March 18, 2008
Trent Reznor, the frontman and central member of industrial rock act Nine Inch Nails, is no stranger to controversy.
After the album "Year Zero" came out, he told fans at a concert to "steal it" because of the pricing the record label gave it.
"Year Zero" was a concept album about the government and falling into an evil totalitarian state. Now, Reznor seems to have shifted his focus to the evils of the music industry.
With his contract with Interscope terminated, Reznor has no studio backing anymore. No promotional or publishing deals and no recording studio support. Reznor is out there on his own.
As it happens, he’s thriving.
On March 2, "Ghosts I-IV," the new Nine Inch Nails album, was released online at nin.com without warning.
This came as a surprise, as only vague hints about the album were released on the Web site. Once fans caught on, they flooded the site, causing the nin.com servers to crash.
Obviously, this was a good thing in the long run for Reznor. Nine Inch Nails raked in $1.6 million(compare this to Radiohead, which refuses to reveal how much money was made from the online version of "In Rainbows," an album that eventually went to a studio anyway.)
$1.6 million that won’t go to recording studios or advertising companies.
Can a purchasing model like this really work?
Sure, $1.6 million is a big number, but how many other bands could have pulled this off?
Nine Inch Nails is an established act with a huge fanbase.
The real test will be this: Can an indie artist release an album online and make proportional numbers? Without a record label? Only time can tell where the music industry is going now.
