OK music forum let’s have a discussion. I wanna get some talk going on the subject of NIN and Radiohead’s recent release strategy.
No doubt you’ve heard of them, of course, but to recap:
Radiohead released In Rainbows last year, initially as a download. The catch being that you could pay as much or as little as you wanted, though the mp3 quality was average. Otherwise, you could buy the more expensive box version (with an extra disc and vinyl), or wait for the regular retail release (one disc only). They’ve made remix and filmclip competitions, to get their fans more involved. The album itself has been praised, and the release was a success – for the most part. While it’s gotten them much more attention (even if they’re already pretty big nowdays), there’s been some backlash for the 160kbps issue, and lack of other features in the download.

Nine Inch Nails followed this, sort of. According to Trent Reznor, the spark was when he saw a store selling Year Zero for $35. He’s encouraged fans to steal his music before, apparently since last year or so (maybe a fan can correct me on this). Now this year, the NIN albums Ghosts I-IV and The Slip have had unorthodox releases. Ghosts is available in several different versions, with one of them being a free sample. The Slip is available as a free download, in various versions of quality. There will also be some physical, retail versions. Additionally, both albums are licensed under Creative Commons.

Reznor has commented on Radiohead’s method, too. "At the end of the day if you look at what they did it was very much a bait and switch, get you to pay for a myspace quality stream as a way to promote a very traditional record sale. What they did right? They surprised the world with a new record and it was available digitally first. What they did wrong? By making it such a low quality thing, not even including art work and including things they've even said themselves, hey the proper way to get this record is on a CD and that's coming out in a few months." - http://www.abc.net.au/triplej/musicnews/s2188860.htm
I am inclined to agree with him here, too.

Now, releasing free albums online is nothing particularly new. Some bands are just cool like that. Others will just stick to a few songs, or alternative versions of songs if they want to please their fans. Gnarls Barkley recently released elpuocddoeht, a reverse version of The Odd Couple in one track and with no vocals (get it at http://www.fronttobackbacktofront.com/ ). Mashup artists usually have to release albums or songs for free, since they don’t get clearance. And of course, hip-hop culture has its many mixtapes, which are useful for artists’ hype.
That all said, it’s bands like NIN and Radiohead who’ll have a real impact on the music industry. We’re already looking at a rise in downloads, with iTunes and so forth, but this is all paid for. The alternatives are usually illegal (like the old incarnation of Napster).
So really, we’re looking at these “big name” bands (I think Rh and NIN are big enough to call big, don’t you?). They’ve really pushed free online distribution forward, and changed the way we look at music releases. Tent Reznor has mentioned that there are plans for future free albums (including a Ghosts continuation); Radiohead remain elusive as always.

Now to make this a discussion, I’d like to get opinions and thoughts on this. Some possible things to consider:

• Were the releases handled appropriately?
• What sort of impact will NIN and Radiohead’s releases have on the industry (since they’re so big)?
• Do you know of other bands who’ll be following their methods? Are there any existing releases you really like?
• If you were a small band, would you try an unorthodox release? What if you were in a well-known or well-regarded band?

(Heh, this sounds like an activity sheet in a school textbook - but you don't have to answer any of these things, remember!)

But really, say whatever! It’s an interesting time, since the digital format for music has really become marketable in the past few years. Now it’s the bands themselves who are changing or taking control of it.



---
As a final thing, here’s a clip of Reznor talking about the issue: http://www.abc.net.au/triplej/hack/notes/s2185560.htm

At first i was annoyed when Radiohead did it.

I'm a huge fan of creative commons music and a high percentage of the music i listen too is distributed for free, which made it a bit jaring when all the news articles came in acting like Radiohead were the first band to ever do this. However, i generally applaud the effort.

I think its fair to say that entertaiment media costs too much (especially DVDs and, in turn, especially the DVDs of those big american serials like LOST which are just priced insanely, but i digress). I don't particularily like paying more than a tenner for a CD unless I really like the band and i think this is probably why people are so happy to steal it (myself included). I have a lot more respect for bands willing to distribute free than of bands who'll charge stupid amounts for their music.

I've got In Rainbows and The Slip which are both above average, but not by much which has little to do with the question at hand but i thought was worth a mention.

I've got In Rainbows and The Slip which are both above average, but not by much which has little to do with the question at hand but i thought was worth a mention.

Oh yeah, dudes feel free to comment on the quality of these releases (any of em) since that's pretty important to their success in the end!

This is interesting, since a lot of the smaller bands I listen to are moving in entirely the opposite direction! They're going more for stuff like limited edition vinyl runs, homemade CD-Rs and cassettes, albums that you can only get at their shows, stuff like that... Going for a more personal touch, I guess.
Still, I think that free online songs and albums are definitely a good idea... Small bands get more exposure for their music, and larger bands are able to use stuff like the 'optional payment' schtick to get some money out of people who were probably just going to download it illegally anyway. I think there's still a long way to go before stuff like this becomes the rule instead of the exception, though... Like you said, despite all the claims of how groundbreaking Radiohead's decision was, it basically just amounted to a shitty promo campaign for the 'real' CD version.

Yeah, I actually prefer stuff like that to just downloading and burning an album. I mean, I think online albums can be an excellent promotional tool, and I'm excited in what new possibilities they can bring, but I still kinda like being able to actually hold an album and look at the sleeve and stuff. It just makes me appreciate it a little more, for whatever reason... It's probably just nostalgia and stuff but there's a sense that mp3 albums are just kinda disposable. Plus, you can't hide razorblades and fireworks inside an mp3 album like Big Black did with some of their stuff, so there's that too. I'm still interested to see how the music industry as a whole is going to adapt and change to all this, though.

This is interesting, since a lot of the smaller bands I listen to are moving in entirely the opposite direction! They're going more for stuff like limited edition vinyl runs, homemade CD-Rs and cassettes, albums that you can only get at their shows, stuff like that... Going for a more personal touch, I guess.
Still, I think that free online songs and albums are definitely a good idea... Small bands get more exposure for their music, and larger bands are able to use stuff like the 'optional payment' schtick to get some money out of people who were probably just going to download it illegally anyway.

Yeah, I love all these personal things. I'm no collector or vinyl junkie, but I love getting unusual things all the same. I also just prefer to buy CDs in general--unless it's download-only of course.

Plus, you can't hide razorblades and fireworks inside an mp3 album like Big Black did with some of their stuff, so there's that too.

Haha yeah I love that. Probably couldn't do it now though
Mr. Bungle did make a promotional bubble bath for their first album though!

I don't really care about sound quality, so it is all good to me.
And I used to like having CDs and their boxes, now I can care less.

I thought the slip was pretty great but I guess you already knew that

I'm not exactly sure how I feel about it.  On one hand, I do like having the physical copy and being able to see the artwork and hold the disc in my hands.  On the other hand though, half the bands have artwork worth shit and it isn't even worth my time to look through booklets.  Most of the time these CDs end up sitting on my shelf upstairs after they're ripped to my external hard drive anyway.   

that Opeth album looks cool

also is there some legal loophole where Gnarls Barkley can release their album backwards? If so that's awesome