More on Radiohead

[Bob Olhsson]

http://blog.wired.com/music/2007/10/estimates-radio.html

[EyreSpace]

I ordered the box set, a CD, a DVD, and two vinyl lps. Merry Christmas!

[lambro]

on latest effort

sounded well done on the few tracks I heard

[Calvin]

I purchased and downloaded the album a few weeks ago. I hadn't heard about the self-distribution thing they're doing, but wanted to listen to some Radiohead in preparation for CAPE at the suggestion of my producer. So, I went looking for legal downloads (iTunes, Amazon), and stumbled across their site. Pleasantly surprised and I was happy to plunk down the cash to download the album. I do wish they offered higher bit rate versions, though. 160 kbps is a bit better than iTunes, but not good enough. I'd like to see a model where those of us desiring higher quality can pay a little premium for the privilege.

As far as the album itself is concerned: good, solid, Radiohead. "Faust Arp" and "Reckoner" particularly caught my ear on first listen.

[Pancho Ballard]

There's a great comment on that page at the moment. Here it is;

I really don't think it's fair that Radiohead is just giving it away over the internet... Record companies put in a lot of hard work and effort to make a band successful, and I think it's really dishonest to just cut them out like that.
Perhaps its time the government did something about it, before the record industry starts losing even more revenue and therefore jobs.


They aren't signed to a label so they aren't cutting anybody out of it! :-D

[daleandtheguitar]

I really don't think it's fair that Radiohead is just giving it away over the internet... Record companies put in a lot of hard work and effort to make a band successful, and I think it's really dishonest to just cut them out like that.
Perhaps its time the government did something about it, before the record industry starts losing even more revenue and therefore jobs.




.... stun :icon_eek: ....

[nobby]

At least a fair number of replies on that thread acknowledged that Radiohead couldn't have been that successful if they hadn't been promoted extensively by EMI, made a ton of money for their record company and opted out of renewing their contract.

That have been very shrewd. They may also realize that when one is no longer completely anonymous, as in the case when one sends personal info, most people feel obligated to pay something.

I think they may have missed part of the market by releasing the album only in free or close to it 160kbps MP3s and the $80 vinyl + CD. Maybe a mid priced 320kbps MP3 set could sell to those who know 160kbps MP3s lack fidelity but would be unwilling/ unable to pay for the $80 version.

But I could very well be wrong, and it's kind of hard to second guess people when they are making millions of dollars.

[Johnny]

Semi-related:
www.nin.com
It's a strange time to be an artist in the recording business. It's pretty easy to see what NOT to do these days, but less obvious to know what's right. As I find myself free from the bloated bureaucracy of major labels, finally able to do whatever I want... well, what is that? What is the "right" way to release records, treat your music and your audience with respect and attempt to make a living as well? I have a number of musician friends who are either in a similar situation or feel they soon will be, and it's a real source of anxiety and uncertainty.
I'd like to share my experience releasing Saul Williams' "The Inevitable Rise and Liberation of NiggyTardust" and what I've learned from the process. Perhaps by revealing of all our data - our "dirty laundry" - we can contribute to a better solution.

A quick history: Saul makes a great record that I produce. We can't find the right home at a major label. We decide to release it ourselves, digitally. Saul does not have limitless financial resources so we shop around for a company that can fulfill our needs. We choose Musicane because they are competent and are willing to adapt to what we want. The results are here: niggytardust.com

We offer the entire record free (as in totally free to the visitor - we pay bandwidth costs) as 192 MP3s, or for $5 you can choose higher fidelity versions and feel good about supporting the artist directly. We offer all major CCs and PayPal as payment options.
Here's what I was thinking: Fans are interested in music as soon as it's available (that's a good thing, remember) and usually that's a leak from the label's manufacturing plants. Offering the record digitally as its first appearance in the marketplace eliminates that problem. I thought if you offered the whole record free at reasonable quality - no strings attached - and offered a hassle free way to show support that clearly goes straight to the artists who made it at an unquestionably low price people would "do the right thing". I know, I know...
Well, now I DO know and you will too.

Saul's previous record was released in 2004 and has sold 33,897 copies.

As of 1/2/08,
154,449 people chose to download Saul's new record.
28,322 of those people chose to pay $5 for it, meaning:
18.3% chose to pay.

Of those paying,

3220 chose 192kbps MP3
19,764 chose 320kbps MP3
5338 chose FLAC

Keep in mind not one cent was spent on marketing this record. The only marketing was Saul and myself talking as loudly as we could to anybody that would listen.
If 33,897 people went out and bought Saul's last record 3 years ago (when more people bought CDs) and over 150K - five times as many - sought out this new record, that's great - right?
I have to assume the people knowing about this project must either be primarily Saul or NIN fans, as there was very little media coverage outside our direct influence. If that assumption is correct - that most of the people that chose to download Saul's record came from his or my own fan-base - is it good news that less than one in five feel it was worth $5? I'm not sure what I was expecting but that percentage - primarily from fans - seems disheartening.
Add to that: we spent too much (correction, I spent too much) making the record utilizing an A-list team and studio, Musicane fees, an old publishing deal, sample clearance fees, paying to give the record away (bandwidth costs), and nobody's getting rich off this project.

But...
Saul's music is in more peoples' iPods than ever before and people are interested in him. He'll be touring throughout the year and we will continue to get the word out however we can.

So - if you're an artist looking to utilize this method of distribution, make of these figures what you will and hopefully this info is enlightening.

Best,
TR

[elborgan]

I think they may have missed part of the market by releasing the album only in free or close to it 160kbps MP3s and the $80 vinyl + CD. Maybe a mid priced 320kbps MP3 set could sell to those who know 160kbps MP3s lack fidelity but would be unwilling/ unable to pay for the $80 version.

Unfortunately.... no one knows......(or can hear it/gives a shit) that 160kbps MP3s lack fidelity. They've not missed anything. Maybe a few thousand wolrdwide tops......

[eagan]

Thanks for that, Johnny. Interesting reading and it was cool of Reznor to lay that out there.

One thing that is pretty certain, in my thinking, and that is that in terms of the promotion and publicity side of things, it definitely had to have made a difference, having the NIN website making people aware of this. I didn't even know who Saul Williams was before I noticed something about this on the NIN site a while back.

There was also something kind of obvious in there that really seems overlooked in most of the discussion about any kind of online digital distribution ideas. People tend to think of it as different from CD sales for self released, no label enterprises by being "no cost because there's no disk and package to make and ship". Sure. Put up an album of MP3 (or FLAC if you really get ambitious and care) files for people to download on your $15-$20/month ISP account personal website space and say "OK, come and get it!" and see how long that works.


JLE

[Johnny]

I found it interesting to compare TR's experience with Issa/Jane Siberry. I think the audiences they have cultivated are a big factor in their results.

[eagan]

Yeah, I agree. In both cases they've got a solid base of people watching for what they do and ready to support. Even though Issa/Jane undoubtedly has a much smaller number of fans out there, they're also pretty dedicated.

I would be interested in knowing what kind of numbers are involved in Jane's (er....Issa.... still a little funny about the name change thing) stuff. She has been independent as her own little label for a few years now. Hopefully she can do better now with relatively smaller sales numbers than back in the days she was on Warners. Definitely kind of what Robert Fripp was talking about years ago as "the small, mobile, intelligent unit".


JLE

[shikawkee]

One important thing about Radiohead "giving away" their music:
Based on voluntary donations at their site I believe the group averaged more than $4.00 (US) per album downloaded. Since they keep the money directly themselves this is FAR more than they would have received in royalties, per record, had they still been on a major label. Just food for thought...

[Bob Olhsson]

There is no question that the level of communication afforded by the internet is a windfall for high-profile recording artists because it eliminates two or three entities in the middle of each transaction.

The problem is how does one achieve the exposure to become a high profile artist today? What acts like Radiohead do with the internet is as irrelevant to the up and coming artist as throwing furniture out the windows at the Riot House was back in the 1970s.

[shikawkee]

I think labels have overvalued music and have been overcharging for it for some time. It's "perceived value" anyway. What I mean by this is when I was a kid you could get three LP's for $20. whereas now you get only one recording for that fee. However, music outside the mainstream is much easier to find today than it was when I was a kid. To whit, $5.-10. is what most lay people, who are not in the music biz, would "perceive" to be a proper price. I think given the choice of paying whatever they want most folks who are fans of music would have no problem paying more than $5.00. Others, who maybe music is not so essential in their lives, would pay less. It averages out. And I still believe that those who work hardest win, despite the obstacles, even in the music biz. You just can't expect the old model of others working for you and your music to continue to work. If it means that much to you than you must find a way!

[shikawkee]

And I don't mean to say you have to give your music away but...
by any means necessary get it heard!!!! Get it on people's IPod's, on their playlists, on Sattelite Radio, concerts on Second Life....just get in people's faces. It seems to me like it's a free-for-all right now and may the best man or woman win.

[vocalnick]

I think they may have missed part of the market by releasing the album only in free or close to it 160kbps MP3s and the $80 vinyl + CD. Maybe a mid priced 320kbps MP3 set could sell to those who know 160kbps MP3s lack fidelity but would be unwilling/ unable to pay for the $80 version.

I didn't realise this until I went to the local CD store today, but here in Aus you can pick up a plain CD copy of the album for slightly under a regular new release retail price.

Just checked, it's at Amazon too.

I seem to recall the media only talking about the download and the fancy-pants box set. I wonder, have they rushed out the vanilla CD in order to fill the gap, or was that always part of the plan, and the media just didn't consider it worth mentioning?

[radiationroom]

I think labels have overvalued music and have been overcharging for it for some time.

I feel the same way about food, the price of gasoline and heating oil, my property taxes, my health insurance, the electric bill, the rate the guy who mows my yard charges, etc etc etc. If everything else in soceity is getting more expensive, why should the price of music stay the same much less get cheaper? These arguements that music is too expensive flunk the smell test. Your income has to keep pace with inflation if you are to stay in the game. So voicing support for the devaluation of music is cutting your own throat so to speak.

It's "perceived value" anyway. What I mean by this is when I was a kid you could get three LP's for $20.

And what was the price of gas? Sixty cents a gallon? It was a buck twenty when Clinton left office. Everything else is going up, so if music people expect to be able to eat, the price of entertainment must reflect changes in the cost of living index.

However, music outside the mainstream is much easier to find today than it was when I was a kid.

And most of it is shit. Evil! I know this because as a radio programmer, when I opened my shows up to indie and unsigned work more than 99% of the unsigned material I recieved was pure garbage. People bitch about the so-called "gatekeepers" at the major labels locking the so-called little guy out. I happen to appreciate the gatekeepers because they make my job screening music a whole helluvalot easier because the shit has a harder time getting through the system. Long live the gatekeepers and may God bless them! :Thumbsup:

To whit, $5.-10. is what most lay people, who are not in the music biz, would "perceive" to be a proper price.

And if the market is unwilling to underwrite the costs of making music,

I think given the choice of paying whatever they want most folks who are fans of music would have no problem paying more than $5.00.

Take a good hard look at the recient sales number of the Saul Williams/Trent Reznor project which was written about at http://www.nin.com -

It's a strange time to be an artist in the recording business. It's pretty easy to see what NOT to do these days, but less obvious to know what's right. As I find myself free from the bloated bureaucracy of major labels, finally able to do whatever I want... well, what is that? What is the "right" way to release records, treat your music and your audience with respect and attempt to make a living as well? I have a number of musician friends who are either in a similar situation or feel they soon will be, and it's a real source of anxiety and uncertainty.
I'd like to share my experience releasing Saul Williams' "The Inevitable Rise and Liberation of NiggyTardust" and what I've learned from the process. Perhaps by revealing of all our data - our "dirty laundry" - we can contribute to a better solution.

A quick history: Saul makes a great record that I produce. We can't find the right home at a major label. We decide to release it ourselves, digitally. Saul does not have limitless financial resources so we shop around for a company that can fulfill our needs. We choose Musicane because they are competent and are willing to adapt to what we want. The results are here: niggytardust.com

We offer the entire record free (as in totally free to the visitor - we pay bandwidth costs) as 192 MP3s, or for $5 you can choose higher fidelity versions and feel good about supporting the artist directly. We offer all major CCs and PayPal as payment options.

Here's what I was thinking: Fans are interested in music as soon as it's available (that's a good thing, remember) and usually that's a leak from the label's manufacturing plants. Offering the record digitally as its first appearance in the marketplace eliminates that problem. I thought if you offered the whole record free at reasonable quality - no strings attached - and offered a hassle free way to show support that clearly goes straight to the artists who made it at an unquestionably low price people would "do the right thing". I know, I know...

Well, now I DO know and you will too.

Saul's previous record was released in 2004 and has sold 33,897 copies.

As of 1/2/08, 154,449 people chose to download Saul's new record. 28,322 of those people chose to pay $5 for it, meaning: 18.3% chose to pay.

Of those paying,

3220 chose 192kbps MP3
19,764 chose 320kbps MP3
5338 chose FLAC

Keep in mind not one cent was spent on marketing this record. The only marketing was Saul and myself talking as loudly as we could to anybody that would listen.

If 33,897 people went out and bought Saul's last record 3 years ago (when more people bought CDs) and over 150K - five times as many - sought out this new record, that's great - right?

I have to assume the people knowing about this project must either be primarily Saul or NIN fans, as there was very little media coverage outside our direct influence. If that assumption is correct - that most of the people that chose to download Saul's record came from his or my own fan-base - is it good news that less than one in five feel it was worth $5? I'm not sure what I was expecting but that percentage - primarily from fans - seems disheartening.

Add to that: we spent too much (correction, I spent too much) making the record utilizing an A-list team and studio, Musicane fees, an old publishing deal, sample clearance fees, paying to give the record away (bandwidth costs), and nobody's getting rich off this project.

But... Saul's music is in more peoples' iPods than ever before and people are interested in him. He'll be touring throughout the year and we will continue to get the word out however we can.

So - if you're an artist looking to utilize this method of distribution, make of these figures what you will and hopefully this info is enlightening.

Best, TR

You see that? Less than 20%, or one in five, chose to pay. In any other business, having an 80% shrink/theft/plagerism would force one into bankrupcy in short order. While music businesses can tollerate a somewhat higher gross loss margin, 80% is still way too great of a loss to allow for long-term viablity of one's career.

You are working in a low margin business where every dime you can earn is precious. The loss of any income stream (including the loss of recorded music income) has the potential to translate directly into "DAY JOB" and loss of one's full-time music career. Remember, when one has to get up at 7AM to punch a time clock one is NOT going to be gigging 'til 2AM the night before. Especially if one has a wife and kids at home.

Others, who maybe music is not so essential in their lives, would pay less.

You and the Restaraunt Owners Association. Many years ago, the ROA sued ASCAP, SESAC, and BMI in an attempt to invaladate the requirement for blanket public performance licenses. The ROA's argument was that "music had no value", a mantra that is currently repeated over and over and over and over by FrEe MuSiC DiGiRaTi. An ASCAP lawyer's reponse was "If music has no value, then turn it off!" Needless to say, ASCAP, SESAC, and BMI blew the Restaraunt Owners Association out of court.

Now I am going to repeat the exact same words that ASCAP said, and this time direct them at the Bob Lefsetz/Chris Anderson/Lawrence Lessig crowd.... "IF MUSIC HAS NO VALUE THEN TURN IT OFF!!!

It averages out.

So what! Does it pay the average musician's health insurance and electric bill at the end of the month?

You just can't expect the old model of others working for you and your music to continue to work. If it means that much to you than you must find a way!

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[shikawkee]

Well, you certainly took me to task and if you feel better then groovy. Look, there's no doubt that sales would be better if the music was better and I understand and sympathize with your frustration but I'm not the enemy. At least I'm on the front lines trying to make better music and trying to do something about it. As always, YMMV.

How about some solutions?

[radiationroom]

Well, you certainly took me to task and if you feel better then groovy.

Unfortunately, I still feel every bit as frustrated now as I did prior to taking you to task. Please remember that although my comments to you are pointed, we are still friends.

Look, there's no doubt that sales would be better if the music was better

AMEN!!!!

and I understand and sympathize with your frustration but I'm not the enemy.

The mis-information promoted by DiGiRaTi who's real motives are a nice phatt tech venture IPO payoff instead of creating viable businesses are the real enemy. Remember, Napster's ultimate failure was NOT due to RIAA lawsuits. It was due to Napster's inability to monitize the service into a profitable revenue stream. If Napster was able to make money, they could have settled with the RIAA out of court. I wish that stock analysists would get their heads out of their asses and start demanding that tech sector start-ups turn a profit prior to their IPOs. That would solve ALOT of problems.

How about some solutions?

In the virtual world, DRM for one. But fat chance of that now that all four majors are now selling DRM-free tracks on Amazon to keep Apple from creating an online music monopoly. IMO the labels dropping DRM is signing their own death sentance because once FiOS becomes commonplace people will be able to swap their entire iTunes collection in a matter of minutes. Sales numbers of DRM-free tracks have been disappointing and my bet is that at some point the majors are going to seriously reconsider DRM.

Currently, other than file tracking at the ISP level in combination with DRM and watermarking, I don't know where we are going online until the whole "Net 2.0" stock bubble bursts.

In the brick & mortar world, rebuilding local music would go a long long way. Also, some serious Sherman Act enforcement on the major media companies are in order. Limiting companies to 14 radio stations max would open up lots of opportunity for new and innovative programming, music and otherwise.

And if WalMart, Best Buy, and Circuit City would get out of retailing CDs like their analysits all claim that they are planning to do in 2008, that would also go a long long way in helping Mom & Pop music retail come back. The loss of the local independent music shop is a key problem that needs to be addressed. Only if I'd have the money to open a coffee shop/music shop/clothing shop/lifestyle shop.... Think about this, Starbucks has a music label and sells CDs in their shops. If the CD was dead as many DiGiRaTi claim, would Starbucks give floorspace to music when they could be selling another product type? Lifestyle stores are the future of retail, and what Starbucks is doing makes a proven template on which the music biz could rebuild it's self on.

Got work to do. Spent way too much time online this evening.

73's - Peter Carli - http://www.radiationroom.com

[radiationroom]

NINE INCH NAILED - from Hits Daily Double

http://www.hitsdailydouble.com/news/newsPage.cgi?news06936m01

Reznor’s Online Experiment With Hip-Hop Poet Saul Williams Yields Mixed Results

January 9, 2008

Nine Inch Nails’ Trent Reznor has been outspoken in his criticism of the major label record system. But his online alternative has yielded some mixed results.
Last November, Reznor, inspired by Radiohead’s “pay-what-you-want” cyber-tip jar model, offered fans a free, lower-quality version of hip-hop artist Saul Williams’ The Inevitable Rise and Liberation of Niggy Tardust, an album he produced. He also gave them the choice of paying $5 for higher-fidelity tracks to help support the artist.

Now, the results are in, and they offer even more contradictions.

According to Reznor, 154,449 people downloaded the album for free, with only 28,322 paying five bucks for it. As a comparison, Williams’ previous album, released three years ago on CD, has sold 33,987 copies.

Wrote Reznor: “Is it good news that less than one in five feel it was worth $5? I'm not sure what I was expecting but that percentage—primarily from fans—seems disheartening."

True, the artist now gets to keep more of the revenue, but Reznor, who paid to produce the album, the bandwidth and to set up an online store, writes on his site: "Nobody's getting rich off this project… [Still], Saul's music is in more people's iPods than ever before and people are interested in him.”

Williams is currently on tour.

[Bob Olhsson]

... IMO the labels dropping DRM is signing their own death sentance because once FiOS becomes commonplace people will be able to swap their entire iTunes collection in a matter of minutes. We'll see what happens. I wouldn't write off DRM if selling "DRM-free" files gos down in flames. It can be slapped right back onto new releases.

[radiationroom]

Time to roll my eyes up into my head until they bleed.... :Mad:

http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9847788-7.html

[Johnny]

In my mind, I think if there was an ISP tax of some sort, we can say to the consumer, "All music is now available and able to be downloaded and put in your car and put in your iPod and put up your a-- if you want, and it's $5 on your cable bill or ISP bill."
C'mon, Trent, you're smarter than this.

[radiationroom]

C'mon, Trent, you're smarter than this.

My bet is that he is scared of pissing off his fan base. Everyone who has studied the problem knows the solution is DRM and watermarking, but he's not going to say it in public, just like everyone else (except for your's truly) is not going to say it in public.

[nobby]

I'm not sure we're getting the complete story.

I'm guessing that you either downloaded N.T.'s album in it's entirety or you had no idea what you were getting, i.e. if you paid $5 it was for a completely unknown entity strictly on T.R.'s recommendation. $5 isn't much, but there is a lot of stuff that I wouldn't want to listen to for 1 minute for free.

As opposed to Radiohead, who had a long track record and legions of faithful fans.

A lot of people may not have had a lot of faith that a rap/ spoken word artist would be to their liking without at least a sample.

I think it would be, in the case of an unknown artist, better to go with the cdbaby route of a minute or two sample of some of the songs, then pay to download the full thing in hi fi, or order the CD.

[eagan]

I think the Nobster has put his finger on a large factor.

How many of the people who downloaded without offering up a cent were people who had no clue what they were even grabbing, and were only downloading this on some vague idea that this was something connected with Reznor, they liked NIN, and so, hey, there's this big pipe broadband connection, let's grab this and check it out.

What might be more telling about the big picture in this case would be to see what the statistics would be for this same artist on the next album.


JLE

[Johnny]

Trent released several songs for free as a preview. You had to go past the preview to get to the download page.

[dikledoux]

I'm not so sure that Reznor has a solid grasp on this at ALL. WRT CDs being the "leak" that brings on the piracy and how to get around that problem:

"And the only way I can see to accommodate a physical release if it goes to manufacturing after the thing is in the hands of people."

But since quality won't degrade beyond the initial download, people will simply download and "share" rather than buy the physical product and "share". It actually facilitates the theft.

dik

[shikawkee]

I think the Nobster has put his finger on a large factor.

How many of the people who downloaded without offering up a cent were people who had no clue what they were even grabbing, and were only downloading this on some vague idea that this was something connected with Reznor, they liked NIN, and so, hey, there's this big pipe broadband connection, let's grab this and check it out.

What might be more telling about the big picture in this case would be to see what the statistics would be for this same artist on the next album.


JLE

Exactly. Whether we like it or not the industry is WAAAAY down (more than they, us, are letting on...) and we have to find new ways to get music into people's hands, then ears and hearts. My guess is this guy's album sales would have been down this time anyway just like everyone else and if he made new fans and gets his music heard by a wider audience, more power to him. Otherwise, I haven't heard anything constructive to suggest that we aren't screwed by the current trends and the Silicon Valley Shuffle.

[Johnny]

http://www.nin.com/index.html#2882965178223012038

Didn't call for a tax.

[nobby]

http://www.nin.com/index.html#2882965178223012038

Didn't call for a tax.

TR
I believe I was asked for possible solutions for the recording industry to which I replied something along the lines of "perhaps an additional 5 dollars on your ISP bill that allowed you complete, easy access to all the music in the world would work".

What do you call that?

Then, like a politician who realized a comment he made caused his approval ratings to slip in the polls, he backpedaled.

How are you going to adapt to that?
Reznor: For me, I choose the battles I can fight. In my mind, I think if there was an ISP tax of some sort, we can say to the consumer, "All music is now available and able to be downloaded and put in your car and put in your iPod and put up your a-- if you want, and it's $5 on your cable bill or ISP bill."

http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9847788-7.html


"Of course in reality this would never work because it would require accurate accounting, agreement among thieves, etc. And, who the fuck cares what I think about this, anyway?

Well, that became the attention-grabbing headline and thanks to Google alerts I can see that lazy journalists all through the internet love a good headline to borrow."

And blames the media for his comments, like any other politician. The media certainly can and does distort the truth sometimes by taking a statement out of context, but that doesn't appear to be the case here.

And, who the fuck cares what I think about this, anyway?

I see. Trent, you have no fans? Nobody has ever heard of you?

Giving Trent and Saul the benifit of the doubt:

Saul: "Hey Trent, the publicity from your interview has allowed me to book more and larger venues. That controversial statement about an ISP tax really kicked it into high gear.

How about releasing another statement on your website? You can distance yourself from your remarks while driving more traffic to both our sites. We need to strike while the iron is hot; this level of free publicity doesn't come around often."

TR: "I'm already on it. Check my website an hour from now"

I'm not criticising them for it: I think it's a pretty shrewd strategy.

Then, to try to gain favor of the "revolutionaries" who seek to overthrow the big bad music biz:

"Aside from all that...
Here's a good read a friend sent:
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/omm/story/0,,2241544,00.html
posted by Trent Reznor at 3:47 PM. 328 Comments"

I stopped reading the srticle sfter reading this sentence:

Artists were never the product; the product was discs - 10 cents' worth of vinyl selling for $10 - 10,000 per cent profit - the highest mark-up in all of retail marketing.

Nothing screams ignorance louder than concluding that the cost of vinyl is the sum total of the overhead. And of course, music never had anything to do with it. It was all about pieces of vinyl.

I honestly don't think "simple Simon" is that impossibly stupid. It smacks of willful disinformation to me. And more publicity mining, NTTAWWT.