News Blog

Radiohead made it official: the band won't be giving away music like it did with the album In Rainbows.

"I think it was a one-off response to a particular situation," the band's lead singer Thom Yorke told The Hollywood Reporter. "It was one of those things where we were in the position of everyone asking us what we were going to do. I don't think it would have the same significance now anyway, if we chose to give something away again. It was a moment in time."

Many music fans had hoped that the band's now famous pay-what-you-want promotion was an attempt by the group to discover a new way to sell music. Now it appears Radiohead at best was after publicity.

Radiohead has never revealed the promotion's sales figures but there was speculation that the money wasn't very good. Nine Inch Nails, led by Trent Reznor, followed Radiohead by offering the digital version of the album Ghosts I-IV for free as well as charging for premium versions. Reznor said last month that to that point the album had generated 781,917 transactions and $1.6 million.

Reznor was critical of Radiohead during an interview with The Chicago Tribune.

"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."

It appears now that among marquee artists, no one is doing more to experiment with the Internet as a distribution channel or alternative music-business models than Reznor.

(Credit: Metallica.com)

Lars Ulrich, the combustible drummer of heavy-metal band Metallica and long-time critic of file sharing, has apparently changed some of his views towards the Internet and digital music.

In an interview with Rolling Stone last week, Ulrich said he and his bandmates have only one more album to make under contract to Warner Music Group.

What are their plans for the future?

"We want to be as free (as) players as possible," Ulrich told Rolling Stone during the band's Northern California appearance for Record Store Day. "We've been observing Radiohead and Trent Reznor and in 27 years or however long it takes for the next record, we'll be looking forward to everything in terms of possibilities with the Internet."

No, he's not endorsing peer-to-peer sites, but there's no mistaking what Ulrich meant. The group is considering whether to follow the lead of Radiohead and Reznor, leader of the band Nine Inch Nails. Those acts sent shock waves throughout the music industry over the past six months by distributing albums over the Web without the aid of a record company. They also offered digital versions of the albums for free.

Ulrich is the guy who showed up at the headquarters of file-sharing site Napster in May 2000 clutching the names of more than 300,000 people the band accused of illegally downloading its music. He demanded Napster stop them.

Ulrich and the band became symbols of the music industry's antipiracy efforts. His statements underscore just how much the music industry has begun to accept that digital music (increasingly made available for free) is now an integral part of the business.

Asked by Rolling Stone whether his stance has changed in the past eight years Ulrich responded: "We have FLACs and MP3s for sale. It was never about downloading per se. We have the Vault where you can download shows from twenty years ago for free, full-on and it's been there for years...

"Back in the day there was a much bigger question about on whose terms?" Ulrich continued. "We said, 'Wait a minute, it should be about the artist.' Then all hell broke loose and we sat on the sidelines for a while."

Douglas Merrill, the new president of EMI's digital unit

(Credit: Google)

Douglas Merrill is everything one would expect from a former Google exec.

The new chief of EMI's digital unit is a Googler down to his soul, which means he's extremely bright, a techie, and dead set against suing fans for file sharing.

"I'm passionate about data," Merrill said during a phone interview Wednesday with CNET News.com. "For example, there's a set of data that shows that file sharing is actually good for artists. Not bad for artists. So maybe we shouldn't be stopping it all the time. I don't know...I am generally speaking (against suing fans). Obviously, there is piracy that is quite destructive but again I think the data shows that in some cases file sharing might be okay. What we need to do is understand when is it good, when it is not good...Suing fans doesn't feel like a winning strategy."

I just got off the phone with Merrill, Google's former Chief Information Officer who was named president of music label EMI's digital group Wednesday. He impresses me as a good-natured guy who is going to rock the boat at the label...maybe the entire industry.

This is good news for EMI, the smallest of the four top major labels. The hiring of Merrill, who has no background in music sales, represents an acknowledgment of how important digital distribution and technology is to the future of music.

What are his credentials to run the digital arm of a major record company? He doesn't have much outside of sharing a few song files back in his youth (gasp!) and a deep love of music. He said very early in the interview that he doesn't have all the answers yet on how to cure the music industry's woes. ("I don't know where my desk is," he added.)

But he's all about applying what he learned from Google about the Internet, digital distribution, and innovation. Expect to see experiments with varying business and distribution models from now on at EMI.

"You must do experiments and follow the data," Merrill said. "That's often hard because we all have intuitions. The problem is our intuitions aren't always right and Google has shown that over and over again. We've had internal discussions about 'Oh I believe the site should work this way.' We go into the experiment and we're wrong. And you have to be willing to say 'I thought it was X, I was wrong. It was really Y. That has to be OK. You have to be OK failing because most of the things we try won't work. That's why it's called an experiment. Those things are very deep in my soul."

More specifically, Merrill said he would see whether a Google ad model will work for music. But he's willing to try music subscriptions and even an ISP fee. Certainly, what came across about what strategies Merrill intends to use is that he's not married to any one idea.

"I think there is going to be a lot of different models," Merrill said. "Those are two (subscriptions and ISP fees) you can imagine. I'm not sure that either one of those will be the most dominant model. But they are both interesting. We should try them and see what the data says. Other options will be things like you can imagine supporting music through relevant targeted ads, the Google model. There is a dozen of other things...we should try them all. We should see what the data says and whatever it says, we should follow the data, and follow our users and let them help guide us. We should engage in a broad conversation about art."

He says he's leaving Google to follow one of his passions.

"I'm not running away from Google," Merrill said. "I'm running towards an opportunity to maybe help change the world."

Merrill is due to report to work at the old Capitol Records building in Los Angeles on April 28. That's the place in Hollywood designed to look like stack of albums. It's also the former workplace of Nat King Cole, Frank Sinatra, The Beach Boys and Bonnie Raitt.

Merrill and Guy Hands, CEO of EMI's parent company Terra Firma, were introduced not long ago by a mutual friend. Merrill said Hands began talking to him about moving over "very recently."

What did Eric Schmidt think of the move? The Google CEO told him, "I think it makes perfect sense for you," Merrill quoted Schmidt saying. "Eric has been a huge influence on me personally as well as professionally."

To be sure, Merrill is up against an enormous task. He's moving from one of the biggest success stories on the Web to an industry racked by plummeting revenue, layoffs, and customer dissatisfaction. It's also an industry facing labor issues.

Merrill is a fan of Nine Inch Nails so he is aware that the band's leader is the embodiment of artist dissatisfaction with music labels. Trent Reznor, who walked away from Universal Music Group last year, has helped spearhead experiments with self-distribution, mainly on the Web. Merrill doesn't appear worried about this.

"I think it's important to figure out where can record labels add value," Merrill said. "I don't know the answer. I think Nine Inch Nails' experiments have been really interesting and enlightening. We need to step back and say what is the process of artist creation and helping fans find what artists create.

"Given that as a system we need to understand how record labels fit in there," Merrill continued, "I think the Nine Inch Nails' release of Ghosts experiment was fascinating. What a great problem to have: people are trying different things. If everyone tries the same thing you'll never learn anything new. Instead we're in a situation where people are trying things. How cool is that? Some are going to work. Some aren't going to work. But we need to try them."

The controversy over whether an internet service provider should charge for music is once again coming to a boil.

Pundits, music-industry insiders and members of the public are bashing Warner Music Group exec Jim Griffin after he acknowledged in a interview that he is working on a plan to collect music fees from consumers via their ISP bills.

I haven't seen backlash like this since rocker Trent Reznor told me in an interview two months ago that an ISP tax might be a good idea. It didn't matter to some that Reznor also made a seemingly conflicting statement in the same interview when he said perhaps music should be given away for free.

This kind of off-the-cuff musing was enough to make Reznor a target of widespread criticism. Nobody seemed to care that the leader of the band, Nine Inch Nails, was a digital-music innovator and had long called on the record industry to improve its treatment of fans. 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.

Nearly two weeks after our Q&A appeared, Reznor disavowed his statements about the ISP tax. Griffin now appears to be tip-toeing away from some of his comments.

"We are in the earliest stages of what is a dynamic conversation about licensing opportunities in the global digital marketplace," Griffin said in a statement issued by Warner Music on Friday. "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."

The proposal outlined in the interview Griffin gave Portfolio.com suggested that ISP fees could create a $20 billion pool that would go to artists and copyright holders. Consumers would have the option of paying the fee or submitting themselves to advertising.

"All stakeholders stand to benefit from the kind of process that results from the willingness to consider a variety of raw concepts without prejudice," Griffin said in the e-mail.

But there's plenty of prejudice and Griffin should know this. The reality is music fans are distrustful of record companies. They resent talk about charges being quietly tucked into their monthly bills.

Griffin could have hardly done more to stoke paranoia than to attempt to sell his plan with comments such as this: "Music will feel free," Griffin told the magazine (the italics are mine).

He could be a digital-music genius for all I know. But Warner Music should have been smarter in broaching the subject of ISP fees than to allow Griffin to casually toss out ideas in print if--as he said in his e-mail--this is only one of "many concepts" the label is considering.

Warner Music now has a firestorm on its hands and few are trying to assess the idea dispassionately. That's too bad because the label, like its top three competitors; Universal Music Group, Sony BMG Music Entertainment and the EMI Group have appeared to be headed in the right direction of late. They've been experimenting with models and ideas they flat out rejected not long ago.

The labels have finally embraced open MP3s and struck deals to offer ad-supported music (albeit only in a streaming version) with social networks Imeem and Last.fm.

"There's a lot of experimentation in the marketplace right now and that's ultimately a good thing for the industry and for fans," said Mitch Bainwol, chairman and CEO of the Recording Industry Association of America. "It's important to note that all of the many ideas being floated out there involve voluntary payment systems, and not a government-imposed compulsory license. This would be the marketplace at work."

Bundling subscription fees into ISP bills on a voluntary basis may prove to be a bad idea. At this point, nothing is certain so shouldn't every proposal at least be explored?

We won't know if the public will embrace an all-you-can-eat music service from the ISPs until the music industry presents a formal plan, one that will hopefully be coolly and carefully analyzed.

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?

Trent Reznor

(Credit: Rob Sheridan)

Trent Reznor, the man behind the rock group Nine Inch Nails, continued his foray into self-distribution by releasing a 36-track instrumental album over the Internet.

The album, Ghosts I-IV, went on sale Sunday on NIN.com, the band's Web site, and was available in a varying range of price packages.

Reznor is giving away the first nine songs of the album for free. The entire album in a digital version is available for $5. Nine Inch Nails' fans can order separate disc-sets of the album (with varying bonus materials and merchandise) from $10 to $300.

With the album release, Nine Inch Nails is the latest to offer its own version of the online promotion made famous by British supergroup Radiohead. In October, Radiohead released In Rainbows over the Internet and stirred excitement throughout the music industry by allowing fans to pay whatever price they chose for the music.

Reznor, who split with his record label last year, applauded Radiohead's move. In October, shortly after In Rainbows came out, he helped little-known music artist Saul Williams release an online-only album in a similar way.

In keeping with Reznor's views that performers should embrace BitTorrent and other file-sharing technologies, Nine Inch Nails has uploaded some of its new songs on BitTorrent sites.

"Now that we're no longer constrained by a record label," the band said in a statement, "we've decided to personally upload Ghosts I, the first of the four volumes, to various torrent sites because we believe BitTorrent is a revolutionary digital distribution method."

Rocker Trent Reznor is angry with CNET News.com.

On Monday afternoon, the leader of the band Nine Inch Nails posted a blog at NIN.com and accused me of misquoting him in a question-and-answer interview titled: "Trent Reznor: Why won't people pay $5." He suggests in his post that he did not make statements supporting a music tax on ISPs that appeared in the January 10 article. He also implies that CNET had some kind of hidden agenda when he writes in his post that the story was "written before I was involved."

It's not uncommon for celebrities and politicians to accuse the press of misquoting them. Sometimes it's true. Not here.

Below is the recording of Reznor's comments in question.

Reznor gave me permission to tape the interview and the words in the story are as he said them. I've also included what was said immediately prior and following the comments about the ISP tax so you can hear the context in which he made them.

You'll notice that I didn't quote everything he said; that's common practice. (We spoke for an hour and the final transcription of the interview was more than 4,000 words long. Normally our stories are between 1,000 and 1,200 words. We wanted to give him as much room as possible to speak and made an exception by publishing his interview at more than 1,800 words, already longer than usual.)

Reznor is a fascinating interview. He is frank and always says something controversial. He certainly was in our interview. Click the button below and listen for yourself.

Musicians aren't merchants.

We certainly learned that through Radiohead and Trent Reznor's separate experiments with choose-your-price album promotions.

Trent Reznor of Nine Inch Nails

(Credit: Rob Sheridan)

In October, Reznor, the leader of the band Nine Inch Nails, and Radiohead attempted to promote and distribute albums online without the help of a major record label. Both offered fans the opportunity to obtain the music for free. Both saw some success.

But they also illustrated that the music business is probably better left in the hands of businessmen. Musicians are not the new labels. Artists need someone to provide financial support and business acumen. If we end up ridding the world of labels, we'll only have to re-create them--in some other, probably more nimble form.

Last week, I interviewed Reznor about the online promotion of rapper Saul William's album The Inevitable Rise and Liberation of NiggyTardust. In that interview, Reznor said he was disappointed that only 18 percent of the more than 150,000 people who downloaded the album paid for it. He and Williams offered two options: pay nothing or obtain a higher-quality audio version for $5.

By backing Williams with his money, name, and know-how, Reznor essentially thrust himself into the role of a music label. That is, a music label with a lot to learn. The first lesson was that you don't always back a winner. A music company's fortunes can often rest on its ability to discover superstars. Profits generated by a few marquee acts have always kept the companies going while all the other performers break even or lose money.

EMI said this week that only 5 percent of its acts are profitable. This kind of prospecting requires a huge investment.

Reznor said he didn't get involved with Williams to profit, but acknowledged that he spent too much making the album and said he hasn't yet recouped his money. A record company can afford to make bad bets once in a while, said Chris Castle, a music industry insider who has worked as a vice president for both Sony Music and A&M Records. Musicians, even successful ones like Reznor, probably can't.

... Read more

Saul Williams chuckles when asked about the word "disheartening."

Cover art for Saul Williams' new album

(Credit: Saul Willaims)

The public has the choice of obtaining the digital release for free or pay $5 for a higher quality download. Reznor, the artist behind the band Nine Inch Nails, ignited wide debate about the effectiveness of Radiohead-esque giveaways and the value of music when he revealed last week that 80 percent of those who downloaded the album were unwilling to pay.

Reznor said in an interview with CNET News.com on Thursday that while he was generally pleased with the response, he also expected a larger number of people would dig into their wallets to support good music.

Williams, in contrast, says he's isn't bothered by the numbers. He suggested that Reznor tends to worry too much and jokingly referred to him as the 'king of emo.' Williams said he is taking a longer view. He says it's too early in the album's economic lifespan--or in the search for new music business models--to call the promotion a bust.

In an interview on Wednesday with News.com, Williams revealed he is grateful for the opportunity to promote his music using groundbreaking techniques and also to technology for setting him free from the "constraints of race."

What do you think about what Trent said...and are the numbers accurate?
Williams: They were for that day and the thing is the numbers change every day. But yeah, they're accurate.

The public jumped on Trent's use of the word "disheartening." What do you make of it?
Williams: I'm actually extremely optimistic. The only thing that I really have kept in mind is that, one, we're two months into a project. An album is not like a film, so that like, 'Oh, we did it, two months and it's done, now it's going straight to DVD.' The marketing campaign starts this month with the premiere of our video of Sunday Bloody Sunday on MySpace, MTV and all the major networks.

The marketing campaign that we started begins this month as well. We start touring in March starting with South By Southwest and then move across the country and then on to Europe. So the album has gotten a great deal of writes up and had a huge response from people immediately. But that was all from just releasing the album. That was with, like Trent said, with no marketing, no press, nothing spawned from us. It was all people like yourself saying, 'Can I talk to you about this?' But we hadn't paid a publicist as of yet.

I think it's early in the game. I'm not disappointed at all. I think Trent's disappointment probably stems from being in the music business for over 20 years and remembering a time that was very different, when sales reflected something different, when there was no such thing as downloads. Trent is from another school. Even acts that prospered in the '90s, you look at people like the Fugees or Lauren Hill selling 18 million copies. That sort of thing is unheard of today. But Trent comes from that world. So I think his disappointed stems from being heavily invested in the past. For modern times, for modern numbers we're looking great, especially for being just two months into a project.

Experts have told me that the economic lifespan of an album can last as long as two years.
Williams: Exactly, the lifespan from my last album, from touring, which is really how I made my income and everything, lasted for two years. I didn't start touring with that album with Trent until 2005. It came out in 2004.

Wasn't the online promotion of NiggyTardust an experiment? You guys originally were just testing the waters?

Williams: It was certainly an experiment, but you know, life is an experiment. I know that the life of this album has a lot to do with how it feels and looks and how it comes off on stage. That's what this album was for: to set the stage for me to perform in the way I like to perform and maybe get more people at a show than I normally would.

That was your goal. You mentioned that the last time we talked.
Williams: Exactly, so, it is an experiment and I think it was an experiment going great. Imagine a couple trying to have a baby and two months into it the husband goes to the press and media says: 'My wife can't have children!' (He laughs). You should give it a year. I mean you're trying to have a baby.

Are you guys friends?
Williams: Trent and I? Yeah.

How did you meet?
Williams: We met on the road, when he asked me to tour with him. From there our bonding was immediate. We immediately clicked over dozens of things, which led us...maybe the first day, the first or second day we met, was when he asked me if I wanted to do an album with him.

So he liked your stuff?
Williams: I would be on stage and look to the side of the stage and see him in the corners of the wings dancing and I'd say, 'Oh s**t, he's really listening.' Every night, it never failed.

Do you think some of his disappointment might be because he really wants to see you do well?
Williams: Okay, don't get me wrong. I don't think Trent is as truly disappointed as he sounds in that blog. You got to think of him this way...listen to his music (he laughs). In my opinion, oh, he might not like this, but I think he's the king of emo.

Of course he's going to voice his disappointment. And with all that being said, we've talked a great deal since the blog, and all he said is that, 'I wish we had better numbers.' But really his whole purpose of releasing that statement was that we could avoid some of the pretentiousness of some of the other groups that have perhaps done something similar, like Radiohead keeping numbers to themselves and us wanting to say, 'Hey, look this is an open experiment that all artists should know.' I think that this information is essential for all artists trying to do what we're doing and figuring out whether this is something that will work.

All that really was about was to say, 'Look, yeah it is disappointing because the imagination is amazing.' We could imagine 4 million downloads all paid. Any of that is imaginable. And there is a great deal possible because like I said we're two months into this thing. The video, like oh my God. The amount of work that I just put into this video "Sunday Bloody Sunday" is more than I ever put into a f***ing film. It is so intense.

What did you learn about how the technology helped or hurt you?
Williams: Tech wise, I think people were really pleased with the different bit rates that we offered. You can see for yourself the number of people that chose FLAC and all that. We've heard rave reviews from people about getting what they got for the cheap price that we offered. To me the coolest thing with the downloads is the lyrics. I don't think most people realize that if you do download the album and put it in your iTunes and on your iPod, if you keep clicking that center button of your iPod while the album is playing, you'll eventually see the lyrics. You can read the lyrics for every song while you're listening. Little stuff like that made it really exciting for me.

What would you change about the promotion?
Williams: I don't really see what we've done in past tense yet. It's really been a short time. And I'm really pleased with where we are. As a poet who releases books, I'm really familiar with how things spread by word of mouth.

The lifespan of an album can be as long as two years or more. You look at something like The Beastie Boys' first album, which sells a million copies every year. It's nothing like a movie, so I think we're doing great. We're off to a running start. We still have a physical release date to look forward to. We still have touring to look forward to. We still have marketing and promotion that all starts this year, so I don't regret anything. Not yet.

Do you still believe in these online giveaways? Will you do this again?
Williams: I don't know. I think the online giveaway for our project was perfect. Cause you're dealing with myself, an artist not everyone has heard of and not everyone is going to necessarily try if they have to pay for it. Giving them the opportunity to get it for free from us I think was a really positive and intelligent choice on our part. Would I do it again? I have no idea.

What about the costs that Trent talked about? Tell me about the 'sample clearance fees' you guys had to pay?
Williams: Yeah, I used a major sample from (the rap group) Public Enemy for the song 'Trigger.' A sample can cost you about $10,000 or more.

He also mentions the bandwidth costs. Were those expensive?
Williams: I would say they are not. We had a special deal with Musicane (a company that helps performers distribute music online and oversaw the Web site, credit-card transactions as well as other back-end chores for Williams). They can add up, but the reason we went with Musicane is that they had the best bandwidth costs. In fact, we didn't have to pay for bandwidth. That was our deal.

Trent talked about how happy he is that your music is in more iPods than ever before.
Williams: To me that's the real deal. That's how I see it. And that's what leaves me not feeling disappointed because we all know that artists earn the most from touring. So it doesn't work against me giving it away free to so many listeners. The more people that are into it, the more people that say 'I got to see this live.'

Trent also said you guys couldn't find any traditional record deals that appealed to you.
Williams: Everybody seemed to be interested, but in my opinion nobody seemed to be a visionary. If you look around you, you don't see a lot of black alternative acts out there.

It's not because black alternative acts don't exist. It's because there's this belief in the marketplace that, 'Oh, who are they going to sell to? People in the hood won't like them and so-and-so won't like them' and there's big confusion about who we appeal to.

For an artist like myself, the sort of attention that I'm getting, and who is not sticking to my guns--all puns intended--I think it says a lot.

Can that be a tough sell?
Williams: I had people at Sony take me into the office and tell me, 'But that's not hip-hop. Your album isn't hip-hop.' To me that's what this is really about. By releasing it online and not dealing with the labels, it gave me an opportunity for once as an artist that I didn't have to compromise in the face of people who have limited ideas and conceptions about what it is to be black and make music.

And to me that's the role of technology. Technology is here to free us from the grip of history. That's why I'm thankful to the Internet. That's why I'm thankful to this form of (music) release. Because in many ways it set me free.

I've been in meetings with reps at labels and they walk me to their urban department. Literally I'm like, 'But I'm not making something limited to urban music,' and they're like, 'Yeah, but you're black.'

That's why I'm grateful to technology because it freed me from the constraints of race.