Nine Inch Nails are back with another free release; this time, it’s an upcoming album release called "The Slip". And NIN continue to give us the kinds of formats we like, with the income this time coming entirely from physical sales:

the music is available in a variety of formats including high-quality MP3, FLAC or M4A lossless at CD quality and even higher-than-CD quality 24/96 WAVE. your link will include all options - all free. all downloads include a PDF with artwork and credits.

for those of you interested in physical products, fear not. we plan to make a version of this release available on CD and vinyl in july. details coming soon.

The Slip Minisite (NIN)

Okay, 24/96 WAV files seem sort of like overkill, but it’s nice to have these other options.

Updated: It also seems that NIN has used a Creative Commons attribution / non-commercial / share alike license, so you can remix their track for non-commercial purposes, free. (That’s quite a lot more generous, I’m afraid, than Radiohead in their remix contest — the objection from many observers wasn’t just that Radiohead was charging for the stems of “Nude” separately, but that they retained copyright ownership to remix artists’ work.)

One thing no one seemed to mention about the previous NIN release Ghosts was that the content of the music had taken a different and presumably non-commercial direction, meaning the new distribution method was basically a necessity. I enjoyed that direction, and a lot of you evidently did, too.

But judging by the way this is spreading through the Web, I think we’ve learned that there’s a three-step method to making music distribution a success: 1. give people something free, then hope for sales of something else, 2. give them access to the formats they want, 3. be Nine Inch Nails. Now if only #3 were a bit easier.

It seems Warner exec Jim Griffin was unprepared for the rancor of the Interwebs, because he’s backpedaling on a proposal to create a blanket fee for ISPs on music. All of that was just part of a “dynamic conversation,” says Griffin in a statement, and “It would be unfortunate if a creative and fruitful dialogue were sidetracked by a rush to judgment about what was simply my own illustrative example of one of many concepts I have in this space.”

Yes, indeed — it’d be unfortunate if a discussion of a hair-brained scheme with no plan for implementation or investment from any of the stakeholders were derailed by the fact that it was a hair-brained scheme with no plan for implementation or investment from any of the stakeholders.

See some excellent coverage and analysis from CNet News.com’s Greg Sandoval.

And as Sandoval notes, “What happens is that people hear the word “tax” and objective analysis goes out the window. People condemn and vilify. Out comes the torches and pitchforks.” That lack of objectivity is what frustrated me yesterday, even without being a specialist on the legal details

Of course, I disagree with Griffin about what happens to the “dynamic conversation” when people bring out the pitchforks. He says people lose the opportunity to “consider a variety of raw concepts without prejudice.” I say they lose the opportunity to consider just how out of touch with reality his proposal is.

I’ll never fully understand technology bloggers when it comes to music policy. Here’s an obviously stupid idea: Warner Brothers, the label, comes up with a scheme to add a surcharge to ISP bills to allow, supposedly, “legal” use of music file sharing services. Stupid, yes.

Here’s the response from Michael Arrington (Techcrunch): “It’s clearly good for the music labels, who are facing their imminent extinction.” He claims that this is the plan the “labels” (actually one label) don’t want you to know (except that they’re sitting down for long interviews with Conde Nast Portfolio).

Gizmodo’s Matt Buchanan just regurgitates and further oversimplifies Arrington’s argument, and adds a picture of a kitten at gunpoint, concluding: “And as Arrington points out, it would basically freeze innovation in the industry, meaning labels would be able to ream them that much harder. Not to mention, thanks to the fine print, we’d probably no longer own our music. But that’s the whole point.”

Apparently, “imminent extinction” means multi-billion dollar industry. (In fairness, the industry often — inexplicably — argues the same thing. I wish I were part of an “extinct” multi-billion dollar industry.) And apparently you can’t even talk about the issue of how music will be distributed and paid for without focusing on the desire of said industry to destroy your life and the fact that it’s still completely doomed.

And we’ve already seen Arringtonisms like recordings are worth nothing, and musicians should really owe websites cash for promotion (the Web 2.0 Payola plan, evidently).

But what happened to the obviously stupid idea? I agree with these sites that the plan is bad — I just think, ironically, it’s bad for even more reasons than they think. I’m not actually sure anyone read the original source — I think they were too busy being enraged, or looking for appropriate kitty pictures:

Fee for All: Jim Griffin will lead Warner Music’s fight to tame the Web’s lawless music frontier.

Forget about artists. Forget about copyright holders. Screw the musicians. This is ridiculously stupid even for the labels, partly because they’re unlikely to agree on the idea — meaning the idea is extinct on arrival. “Freeze innovation”? I guess — if the labels actually pursue this. But the blogosphere has become so rabidly anti-label, it’s fighting them instead of pointing out the planet-sized holes in the logic we’re being fed:

I apparently had better things to do this weekend than hear the latest self-righteous, all music is free, the Web changes the fabric of reality post about the music business, this time from Michael Arrington of Techcrunch. The title is intended to get a rise out of people. (”These Crazy Musicians Still Think They Should Get Paid For Recorded Music.” Uh … thanks?) But tracking through links, I came upon this quote:

Recorded music is nothing but marketing material to drive awareness of an artist. Websites that bring that music to listeners are doing artists a favor. In fact, they’re doing them a favor that they should (and will) be paid for.

Now, regular readers know CDM is all about new business models for music, all about ditching DRM, not at all about archaic royalty schemes. And certainly I can’t think of a good argument for the prompt for Arrington’s piece, which was that Billy Bragg thinks artists are owed money retroactively by a site to which they’ve already uploaded their own music.

Here’s my answer to that:

Recorded music has value to consumers.

There are two phenomena right now on the Interweb. One: access to self-distribution (for artists and small labels) means artmakers can explore new models for the business that supports their work. Two: an open market for ideas (the blogosphere, namely) means if you can come up with some pithy something or other, you can achieve overnight fame. Of course, the former is considerably tougher than the latter. And don’t make that idea too complicated or nuanced, because you’ll lose the link-happy bloggers impatient for you to help topple the conventional Record Industry.

Latest case in point: Kevin Kelly posits the notion of 1,000 True Fans as the magic number you need to support yourself as an artist:

Trent sez: “Buy all these music formats from meeeeeeeeeee!” Photo: Jenna Foxton.

Artists are known to mouth off a bit about the Future of Music and Digital Distribution and whatnot, but Trent Reznor is putting his money — and not money — where his mouth is.

Nine Inch Nails Menu of Ordering Options for Ghosts I-IV

via Mashable: Practice What You Preach: Nine Inch Nails Gives Away New Album

And they certainly have their bases covered with their new album “Ghosts”:

• Get the first volume of the album free on torrent sites (or via the NIN site)
• Pay US$5 for a download of all 36 tracks (take that, Radiohead!)
• Get a 2 CD box set for US$10 (which also includes immediate full download of the tracks)
• US$75 gets you the 2 CDs, a data DVD with the digital tracks, and a Blu-Ray disc with 96/24 stereo and accompanying slideshow
• US$300 Adds four LPs on vinyl, two prints, and Trent’s John Hancock — limited-run 2500 pieces

I think they should have just kept going. You know, $800 gets you cassette tapes, Pro Tools session files, 8-tracks, surround sound. $50,000 adds an IMAX film (projector not included) and one of those little plastic mini records. $500,000 adds a DIY planetarium show, plus a special Buddha Box edition and a low-power FM radio transmitter so you can self-broadcast the album. $1 million and you get a Jaguar pre-loaded with a specially-signed sound system that plays the album, plus reel-to-reel multitracks. $500 million and Trent comes to your house, brings his studio rig and console, and re-records the album for you in your living room.

Before you assume the downloads are worthless, though, even the torrent file includes PDF “liner notes” and 320 kbps MP3 files. Buy the download and you have an option of either FLAC lossless or Apple Lossless audio — something I know readers here have complained about.

There’s only one problem. The fact that musical superstars are experimenting with various formats amounts to great research into what people may want. But if you’re not a Nine Inch Nails junkie, this is all awfully … well, complicated. For lesser-known artists, it seems like finding just one or two solutions that make most people happy is a better route, and it’s not clear what those are yet.

I’m personally most interested to see how the torrent thing works. Then again, with bandwidth costs plummeting, serving up your own audio — even lossless audio — becomes a viable option for artists and small labels. And so far, the torrent doesn’t seem to be cannibalizing the for-fee options, as NIN’s site says they’re experience high volume of traffic and orders. If enough people spring for the higher-cost options, the free versions may pay for themselves.

Discussions about music distribution, sales, and piracy often return to that time-worn theme of “supporting artists.” Of course, what usually gets left out is what actually supports the artists. Sure, it’s lovely that the industry likes this theme — maybe you imagine an ingenious, talented songwriter lighting candles in her studio — and she’s super cute, too. And you’re stealing money from her. Or worse, you’re actually ripping the livelihood from a toothless guy with his guitar, who sleeps in the mud in rainstorms. (I’m only half joking … fair number of musicians who do actually fit just that description.) But, is the money even getting to them?

Well, artists/writers are increasingly taking matters into their own hands. Why not get that album up on the tracker sites, and be upfront with your listeners about how to have a real relationship that actually gets money directly from listener to audience, without getting hung up on the middleman? The idea’s anything but new, but it is gathering momentum.

This story from Releaselog exaggerates a little with the headline:

The Flashbulb Promotes Piracy

… in fact, the artist in question would still appreciate getting some funding; he (Benn Jordan) just argues that you should pay what you think is appropriate to the artist directly, not Apple, Amazon, or Best Buy. He also happens to be CEO of his label, Alphabasic Records, and wants the same treatment for all of them.

Oh, yeah, and The Flashbulb isn’t “pro-piracy” so much as he is anti-CD (as purchased from big retailers) and anti-iTunes — good reason, seeing as he’s not getting paid.

Short excerpt:

Television itself (well, American TV — BBC is doing just fine) has ground to a halt over online revenues for writers. How are musicians doing? Not so well, say Radiohead. Ars Technica notes that Thom Yorke has been going around pointing out many labels screw artists out of digital download income in contracts. The solution isn’t rocket science: get a better contract, get a different label, or go it alone. Radiohead chose the “go it your own” approach, of course. But whatever benefits they got from, erm, being Radiohead, the one thing you have in common with them is that if you do the same, you can also get 100% or revenue instead of 0%. And you’d have to be pretty unpopular for that to be a bad deal.

So much of the discussion of digital distribution issues is in broad terms, though, that last point could be missed. You have a choice: get screwed, or not.

Artist/producer Morgan King writes us to say a couple of electronic music outlets are evidently no more. For his part, Morgan is working on getting more music available in his own project, Accidental Music — more on that soon. (And some of you may know Morgan from projects like Clubland, or the fact that he won a Swedish Grammy — they’re tasty with lingonberries, believe me.) React Music / Resist Music was a label close to him personally. He writes:

I am sad to report on the demise of Resist Music, who I have personally had dealings with for the last thirteen years!

Resist Music actually started out in 1990 known then as React Music and they came to prominence with the release of the first three volumes of the seminal “Café Del Mar” Compilation, Mrs Wood and the Reactivate series to name a few.

In 2004 React Music was forced into voluntary administration following the closure of the Beechwood Music group which owed React in excess of £1.000.000 and it was at this point they bounced back in the guise of Resist Music the same year!

In November this year (2007) I was waiting for my royalty payment and in the past Resist we’re always prompt at making payments, so it came as a surprise to me when after an enquiry about monies due to me I had no response and when I tried to call the phone had been disconnected.

A few days’ later I emailed an employee who I knew personally and this was the response:

Hi Morgan

Very bad news I’m afraid.  I was made redundant last Friday which is what it says in the letter I received this morning, apparently at that time Resist went into Liquidation.

The Liquidators are David Rubin & Partners, Pearl Assurance House, 319 Ballards Lane, London N12 8LY.

I know that Music Industry sales have really been suffering at the hands of modern technology so I’m afraid it hasn’t come as a surprise.

At the time of writing this I am waiting for the liquidators to get back to me and the Resist Website still seems to be in operation although every other activity of the company has ceased!

In the following week I heard that 3Beat Digital and Amato distribution had also folded: 3beat Digital

I wish James and Melissa all the best in the future and would like to say a personal thanks for the years of hard work they put in to the Music Business.

3Beat Digital is notable in that they, like dancetracksdigital, offered pre-warped Ableton Live-ready tracks; they were more or less the UK-based alternative. (I wrote about the two services for Computer Music a while ago.) This leaves DTD, from what I can tell; 3Beat has only a dance blog where the store had been. Any other distributors MIA, let us know.

The original promise of digital music distribution was supposed to be greater variety, the availability of out-of-print music, communities serving specific interests that had been under-served by mass culture, high-quality audio, and lots of choice. Slowly, I think, that promise is finally being delivered. Readers of a music technology site may not think much about Josquin motets (well, actually, I do, though I don’t know if I’m typical). But we have talked about a gradual shift away from mass-market, proprietary distribution as with the original iTunes Music Store to more choices of stores, DRM-free music that’s mobile across devices, and, most importantly, more choice in music. What’s amazing is how this trend is accelerating.

This week, Deutsche Grammophon, the classical music recording giant that’s owned by Universal Music Group, launched its own online music store. And there are a number of things that make it unique:

dgwebshop.com

• The store is truly international: No, really international. Not the US and Canada international. The store will sell to 42 countries, and will extend to Southeast Asia including China, India, Latin America, South Africa, and Central and Eastern Europe including Russia. Two words: ’bout time.
• There’s real variety: In a genre badly abandoned by an entire industry recently — long before Napster, in fact — DG has put up a serious catalog. And in a big change, instead of publishing a subset of their current catalog, they’ve actually re-released “out-of-print” albums. Lest you think I’m shilling for UMG, they’ve released a couple of my personal faves I only had access to on vinyl, and made contemporary music far more accessible.
• Big player, small market: It’s owned by UMG, so this is no indie label — in fact, on the contrary, it’s encouraging to see a big media company let the niche division move forward instead of focusing on what’s popular in the mass market.

I got a chance to talk to Jonathan Gruber, VP New Media, Classics & Jazz, Universal Music Group International. He’s on-message as far as UMG’s pitch, as you’d expect, but he had some interesting details to share that should please classical fans, in particular. (And I know there are quite a few who read this site — no surprise, as classically-trained composers were among the first to embrace, and to have access to, electronic music technology.)