told by various posters that I was, well, an idiot.

    After reading this, I'm starting to think that I'm not.

    To summarize, Trent Reznor released Saul Williams' newest album in two formats - a free 192kbps MP3 and a $5 320kbps offering. Today, he released the numbers:
    • 154,449 people downloaded the album.
    • Of those, only 28,322 ponied up the five-spot.
    • In comparison, approximately 34,000 people purchased Williams' 2004 album in stores.
    • The album was completely funded online - the purchases go to pay for the production of the album
    Reznor himself isn't sure what to make of this:
    I'm not sure what I was expecting, but that percentage—primarily from fans—seems disheartening.

    Personally, I think this vindicates my earlier observations - reliance on a donation model does not appear to be sustainable in the long run.

    Just a thought, but who's Saul Williams? I'm no music buff but I know who Trent Reznor is, but Saul Williams? Interesting thought here but if you're just doing your basic tracking or downloads and sales that won't always give you the full story. Context is everything. Imagine little Billy hears about this, but has no idea, like me, who Saul Williams is or what this is all about, but he sees the free download option. Little billy downloads the album to see what it is, likes it, and then buys a copy.

    The stats would record one download AND one sale, but in reality what happened was there really was just one sale, since he eventually purchased the copy (since in a digital medium there is no direct loss only lost sales.) Which means that in actuallity it could be anywhere between the reported 154,449 and 92,127 ACTUAL downloads taking place (a download being an actual lack of sale.) That has to say something, plus since this is a collaberation there's not as close a comparable analog as say, Radiohead would have. Radiohead could compare their sales to their last albums and come up with some more direct comparisons. Unless Saul Williams' last album was also a Trent Reznor collaberation, that'd be much harder here.

    One third thought. I knew about Radiohead's album giveaway, but I never heard about this collaberation here. I think advertising and information is key. Why would someone who doesn't know anything about Saul Williams, or his music, blindly up and buy a copy first without downloading?

    Interesting stuff none the less, but there are more variables at play here then at first glance. It'd be nicer if we could actually measure things in context, but then if we could do that, the RIAA and MPAA would actually have to start reporting real piracy statistics, which are probably a lot smaller than their nicely made up ones.

    Fallout2man on
    On Ignorance:
    Kana wrote:
    If the best you can come up with against someone who's patently ignorant is to yell back at him, "Yeah? Well there's BOOKS, and they say you're WRONG!"

    Then honestly you're not coming out of this looking great either.
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    A big point here people is that the "Who's Saul Williams again?" argument is an argument AGAINST this form of distribution.

    If only bands with huge fan bases can sustain themselves on this delivery method, then the method fails as anything other then a niche, freak occurrence.

    shryke on
  • ProtoProto Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    For a lot of those 154,449 people, I bet this was their introduction to Saul Williams. They downloaded a free album to see if they would like the artist, and if they did, maybe they'll pay for his next release or go see him on tour.

    28,322 * $5 = $141,610
    34,000 * $15 (a fair average) = $510,000, of which the artist only gets 10% so = $51,000

    so Saul Williams made more on this album than on his last album even though more people bought that one.

    Except you forgot point 4. Which completely invalidates your math.

    No it doesn't.

    Yes, they have to pay for studio time, etc. But for an indie guy like Saul that can't be much. Bands just starting out usually make their first CD using money from their own pockets.... and these people aren't rich. Digitial distribution is dirt cheap to do. Bandwidth costs scale as their downloads do. They are still gonna make more money this way AND what is even more important then that, they will still OWN THEIR WORK.

    I think I posted this essay by courtney love last time but here it is again: http://cdbaby.net/courtney
    Very insightful, it goes into how little artist get paid in the traditional system. But she also (about 3/4 down) talks about giving the music away and letting people pay what they think it's worth.
    Music is a service to its consumers, not a product. I live on tips. Giving music away for free is what artists have been doing naturally all their lives.

    Proto on
    and her knees up on the glove compartment
    took out her barrettes and her hair spilled out like rootbeer
  • flamebroiledchickenflamebroiledchicken Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Yeah, I think that 155,000 downloads or $141,610 for someone like Saul Williams, who is pretty niche even as far as independent hip-hop goes, is pretty goddamn spectacular.

    flamebroiledchicken on
    y59kydgzuja4.png
  • ProtoProto Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    shryke wrote: »
    A big point here people is that the "Who's Saul Williams again?" argument is an argument AGAINST this form of distribution.

    If only bands with huge fan bases can sustain themselves on this delivery method, then the method fails as anything other then a niche, freak occurrence.

    I don't see any reason at all why bands with small fan bases couldn't sustain themselves using this method. In fact it's better for them because they are making it easier for someone to start to listen. It's like myspace. I hear about a band in the post-hardcore thread, head over to their myspace page and check them out for free. "Hey, these Crime in Stereo guys are pretty fucking great!". Now if I could get the whole album from there, I'd send them 5-10 bucks. Yeah, not everyone would do that, but that's ok because enough people would. They still come out ahead of the alternative.

    The only groups that would be in trouble with this system would be the larger groups that sell records based on their name and the marketing behind it. A couple hits and ten filler tracks wouldn't work very well in this new system.

    Proto on
    and her knees up on the glove compartment
    took out her barrettes and her hair spilled out like rootbeer
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Proto wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    A big point here people is that the "Who's Saul Williams again?" argument is an argument AGAINST this form of distribution.

    If only bands with huge fan bases can sustain themselves on this delivery method, then the method fails as anything other then a niche, freak occurrence.

    I don't see any reason at all why bands with small fan bases couldn't sustain themselves using this method. In fact it's better for them because they are making it easier for someone to start to listen. It's like myspace. I hear about a band in the post-hardcore thread, head over to their myspace page and check them out for free. "Hey, these Crime in Stereo guys are pretty fucking great!". Now if I could get the whole album from there, I'd send them 5-10 bucks. Yeah, not everyone would do that, but that's ok because enough people would. They still come out ahead of the alternative.

    The only groups that would be in trouble with this system would be the larger groups that sell records based on their name and the marketing behind it. A couple hits and ten filler tracks wouldn't work very well in this new system.

    I don't see "word of (internet) mouth" as a viable sole source of advertising for a band. At least, not one that wants to become a big band.

    shryke on
  • ProtoProto Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    shryke wrote: »
    I don't see "word of (internet) mouth" as a viable sole source of advertising for a band. At least, not one that wants to become a big band.

    Bands that we consider "big" probably won't exist in the new system, because there just wouldn't be the marketing money behind them that you need to get there. I'm talking about the manufactured pop groups here.

    But why couldn't a band get really popular through word of (internet) mouth?

    Proto on
    and her knees up on the glove compartment
    took out her barrettes and her hair spilled out like rootbeer
  • Fallout2manFallout2man Vault Dweller Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    shryke wrote: »
    A big point here people is that the "Who's Saul Williams again?" argument is an argument AGAINST this form of distribution.

    If only bands with huge fan bases can sustain themselves on this delivery method, then the method fails as anything other then a niche, freak occurrence.

    I don't know about their site, but the big thing here people need to look at isn't really the percentage of sales versus the percentage of downloads but more how much they earned. In this case, yeah, maybe 141K might not have been enough for production of a major album but we need to look at this here more critically but all things considered there are a lot of bands that'd have been able to record on a lower budget and would kill for that kind of money. You have to establish and market yourself in any business, and the internet means they have the ability to promote themselves outside of established channels, that says nothing for how effectively they do that or even how to effectively do that. It's like saying PHP is horribly insecure when really it's just the fact that most people make scripts for it and don't think very much about security. I can't speak personally for Saul Williams but whatever the case, I'd say maybe he's not doing such a good job?

    How are people going to get to know the band, its music, etc. without samples, info and such being widespread? Maybe right now he's marginal but maybe if he markets himself well the next one will sell even better? There are so many factors at play here and I think it's a falsehood to blindly take downloads out of context and then compare them against sales as some sort of omen that it's going to fail. Another thing to remember is that downloads aren't supposed to replace everything, just the distribution method, AKA: CDs. Most musicians don't even make money on their CDs outside of the few mega-stars of music, most bands make money on concerts and merchandise.

    We have a new method here, and things are off to a rocky start, a lot of experimentation and trial and error needs to take place before the perfect balance can be found. That said, it's silly to argue that it's all over after two attempts occur.

    Fallout2man on
    On Ignorance:
    Kana wrote:
    If the best you can come up with against someone who's patently ignorant is to yell back at him, "Yeah? Well there's BOOKS, and they say you're WRONG!"

    Then honestly you're not coming out of this looking great either.
  • xiearsxiears It isn't sexual Strictly confectionalRegistered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Proto wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    I don't see "word of (internet) mouth" as a viable sole source of advertising for a band. At least, not one that wants to become a big band.

    Bands that we consider "big" probably won't exist in the new system, because there just wouldn't be the marketing money behind them that you need to get there. I'm talking about the manufactured pop groups here.

    But why couldn't a band get really popular through word of (internet) mouth?

    I take it you mean that the manufactured pop groups wouldn't take part in this system, cause it would be pretty unrealistic to expect the big money making side of the music industry to disappear completely.

    Also, most music buyers don't tend to trawl through forums and messageboards looking for new bands to listen to, and I doubt they'd start any time soon.

    xiears on
    steam_sig.png
  • SamSam Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    shryke wrote: »
    A big point here people is that the "Who's Saul Williams again?" argument is an argument AGAINST this form of distribution.

    If only bands with huge fan bases can sustain themselves on this delivery method, then the method fails as anything other then a niche, freak occurrence.
    This is not a solution for the industry, this is a solution for Radiohead.

    Sam on
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Sam wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    A big point here people is that the "Who's Saul Williams again?" argument is an argument AGAINST this form of distribution.

    If only bands with huge fan bases can sustain themselves on this delivery method, then the method fails as anything other then a niche, freak occurrence.
    This is not a solution for the industry, this is a solution for Radiohead.

    Yeah, that second quote pretty much covers it.

    shryke on
  • VariableVariable Mouth Congress Stroke Me Lady FameRegistered User regular
    edited January 2008
    it fails as a way for bands who don't need advertising dollars to get their music out.

    any band besides those as large as radiohead does, sadly, benefit from the corporations advertising dollars. until that isn't true anymore, they will be there.

    internet in theory makes you not need that dollar, except as was said earlier, not everyone is on message boards or music sites reading/chatting about music all the time.

    Variable on
    BNet-Vari#1998 | Switch-SW 6960 6688 8388 | Steam | Twitch
Sign In or Register to comment.