Trent Reznor: Radiohead's 'In Rainbows' promotion was 'insincere'
Nine Inch Nails' Ghosts I-IV has so far earned $1.6 million.
(Credit: NIN.com)Radiohead's groundbreaking promotion for the album In Rainbows was "insincere" and smacked of a "bait and switch," according to Trent Reznor, leader of the group Nine Inch Nails.
Reznor made the comments during an interview with the Australia Broadcasting Corporation earlier this week.
"I think the way [Radiohead] parlayed it into a marketing gimmick has certainly been shrewd," Reznor said. "But if you look at what they did, it was very much a bait and switch, to get you to pay for a MySpace quality stream as a way to promote a very traditional record sale."
The In Rainbows promotion was distributed online, without backing from a major record company and allowed fans to pay whatever they thought the digital album was worth. Radiohead was widely praised for breaking from the label system.
But Radiohead's manager has also said that the band likely wouldn't try a similar promotion again. The British super group ended the offer and has begun selling the record through traditional sales channels.
"I don't see that as a big revolution [that] they're kind of getting credit for," Reznor told the Australia Broadcasting Corporation on Monday. "There's nothing wrong with that, but I don't see that as a big revolution [that] they're kind of getting credit for...to me that feels insincere. It relies upon the fact that it was quote-unquote 'first,' and it takes the headlines with it."
Reznor has a point. There's no arguing that Radiohead's music giveaway pioneered new territory, but when it comes to actually plowing ahead with a determined search for a new way to distribute music, Radiohead falls short.
The truth is that Reznor, who at times is volatile--and is always outspoken--is doing more for music fans and fellow musicians than anybody.
Earlier this month, Nine Inch Nails began distributing a digital album, Ghosts I-IV a 36-track instrumental, in a range of ways. The offer included free samples, a $5 digital version and premium packages that came with downloads, discs, and varying merchandise depending on the money one was willing to pay. In a little over a week, Reznor told The Chicago Tribune that he generated 781,917 transactions and earned $1.6 million.
Radiohead may have earned more and likely gathered information valuable to other artists who might be considering self-distribution. We don't know because, unlike Reznor, the band isn't sharing sales numbers.
What is so sad about these promotions by Nine Inch Nails and Radiohead is that, other than Reznor, few artists are tinkering with the Internet or looking for an alternative to the traditional business model in the music industry.
We're talking about rock 'n' roll here. It was once rumored to be the domain of rebels and rogues. How come more performers aren't bucking the status quo?
Greg Sandoval covers media and digital entertainment for CNET News. He is a former reporter for The Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times. E-mail Greg, or follow him on Twitter at http://twitter.com/sandoCNET. 
Radiohead better, so they must be cleverer than Trent Reznor." I
don't see how that is a valid or relevant response. Please clarify
if I am in error.
It seems to me as though Radiohead might have been onto
something with their initial pay-what-you-want release. They
surely made greater profit off those individuals who did choose
to pay for the album at that time, as the label was not involved.
I don't see how paying a label for standard distribution would
garner the band "crazy money," when, as you point out so well,
Radiohead isn't a band hurting for popularity at the moment. A
band with a following should have no problem surviving off the
loyalty of their consumers, and not having to pay the middle
man means greater income for the band, I would guess. A
shrewd business plan, to be sure.
Of course this model couldn't possibly work for every musician
or band out there. An artist without the sizable fan-base of
Radiohead would likely suffer from this flexible self-distribution
model. Trent Reznor is, perhaps, a good example here. I'm
sure Radiohead's sales dwarf his own, but I applaud him for
searching for new avenues of distribution that will suit his
particular popularity status.
To think that there is one sure-fire method to bucking the
current record label system is, I believe, folly. Trent Reznor's
criticism of Radiohead for making an extra buck and picking up
some publicity on the way by trying something a bit different
may have been a bit over zealous. I am, however, intrigued to
see how these two entities are attempting to carve their own
unique niches in an industry that seems ready to sink or swim in
a new direction. Make no mistake, it's all about the money--for
everyone involved, but it's nice to see some innovation in music
again... at least on the business side.
Anyway, what wrong with making money on content. Do you really want to live a world where content is free? I can tell that Free Content equals Bad Content. If you want good content, suck it up and pay for it. I am serious.
--No. We're not. This is a major point all the writers are missing. We're talking about experimental music, experimental fans, and experimental methods of distributing. The model is not only being changed, but the music that it is supporting. This isn't mainstream Mmmbop. This is synthesizers and drum machines.
fans or the Internet that Trent Reznor has. I'm not a really big
fan of most of his music, though some I find quite compelling.
I shelled out the $5 to see what it was like, and I really like it.
And I found it a better deal at five bucks than Radiohead's stuff
at free. Ghosts is very high quality. And there are Apple's iTunes
lossless and even bigger alternatives.
Gotta give credit where credit is due. Reznor is really a pioneer
here. Most musicians can't get that because they've been so dependent on the middle man that they don't dare break from
the labels. For one, they're mostly creations of marketing. Not
really self-made musicians.
he felt the need to dump on Radiohead though.....
genuinely beautiful album that he just, creatively, cannot
compete with, and is therefore lashing out at the business side
of it?
1st of all, my girlfriend downloaded "In Rainbows," one of the
most amazing albums since, I don't know, maybe RH's previous
album- and paid what she wanted- $5- can't beat that for some
amazing music. 2nd of all, RH posts a 52-minute movie of the
new album on youtube, viewable for free. Amazing.
Reznor is nit-picking about what they could have done, blah,
blah...Sure he can speak his mind, but his time would be better
spent toning down his melodrama. He's one of the most over-
rated artists of his age. Pretty Hate Machine was good- even
saw him live for that tour- but his phony angst, continuing to
this day, has grown tiresome. Trent, grow up already. How
does your approach offer anything better? Put your energy into
opening up YOUR creative sincerity, ok?
a sub-standard online release before the actual CD release. The
bit rate of the online release of In Rainbows was terrible and
obviously not nearly the equal of the NIN album.
I think TR's online scheme was brilliant and obvious. By offering
a collectible package that was limited and autographed he
showed a lot of artists that their income doesn't have to be
limited to the music royalties but by creating a unique product
that will gain value for the collector. It is a much smarter and
offers his fans much more than just selling through Wal-Mart a
la the Eagles.
Whether you are a NIN fan or not, Reznor should be
commended for his vision AND for having faith in the
intelligence of his fans.
that have to do with anything in this article?
You'll have to correct me if I'm wrong, but it appears to me that
if Trent Reznor is guilty of excessive melodrama then you are as
well, having reacted somewhat irrationally to criticism offered up
about the intentions of a group you like.
You almost make a point--that Trent Reznor might need to
spend more effort focusing on his own actions than those of
others... but it's difficult to tell if that's what you're getting at
between the lines of praise and hate that you level toward the
attitudes (not the distribution methods) of each artist.
Price, whether it be free, cheap, or expensive does not
inherently lend merit to the material or the process by which it
was released. That goes for Radiohead, NIN, or anyone. The
article at hand is unfortunately vague in terms of the context
from which is pulls Trent Reznor's quotes. In any case, very little
can be accomplished by getting angry about it.
I think Trent Reznor's point was simply that if Radiohead wanted
to make their case for an alternative form of distribution as
strong as possible, they should have stuck with it instead of
reverting to standard distribution. Maybe he shouldn't care so
much, but then again, maybe he doesn't. Maybe someone
asked him a question about it during an interview and he was
compelled to answer at that time... I highly doubt he is out on
some crusade to destroy Radiohead's credibility out of jealousy
as you suggest. Talk about melodrama.
Bands will continue to search for new ways to make money to
support themselves. Trent Reznor and Radiohead enjoy the
luxury of large bank accounts and dedicated fan-bases that
allow them to experiment with marketing and distribution. They
gained those fans while conforming to industry supported
"traditional" distribution methods before this subject ever came
up. Put either in the position of an emerging artist, and I
sincerely doubt anyone would be discussing the quality of their
business practices if they gave an album away for free.
- a better quality sample rate
- artwork
oh yeah, and do a search, Reznor said himself that he paid
$5000.00 US dollars for the download. Also, I am a musician
myself and Radiohead and NIN some of the only musicians out
there that inspire me ... so I am not just trying to "defend my
fav. band"- i don't have one. IMHO ... Reznor's comment was
one of constructive criticism.
Radiohead should have offered a higher quality download; but
then they were the first with such a high-profile to do so... in
this world, people learn from example and from experience ...
plain and simple.
From reading your comment, it seems that you didn't dl the free
selection, Ghosts I, try giving it a listen ...
As for the comments on the quality of the "In Rainbows" download, I challenge anyone to tell the difference between a song encoded at 160Kbps (In rainbows download) vs 192Kbps (standard CD quality). Give me a break...if you want superior quality, buy the vinyl.
If it has made 1.6 million so far, people think it is worth buying.
Some of the best NIN songs have been instrumentals and most of these songs are in that category.
I just hope the continuation of Year Zero is better that that disappointing album.
- One huge difference between this and In Raindows
- by The_Decider March 16, 2008 12:30 PM PDT
- No one has made a big deal of this, but I think that the most important aspect of Ghosts is not the distribution model and pricing, but the license.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
-
- I meant the type of CC license was the difference
- by The_Decider March 16, 2008 12:41 PM PDT
- I believe radiohead released their record under a more restrictive license.
- Like this
-
(24 Comments)http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/us/