Commentary on Nine Inch Nails "Ghosts I-IV"

Trent Reznor is a man of action, apparently, and while I realize this has been covered to death by numerous other outlets, I can't help but celebrate the sudden release of a new album, "Ghosts I-IV". I wouldn't be a true Nine Inch Nails fan, otherwise.

Not everything out of my mouth will be sunshine and flowers (or irradiated glow and steel columns for my fellow rivitheads), however. This event brings with it a lot of praise, as well as potential for lack of foresight.

I refer to the idea that other bands should be following suit. There are certain concepts that would be wonderful for other bands to emulate here, but most definitely not all of them. Allow me to list a few..

1. Trent Reznor and Co. were able to produce, record, and engineer this album on their own (I'm assuming they mastered it themselves, too). Your average rock band doesn't know pro-tools from Solitaire, typically - and while the gap between recording engineer and musician is closing, there will always be a gap, in my opinion. The only way I was able to approach music production myself was because I am tech savvy, and had no life as a child. I guess what I'm trying to say is, your favorite rock band probably won't be able to convince the recording engineer, producer, and mastering technician (plus numerous others, including session musicians - that's right, the bands don't always play all the instruments on the record :)) to do the work for free and expect to be paid later, assuming the album sells and/or the band makes any money off touring.
2. The fact that Trent released the first part of the four part album really isn't that impressive. Many artists have been releasing 2-3 tracks from full length albums online for free for some time now - on a 10-12 song album, that evens out to a similar percentage of free material given the fact that the Ghosts I-IV album is 36 tracks in length (part one is 9 tracks).
3. Most of the album just plain isn't going to be approachable to people who aren't fans of Industrial music, or NIN (alternatively, Einsturzende Neubauten fans should enjoy this album). It most certainly isn't pop-friendly, and some of it will sound like pure ordure to the untrained ear (sad - for many of us, a lot of pop-friendly music sounds much like feces). Cue the uncultured masses whine regarding the lack of vocals, too.
4. Nine Inch Nails isn't just a band - it is a brand. It is a label, of sorts. People who have never heard NIN will quite likely have heard of NIN. That means that there are millions of eyeballs on Trent's every move. Artists such as myself can't reasonably expect to make jack squat with the same methods - I should know, I've been releasing my music for free for some time now, and all I seem to gain is bandwidth costs and lots of requests to play live. Sure, I could play live, but it would be hard to attain the green necessary to do so when I'm making no money from the album.

I'll close with a short review of the album, seeing as how I have listened to it a capite ad calcem.

Opening beautifully with piano is the right way to go with this album, building into the more difficult parts. There are numerous surprises throughout, and taking the listener in gently is a more than welcoming idea, given the rather eclectic nature of the album. Once you get past the first two tracks, though, be prepared to feel.. well.. unsure. I wondered to myself a number of times if I would really be reacting the same if this wasn't Trent Reznor & Co. I was listening to. I consider myself a mild fan of avant garde music (I'd have to be to enjoy most of E.N.'s discography, and to have watched the entire documentary without muting it once and a while), but that being said, I sometimes feel like they might have just slapped together a few things and punched in a few loops. I'm giving it a couple more listens to reassure myself, however, that it isn't the case (which should be a requirement for any album of this nature - yeah, it is long, deal with it - this isn't for ADD kids).

Getting past that, this album is a great buy. If we are going purely on minutes of music, $10 (plus shipping, which is actually pretty hefty) for 2 CDs and a digital download of a nearly 2 hour album is worth it. Would I spring for the $300 package having now listened to the album? Only as an investment into music history. People paying $300 to get vinyl of this for listening purposes should reconsider (of course, who would be stupid enough to risk damaging something this valuable?).

-WFL

Cellphones are the new lighters: How music fans became music consumers and killed the artist.

(Photo-manipulation created from images by jatakuck and smitea)

Once upon a time, you used to be able to gaze out into a crowd during a popular ballad and see dozens, if not hundreds, of lighters. That was back when fans were fans - they loved the music and the artist, and were showing their support in a common way.

Now, the artist can rarely expect to see such love; the glow of cellphones and recording devices litter their view during what they might consider the pinnacle of their creative endeavors. The majority of music "fans" can no longer be described as such - they are deal hunters. Exploitative capitalists. Consumers looking for a product on the cheap.

Recently, Trent Reznor (of Nine Inch Nails fame) produced Saul Williams' new album (which is very good, I might add). They opted for an online release, free of any record label, and gave fans the option of paying $5 - or paying nothing - in order to obtain it. Their confidence in music fans was sorely misplaced, it would seem, as only 18.3% of downloaders chose to pay.

I've chatted with a number of people - fans of my own music, friends, and even people involved in a creative profession - and discovered that an overwhelming number of people feel that you shouldn't have to pay for music anymore. Many feel no remorse about downloading the latest and greatest using various illicit means, and never sending the artist a penny for their work.

What causes this apathy? What causes people to care less for the livelihood of the artists? I thought it was hard enough convincing people to stop buying CDs from RIAA-affiliated record labels (due to their oft unethical, or even illegal means of controlling artists and the industry), but now that fans have an out, it seems that few are willing to take it. Major music providers are finally offering DRM-less downloads, which means fans will finally be able to listen to their music when they want to, and how they want to, without obnoxious restrictions.

It gets even worse. If you take a quick gander at YouTube, MySpace, and other video providers, you will find numerous bootlegged live concert videos. Of course, thanks to the slow advance of audio recording tech in cell phones, the quality is so abominable that most people would balk at using such content as a legitimate replacement for purchasing genuine live DVDs, but given time, I'm sure that artists will need to find a new way to earn a living.

At least producing music is getting cheaper, otherwise most musicians wouldn't be able to afford to create the product that consumers want.

The artist is dead. The fan is dead. Long live the industry, and the consumer.

-WFL