digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Trent Reznor: "No wonder people steal music."

nin.com — The NIN frontman blogs: "As the climate grows more and more desperate for record labels, their answer to their mostly self-inflicted wounds seems to be to screw the consumer over even more. A couple of examples that quickly come to mind..." He then details how his own label insists on screwing fans, and how he hopes to counteract that soon.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • TeKwheat, on 10/11/2007, -5/+75"We are planning a full-length remix collection of substance that will be announced soon."

    Perhaps a showcase of the garageband remix results with a few personal mixes on a cd?
    • mudsown, on 10/11/2007, -9/+28That is an excellent idea. What better way to show what good can come from distributing music freely like that.
    • orientis, on 10/11/2007, -121/+20If I want to listen to some chump remixing NIN I can download any number of ***** remixes from myspace. If I'm going to buy an album I'd like some Richard D James mixes, or perhaps some Vrenna *****. Professional mixes.
    • maexus, on 10/11/2007, -3/+110@orientis

      Wow, with an attitude like that, it's no wonder so much TALENT is unnoticed by record companies or even consumers. I'm sure if an official remix compilation was released from fan works, it would be cream of the crop, the talent you are writing off because it's not "brand".
    • timdorr, on 10/11/2007, -3/+23Yeah, I'm with you maexus. RDJ and Vrenna are good, but I wouldn't say they're the only source of musical talent on earth. If you want to buy the album for the names on it, you're buying right into the kind of marketing ***** that Trent is talking about in this post!
    • orientis, on 10/11/2007, -41/+12"If you want to buy the album for the names on it, you're buying right into the kind of marketing ***** that Trent is talking about in this post!"

      What kind of ***** is that? If I buy an album because of the artists involved, I'm buying into marketing *****? Please.

      My point is that I can already get amateur mixes for free, from the internet. I don't want to buy those tracks. I would, however, buy remixes from artists who I like. Seems pretty ***** simple to me.
    • timdorr, on 10/11/2007, -4/+24No, it's not when you buy music you like; it's when you say won't buy music because it's people you've never heard of. My statements were referring specifically to the comments about the AU release being priced higher because people are willing to pay more for the NIN name, rather than the pop *****. In either case, the RDJ/Vrenna release or a Garageband release, you're still getting the NIN name and the guarantee that the extra content will be stuff favored by Trent. In theory, the quality of either release should be comparable on average (obviously some people will like one more than the other, but, on average, the people who like NIN will like the stuff Trent picks), but you have placed a higher value on the "pro" release vs. the "amateur" release. As a result, the record labels can place a higher price tag on the pro release, even though it's of the same aggregate quality as the amateur. *That* is the marketing ***** I'm talking about. You're free to like RDJ and Vrenna. I like them as well. However, I find it unfair to discount the work of others as lesser when you don't know what it sounds like and if you don't like it. It's like when we were kids and didn't want to try new food because we had the preconceived notion that we wouldn't like it. I say give the broccoli a try for once.
    • gmillerd, on 10/11/2007, -12/+2stfu , download the pro remixes from the website if you want to listen to pro remixes. there are plenty of people pushing their stuff on that there do remixing professionally.
    • orientis, on 10/11/2007, -30/+4You're arguing against a point I never made.
    • timdorr, on 10/11/2007, -4/+9No, I'm not. I'm arguing against your point that quality can only come from "professional" sources. I posit that quality doesn't have to have a "brand name" associated with it. There are many good artists who are not signed, and don't work on their projects full time. Yet, they rival the quality of the big names out there. I've seen it in many cases. You don't have to buy into the big name to get the best quality stuff. That's all I'm trying to say really.
    • orientis, on 10/11/2007, -20/+1And at no point did I say that quality can only come from professional sources. You are arguing a point that nobody is contending.
    • TheTaoOfBill, on 10/11/2007, -0/+13I was strongly against stealing music until the RIAA started pulling it's little stunts. I decided that they just weren't worth giving my money to. So thanks RIAA for convincing me to steal music.
    • pt4117, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4From orientis
      "If I'm going to buy an album I'd like some Richard D James mixes, or perhaps some Vrenna *****. Professional mixes."

      You didn't say that those were the only ones with quality, but you did say that they were the ones you would buy.

    • Shwenk, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6God bless you Trent Reznor
    • Kethinov, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4@tekwheat

      If you want to listen to them, just go here: http://ninremixes.com
    • alllie, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2I bought Year Zero from amazon for $10.
      Which was a great price for a great album.
    • danjal, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1i used to live in australia and i can agree, music costs easly $35, it wasn't till i came to ireland, and downloaded iTunes that i realised, just how much they squeaze out of your wallet
  • tacvbo83, on 10/11/2007, -3/+64Great!!! Can't wait to see them again. Trent is the best!
    • MarrowMan, on 10/11/2007, -7/+2He has the Patience of a God. Thats why iIve enjoyed his music since the early 90's. I bought 2 copies of Year Zero when it was released (had the album previously by download) but thought he deserved the money for a well engineered record. If AUS wants to sell it for $35 let them, you still deserve every penny Trent.
    • chukd, on 10/11/2007, -0/+13NIN doesn't see that money. It gets a very small fraction of that $35, the vast majority of it goes to the record company. Bands make their money by doing live performances. Trent keep up the great work and music, you have a life long fan here.
    • lathicentropy, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1true he gets a fraction of that, but the better an album does, the more Interscope (or whoever) will be willing to continue giving him complete control. one might say that he has only been able to put out a double album, a concept album, and releasing free tracks _because_ he has been successful. so yes, he might get a fifth of a penny from a sale, but the freedom he receives due to the label making money is very rich.
  • Walkboss, on 10/11/2007, -2/+54I wonder how long it will take for this to get on the front page and all the Reznorphobes come out of the woodwork to complain after they click the story as if someone forced them to.
    • Walkboss, on 10/11/2007, -5/+114Sorry for the double post but.... I wish more mainstream artists would open their ***** eyes and speak up against ***** like this. Maybe then could the music industry shake the downward spiral (har) they're on. Or are they too busy being blinded by fame and choked by money?

      I'm very interested to see what Trent is going to do with his freedom after his contract with Interscope is up (one more album).
    • timdorr, on 10/11/2007, -0/+24Bathroom USB flash drive dispensers, apparently :P
    • etnu, on 10/11/2007, -0/+19"Mainstream" artists usually suck at the tit of the corporation, because their fans are mostly teenagers who haven't been exposed to anything better, and stupid adults who just have poor taste. If they spoke up, they'd stop getting promoted. If they stopped getting promoted, they wouldn't be able to make any money from their concerts.

      Reznor can afford to tell his label to go ***** themselves because he has no trouble selling out his shows. He could have given away Year Zero for free and would have still profited millions from all the ticket sales when he toured for it. Have you ever been to a NIN concert? It's always sold out, whether it's a small club tour or a giant arena.
  • digitallysick, on 10/11/2007, -2/+37I think this is great, I like how they have their stuff up to mix with garage band. They could be assholes like other bands, but they are really making a difference.
  • odinfire, on 10/11/2007, -46/+7I wonder how many more NIN cd's will be sold because of Trent's "rebellion" against the labels. Oh... its commercialism at its finest.
    • SlvrEagle23, on 10/11/2007, -1/+37If they sell more records because they illustrated that they hold the fans in the highest regard, then not only is that what they deserve, it will be an even greater incentive for the rest of the industry to shift its practices in favor of the consumer.
    • alphgeek, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Funny you say that...I copy a lot of music but I bought this album in part because I respect Reznor's attempt to address the issues with music distribution. But mostly because I like his music.

      BTW the album only cost $20 AUD at JB Hi Fi so go there if you want a reasonable price.

      Odinfire, question his motives if you will but would you rather he just laid back, spouted the record company line and let the dollars roll in while screwing consumers like many other musicians? At least he seems to be having a go.
  • solarsavior, on 10/11/2007, -2/+89The bottom line is that record labels are scared to death that they will soon be without a job.

    A relatively free distribution vehicle is already there: the Internet.

    Soon, groups such as NIN will sell directly to the Internet and completely circumvent record labels. Do we really need CDs?

    If DVDs with complete audio, video, and special features can be sold for $10 and still make money, why do CDs cost more when the content is obviously less?

    Charge a reasonable price and most people won't steal.
    • Stonedonkey, on 10/11/2007, -1/+34"If DVDs with complete audio, video, and special features can be sold for $10 and still make money, why do CDs cost more when the content is obviously less?"

      A few reasons. One, DVDs are typically the second-level revenue stream, after the film has had its theater run. They can price them lower than expected simply because the money has already been made (hopefully). With music, it's CDs, then attempting to support this first-level revenue stream with a tour. That means a lot of up-front costs. If you're lucky and have sufficiently aggressive people behind you, one of your songs ends up on a soundstrack.

      Oh, and CDs were also price fixed until a class-action slap on the wrist a few years ago. There was, basically, no price competition among the five major labels (now four). Always keep in mind that 70-80% of the music you listen to is owned -- legally OWNED -- by Warner, Sony BMG, EMI, or Universal. Not the artists, not the imprints masquerading as labels, but four corporations, worldwide. Everything currently in print.

      Interscope, the imprint Reznor operates with, is but one of Universal's many faces.
    • Genthree, on 10/11/2007, -1/+11yeah, but most artists make an assload more with tours than they ever do with record sales, so shouldn't CDs also be considered a second-level revenue source?
    • trevorsm, on 10/11/2007, -0/+9@genthree

      Yeah, tours are how the artists make money; since the artists only get a small cut of the CD sales, the CD sales are secondary to them. On the other hand, labels don't get money from tours, but they do get money from CD sales (the big cut of it). Since the labels (and not the artists) are the ones selling the CDs, it's their primary income source.
    • LewisBreaker, on 10/11/2007, -3/+8slow down there, I like CD's i like having a product to hold and flick through whilst im listening to it on my amazing stereo. MP3's are ok but they cant beat the real uncompressed format that is a CD.
    • popfrogs, on 10/11/2007, -9/+2@Lewisbreaker:

      "MP3's are ok but they cant beat the real uncompressed format that is a CD."

      CD's are compressed too. Let me fix that statement for you.

      "CD's are ok but they can't beat the real uncompressed format that is vinyl."
    • TritonX, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Let it get straight, there is a difference between the audio processing called compression, which doesn't not degrade the spectrum of the signal and file compression(mp3) which is very bad for the integrity of the audio spectrum.
    • TritonX, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2@popfrog
      Learn about a subject before saying anything.
      CD 44Khz/16bit is the best quality for now available to consumer, 96Khz/24bit DVDaudio are just around the corner, which is the best you can ever hope to hear, higher than that is unoticeable for any human being.
      Vinyl sucks, period. They need special Eq for playback, where the hell did you got your facts ?
    • Smuikas, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5"A few reasons. One, DVDs are typically the second-level revenue stream, after the film has had its theater run. They can price them lower than expected simply because the money has already been made (hopefully). With music, it's CDs, then attempting to support this first-level revenue stream with a tour. That means a lot of up-front costs. If you're lucky and have sufficiently aggressive people behind you, one of your songs ends up on a soundstrack."

      This is the major problem with the music industry as it stands. With films, as you noted, they get their production costs back (typically) with theater showings. Why doesn't it work the same way with music? Why don't the live showings make up for the production costs, with CDs/online track sales being on the same level as other swag (like tshirts, stickers, patches, hats, whatevs) ... I've thought for the past few years that the music industry needs to focus more on live shows than on CD sales.

      With the internet giving the path of near-zero-cost distribution, piracy is a matter of fact. Why not let the piracy/free trade of music be advertisements for shows? In some ways, this would insulate local areas - most bands do not / cannot enjoy long laborious tours. You would end up with local (and perhaps national) publicist companies that book gigs and advertise gigs. Most recordings would likely be made from gigs. It would turn modern music back into a performing art, instead of a recording art. The move from records to performance would have two side effects: the median age of music investors (people who go to shows) is higher than the median age of music purchasers (those who buy CDs). This of course is due to constraints such as parents, school, etc.. but by raising the median age of your target market, you also raise the median liquid funds available per customer - potentially increasing revenue quite a bit.

      We would have a golden age of musical performance: you would likely be able to find an enjoyable show any weekend of the year, and with freely available samples of their performances you would better be able to narrow your tastes (or broaden your tastes, as the case may be). The only area this is even remotely like is your small local venues, except this would be a much larger scale - with better, more proficient artists. It would be more like the early Jazz era, the classical era.. Imagine if going to your local bar every weekend included a live show of a local band, instead of stale tunes blaring from a soulless electronic internet-connected jukebox? It would be a perfect melding of old tradition (the bar performer, going all the way back to traveling minstrels) with new technology.
  • halohunter, on 10/11/2007, -3/+46We always get screwed in Australia. Late releases, rip-off prices; we have it all.

    However, no one has been sued for copyright.

    Now you know why the Australian mainstream is using limewire.
    • Bardak, on 10/11/2007, -3/+98wow people still use limewire
    • Ridikul, on 10/11/2007, -0/+31You have to when your ISP doesn't allow torrents.
    • stephenwq, on 10/11/2007, -2/+27Actually, limewire is really popular for the average person (read: not nerdy) who wants to grab some music. They probably don't know of better alternatives.
    • Walkboss, on 10/11/2007, -6/+4@Ridikul
      Try changing the ports your BT client uses. Or, downloading a .txt version of the .torrent file (some sites feature this). I'm not sure how else ISPs can block bittorrent use.
    • trex, on 10/11/2007, -3/+3I'm a techie and I use limewire and soulseek. I obviously use bittorrent, but not when I want to download a single song (I know you can choose to only download a specific file, but still). Are there any good alternatives to Limewire?
    • kidd3ckz, on 10/11/2007, -3/+2http://g2p.org
    • DigitalJester, on 10/11/2007, -0/+7Frostwire > Limewire.
    • fboliv, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2@walkboss: it is possible to see the header of a packet and recognize it as bittorrent, no matter what port you use (thats how ISPs block or shape - reduce the speeds for - that kind of traffic). That's why there's a few clients (Azureus being the most widely used) that are now encrypting communications in order to bypass this detection.
  • joshGwyther, on 10/11/2007, -12/+57I wonder if Trent reads digg? He's a pretty tech savy guy so he might. Trent if your reading this, your the man.
  • rhett, on 10/11/2007, -18/+11copyright infringement isn't stealing
    • Walkboss, on 10/11/2007, -17/+8You have to steal to infringe. That's like saying burglary isn't trespassing.
    • Snarfy, on 10/11/2007, -3/+35Counterfeiting money isn't stealing either that's why the call it counterfeiting and that's whay piracy is piracy. If I counterfeit a billion billion dollars, it makes the dollars in your pocket worth less than before i counterfeited. I didn't steal the money from you, I just made your money worthless.

      No it's not stealing but it's not exactly harmless either. ***** semantic war.
    • bIuebonics, on 10/11/2007, -2/+19@walkboss

      copying something is not stealing it. it's copying it. that's why it's called copyright infringement, otherwise it'd be called stealing. only the riaa and mpaa will tell you otherwise...
    • Walkboss, on 10/11/2007, -7/+7@bluebonics
      Granted, it isn't "stealing", but what would you call it if your term paper you've been working on for weeks was copied? Or your keys? Or your hard drive? I don't support any of the tactics used by the RIAA or the MPAA or their raping of the artists (not so much the MPAA) but I can't comprehend how doing such a thing isn't, at least technically, stealing.
    • merreborn, on 10/11/2007, -1/+12By definition, theft deprives the person being stolen from of property. Copyright violation does not deprive anyone of their property. An exact duplicate of the work is made, and the original owner's copy is unaltered.
      .
      Theft and copyright infringement are different acts. The former is criminal, while the later is a civil offense -- they're so different, they're handled under totally different classes of laws.
    • fkr3, on 10/11/2007, -5/+5You're taking something that you're legally required to purchase before you take, and you're not paying.

      The product might be digital and you might not be physically stealing the original, but you're still taking it without paying and no analogy or attempted justification changes that simple fact.
    • Corrosionx, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1If stealing is wrong, then why can the government do it?
  • consonance, on 10/11/2007, -3/+10It would be great if Nine Inch Nails submitted their tracks to ccMixter for remixing. ccMixter is THE place to go for remix-friendly sampling, with not only their own library of samples but links to repositories such as The Freesound Project and Jamglue. They've had several contests involving artists such as the Beastie Boys and Fort Minor, so a NIN contest would really propel ccMixter into the limelight, reward the fans, and build NIN's fanbase.
  • RationalXubrnce, on 10/11/2007, -1/+29 The record industry has engaged for years in organized theft of artists. The whole system is set up so that the artist retires broke and the executives reap the lion share of everything generated.
    Read Courtney Love's excellent article about how this works.

    http://archive.salon.com/tech/feature/2000/06/14/love/print.html
    • Nitesmoke420, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2Courtney Love actually has an opinion on something other than her next bump of ice?
    • DashMcWayne, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2Apparently, she can do something other than piss off thousands of Nirvana fans.
  • stevealford, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6Recorded music was a promotional tool to bring people out to see live shows when recording first began. I'm glad to see things coming full circle. I hope that Trent will be the first artist to give "free unlimited downloads" as part of the price of admission to a live show. That way, recorded music will be a promotional tool again, live shows will be how artists make their living (instead of the ***** concerts we've come to know from most bands), and the record labels/RIAA will be a thing of the past.
    • mokru, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1It's nothing but fantasy though. The fact is that it's easier for artists to use the current system than to do otherwise. The artist reaps publicity from albums even if they make little else from CD sales. The studio protects its interests by fostering the relationship with the band. If an artist self-promotes, how successful will the tour be?
  • cboyd1895, on 10/11/2007, -3/+1@bardak

    savages
  • jollyroger814, on 10/11/2007, -0/+8i cannot complain, got year zero for 9.99 at a cd exchange in pittsburgh brand new. retail everywhere else was around 15 bucks.
  • dustinmacdonald, on 10/11/2007, -0/+14When I went to purchase Year Zero the day it came out at HMV in Canada, it was $9.99. I'm not sure if this was a first day special or something, but it definitely felt like "right price" for an album. I recommended it to friends who were not necessarily NIN fans, and they purchased right away simply because of the price.

    iTunes got this album price point right when it launched. Maybe distributors will pay attention.
  • ericmallen, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Yep-look to Robert Fripp for this as well-DGM is using the internet as the distribution model.
    Thievery is the big record companies' business model. Fripp has been getting screwed for years. He had to go to the British High Court, fer chrissake!
    Internet distribution isn't that tough-the technology is available and cheap. You can record professional quality in your basement, pop it on a server behind a credit card or paypal interface, plus free bits. Total cost, maybe 50 grand...maybe. You can certainly do it for much less if you're motivated and have the time.
    Another person hot on this topic is Steve Albini.
    On the other topic, David Byrne and Eno have released 2 tracks from "My Life in the Bush of Ghosts" as multitracks...It's hella cool, but I don't have time to actually do the remixing...
    • weareallzombies, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Yep, I'm a huge King Crimson fan and have been amazed at Fripp's dedication to getting literally dozens of his live performances out there on dgmlive.com, often in crystal clear quality. Since they improvise so much, pretty much every set you get to hear something new in old favorites. And at $9.99 for usually about 90 minutes of music, you can't go wrong. I'd really like to see more bands try this method of distribution for their live performances... I remember a few years ago Phish and Pearl Jam both did CD releases of a lot of their live shows, but it's really nice to be able to preview, click, purchase, and download via BitTorrent in a matter of minutes.
  • Narrator, on 10/11/2007, -0/+7""It's because we know you have a real core audience that will pay whatever it costs when you put something out - you know, true fans. It's the pop stuff we have to discount to get people to buy."

    The whole world is turning into three-card-monty. The record companies are failing because they expect their customers to play the little pricing/licensing three-card-monty games that they've created. DRM is also just a big boring game with lots or rules that the record companies make you play in order to suck money out of you as you get annoyed with playing their game and just give in and pay whatever they want you to. Other examples of "fourty-card-monte-games" are what the credit card companies do with moving due dates and terms around. Mortgage companies do something similar with offering ridiculously low rates and then screwing people over a few months later when they jack the rates up. The trend lately by companies has been to construct big rube goldberg like mazes of terms and features that is just put their to confuse people and make them spend more money. Customers start to realize that something is wrong and that the game is a huge cost in itself far above the actual cost of the product.
    • mokru, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0This is totally on for cell phone bills. When was the last time you signed up for new cell phone service and had a reasonably good guess at the real bill amount coming in the mail? Government and companies love charging "fees," "surcharges," and other such crap, and the wording of it all makes you wonder, as you stare at the bill, "how can we ever get government to stop cloaking taxes so we can know what the cell phone company is charging us?"

      The only real solution is to stop buying crap that has brutal terms built into a Hobson's-choice contract.
  • Dorepoll, on 10/11/2007, -0/+7Man, I would hate to have bought Year Zero at that price. I nabbed mine for $27AU, and a few days before the actual release.

    Good for Reznor for seeing both sides of the argument. Great for Reznor to join ours.
  • darkphate, on 10/11/2007, -0/+9its good to see someone in his position saying things like that
  • vampiregabe, on 10/11/2007, -10/+22While I admit upfront I am a Republican, I have been a loyal NIN listener since my sister introduced them to me in 1990. I do not agree (and never have) with Trent's political beliefs, but I think the music he makes is extremely sexy and far ahead of the average musician. "The Good Soldier" has an amazing bass line, "Capital G" just blows my mind musically not lyrically, same with "My Violent Heart" which is simply amazing.

    I applaud NIN's success and wish them the best. I also have purchased every Halo, and will continue to do so (official releases only). I do this because I enjoy the musical talent he has. I feel his musical compositions have been 5 years (on average) before their time.

    I just do not agree with Trent's opinions. He exercises his opinions, and so do I.
    • yutt, on 10/11/2007, -8/+3I have an almost overwhelming urge to digg you down... but instead I'll digg you up.
    • Nitesmoke420, on 10/11/2007, -5/+9Wow, for you to admit being a Republican on Digg takes big ones. Thats like wearing a KKK suit in Harlem, or fur to a PETA meet.
    • Pikachelsea, on 10/11/2007, -2/+8Geez, what kind of environment is digg where you have to "admit" that you're a Republican? You can have whatever political beliefs you want, and if people give you crap about it because OMG IT'S DIFFERENT THAN THEIRS, maybe they need to try being a little more objective and realize that their political affiliation is not the only one in the world.
  • Araxen, on 10/11/2007, -0/+12I still say Trent will put out 1 more physical CD to satisfy his Interscope deal and anything else he puts out will be via Digital Download without the labels involvement.
  • aznedy, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5Trent is still one of the most down to earth people in the music industry. I'd buy Year Zero, if I could buy it directly from him.
  • CaptWalker, on 10/11/2007, -3/+3Thank You Trent! Set up your own Label! I'd pay 30$ for a CD if i knew that the artist saw even 10% of the profit for their work.
    • fjryan, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0No one on a major label sees any more than 2.9%. Out of that 2.9% the artist is responsible to pay for studio time, video production, legal costs and some times even the CD pressing and all promotion. You may be surprised but most artists are in debt to their label. The label fronts the cash and the artist is contractually required to pay it back. With the fact that the label and the RIAA hold on to royalties up to three years most new artist don't have a chance unless they tour hard. The only people who really have a chance are people on smaller labels like Steven Mark or Dynaflo. The smaller labels pay better royalties and take care of their artists like the industry use to.
  • gossipninja, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4Well i really hope he comes through on this, and he should be able to, he has the pull to make the label listen to him. I just hope this is not some ploy to garner attention and admiration from the music downloading populous( i would venture to say now make up the majority of music consumers). If trent was serious about this, he would release a massive box set with all the rare/hard to find mixes. one box, all the halos.

    That is always a problems ive run into with industrial music. (most of these do NOT apply to NIN, but to other bands.)
    a) It isnt stocked in stores or even at many online retailers, so when you do find it its 35 bucks imported. and then you gotta pay an extra 15 shipping from *****.
    b) since each band has a billion side projects, and they all remix eachother, you have to hunt down all kinds of insane releases(im looking at you haujobb/cleen/clearvision/destroid/cleaner/hmb/architect/myer/aktivist/dots and dashes/newt/hexer)yes those are most of the projects of one man.
    c) the releases are often limited to 1000 or 1500, so after the initial lot is sold, thats it, the album is basically out of print.
    • weareallzombies, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3I swear, that's one of the benefits of living a half-hour from Philly... being able to drive into the city and go shopping at Digital Ferret. Probably the best store in the US for industrial, gothic, darkwave, and glitch. And their prices on imports aren't totally horrid, either... I think the last In Strict Confidence limited edition I picked up for $19.

      So... um... moral of the story? Move to Philly. :)
  • oldJimSteele, on 10/11/2007, -20/+3as much as i love digg, why do its users insist on sucking on trent reznor's dick all the time?
    • weareallzombies, on 10/11/2007, -2/+20The angsty peppermint flavor makes a nice change of pace from when we're tired of sucking off Kevin Rose, Steve Jobs, Shigeru Miyamoto, and Ron Paul.
  • Shaman760, on 10/11/2007, -7/+4The RIAA and it's underlings are pissed because artists have found ways to do it themselves and create distribution channels to get their music into the hands of the masses.

    While I commend Trent Reznor for speaking out against the industry, he still eats from it's hand and profits from the all-out raping of the music buying public.

    So I don't know whether to cheer the guy, feel sorry for him, or tell him "***** you".
    • argotechnica, on 10/11/2007, -7/+3Indeed. My first thought was, "Good job, Trent. Too bad you're still rich. It discredits you."
    • zouhair, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4@argotechnica
      I buy music and download more (i can't buy more than i buy now anyway, but i can listen to more), and what bother me is not that artists getting rich but that some act like perfect jerks. Like did U2 and Cartney with their ***** ad to make copyrigth almost eternal (and i'm a U2 fan).
      So Reznor being rich doesn't discredit him in any way, but Bill Gates yeah.
    • Nitesmoke420, on 10/11/2007, -4/+2Exactly, it's like he's saying, "This company I work for is screwing you, so buy my cd's from them." If he feels so strongly about how bad the record label is, then he can always make a real stand, like, get this, not renew his contract. He's good but no music is worth buying anymore. Unless, you're one of those people that say, "well this album is really good, so the artist deserves my money." Sorry, but as long as I make 10 bucks an hour and the artist's house is on "Cribs," I'll just D/L it for free.
    • FishPoisonCon, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7"Good job, Trent. Too bad you're still rich. It discredits you."

      i'm sorry, but how would being poor make him any more credible? is it because that would make him more like you (minus all the music and talent, of course)? can *anyone* seriously defend this statement?
    • uncledeercamp, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2Of course they can't. They're just bummed because their band never got a record contract and now they're 35 years old and realize that they aren't going to rule the world.
    • alllie, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2I don't mind people who bring happiness and joy to the world being rich.
      Trent can be rich. Now if only people like Cheney weren't.
    • termi, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2hey i dont know about you, but i try to find the poorest looking hobo in a park and listen to all his anecdotes and political biases, i mean he HAS to be the most credible person BECAUSE HE IS SO POOR
  • hifiDesign, on 10/11/2007, -3/+27My question is: Why has integrity become and undervalued commodity?

    I was sitting in a theater tonight getting ready to watch 28 Weeks Later, and these two ghetto assholes come in screaming and stomping and swearing. Eventually one gets to optically perusing the female audience goers behind him and another guy calls him out for looking up his girlfriend's skirt. So the thug hops up and berates him face to face. "What the *****. Issatcho girl? Issatcho dawterrr?" After he sits down, he goes, "*****. Better be *****' Neo to step to me like that. Must've thought he was 'da One'!" So the movie starts and of course this motormouth is screaming at the screen as the zombies tear people limb from limb. Total attention seeker.

    So I bought into his BS and snapped. Told him to shut the ***** up, and stopped short of throwing my overpriced drink on him (didn't want to get shot after all). Then my wife runs out, embarrassed, and of course I get an earful on the way home. But why has integrity and decency made people who speak up the bad guys? Sure, I know I could've walked out and asked for my money back, but when did we become so pussified?

    There's no more accountability. This world has become a caricature. People do whatever they want and all these marketing ***** are to blame. They pimp the MTV image, so people like Akon can hump 15 y/o girls, and young punks think it's cool to debase women like that. They idolize insipid 16 y/o kids whose parents have run out of ways to blow money so now they're building the Taj Mahal and buying Range Rovers for the twerps' birthdays. You almost wish "Children of Men" would come to fruition because I really shudder at the thought of what today's high schoolers batch of kids are going to be like.

    /quasi off-topic rant
    • fritzon, on 10/11/2007, -0/+13Wow. That was awesome. You could have added "I am the Great Destroyeeeeeer!" at the end there.
    • Narrator, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4A friend of mine immigrated here from a foreign country. She used to take the bus all the time back home. The public transit where she went to live in the U.S was decent. So she thought she'd take it in the U.S. It was people like you met at the movie theater, who scream at the top of their lungs at each other about all kinds of vulgar topics, and have no consideration for others, that made her stop taking the bus. She now drives everywhere.
    • bubba9999, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2It's garbage like that who drive up sales of big screen tv's and home theater systems. If the theater owners aren't going to keep the animals in check, people who are there because they like movies will get their fix somewhere else.
    • Nitesmoke420, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3Word!! And to the point of hip hop putting down women just let me say this. If I call a woman a bitch or ho, I could be slapped or more, but if Snoopy Dogg, (I think thats how you mispell it,) calls the same woman that she's like "Oh *****, that's my song, Snoop is so hot!" They keep saying the only people buying rap are adolescent white males from the suburbs, but mostly I see teenage girls listening to it and loving being put down. Also what do they think blacks are listening to, opera? All the blacks I know listen to rap mostly. So I'll start feeling sorry for all the bitches and ho's as soon as they stop liking it. Example: How many women do you know who always date guys that treat them like crap again and again, yet the guy they date who is good to them is cheated on and dumped. Just look around.
    • ZoeBee, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3@hifiDesign:

      Are you aware you used the phrase "debase women" in the paragraph following your use of the word "pussified"? I'm not that up on slang terms, but I'm guessing you're equating cowardice with pacifism and a feminine mindset. Not that I'm disagreeing with everything you said, it's good you stood up to those people, but it seems interesting that you don't see a connection there.
    • FSFunky, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2"My question is: Why has integrity become and undervalued commodity?

      I was sitting in a theater tonight getting ready to watch 28 Weeks Later, and these two ghetto assholes come in screaming and stomping and swearing. Eventually one gets to optically perusing the female audience goers behind him and another guy calls him out for looking up his girlfriend's skirt. So the thug hops up and berates him face to face. "What the *****. Issatcho girl? Issatcho dawterrr?" After he sits down, he goes, "*****. Better be *****' Neo to step to me like that. Must've thought he was 'da One'!" So the movie starts and of course this motormouth is screaming at the screen as the zombies tear people limb from limb. Total attention seeker.

      So I bought into his BS and snapped. Told him to shut the ***** up, and stopped short of throwing my overpriced drink on him (didn't want to get shot after all). Then my wife runs out, embarrassed, and of course I get an earful on the way home. But why has integrity and decency made people who speak up the bad guys? Sure, I know I could've walked out and asked for my money back, but when did we become so pussified?

      There's no more accountability. This world has become a caricature. People do whatever they want and all these marketing ***** are to blame. They pimp the MTV image, so people like Akon can hump 15 y/o girls, and young punks think it's cool to debase women like that. They idolize insipid 16 y/o kids whose parents have run out of ways to blow money so now they're building the Taj Mahal and buying Range Rovers for the twerps' birthdays. You almost wish "Children of Men" would come to fruition because I really shudder at the thought of what today's high schoolers batch of kids are going to be like."

      I like your subtle racism.
    • hifiDesign, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1@ZoeBee: You raise a good point. And I guess that shows I need to deprogram myself a bit, too. But it's a far cry from the virtual bukake that exists within the hip-hop community. Additionally, you took it to mean "vagina-like". I could just have easily meant it as "pussy cat" which in turn could mean "fraidy cat". Everyone has their sensitivities. Over the past few years I've tried very hard myself, and to get my friends, to stop using "gay" as an adjective for something lame. But rapping about slapping a ho, or nailing teenage girls 4 at a time is a bit different in its lasting impact than my poorly chosen adjective for the lack of a spine.
    • tmanstark, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1You're a misinformed. ANGRY disenfranchised man with dreams that died early. Or at least it sounds like it. God what a stereotypical rant. I'll clear up one tiny detail because I was as pissed as anyone when I saw Akon fake-humping that girl. Guess what - the show he was playing was supposed to be 18 and over, so he thought the girl / woman was at least 18. Go figure.

      And while I agree that the record industry leaves A LOT to be desired, stealing music rather than buying is the exact opposite of integrity. I understand why it's done, but it's nothing.

  • kharn2000, on 10/11/2007, -3/+0Where is Trent shopping? I dont remember paying more than $28 for it I think? and that was for the digipak.

    • davidlaz, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1I paid $24.95 AUD for it the day it came out. I've never seen it for more than $29.95 either. Not sure what shops would be selling it at those ludicrous prices.
  • syafthegeek, on 10/11/2007, -14/+0Now Trent is condemning his own fans, WTF?
  • zouhair, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4I like this guy
  • Elliuotatar, on 10/11/2007, -6/+0Why doesn't he just drop the label altogether and sell his music over the net? How much does he get per song on the CD? He could sell the songs online for that directly over his website with no DRM and probably make just as much.

    As much as I like Reznor's stuff, there's no way I am going to pay $35 for a CD. I'm sorry. I just don't like it THAT much. $25 is the most I'll pay for a CD or a movie. And really, that's the high end. $20 is more the impulse buy range, with $15 being the sweet spot for "ah what the hell."
    • Volatile, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3He has a contract with Interscope that says he has to put out one more CD. After that he's free so to speak.

      And I don't know where the ***** everyone here shops, but I got the digipak (sp?) release the day it came out for eight bucks at Target. I was almost scared I was buying the wrong thing, it was so cheap.
  • Serenity138, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3I wish more artist had his common sense and honor. It would shut down the riaa and make my life easier.
  • JBrown86, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1unfortunately not every artist has trent's experience in the industry and it shows as he's one of the only consecutively selling artist from last decade. And it dosn't hurt if you happen to be a musical genious.
  • dennisbier, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Well at the end of the day DRM free music has come to mean power for the masses and death to record labels as they are today. It has also made musicians have to work as hard as the rest of us, allowing only true talent to break through http://wetech.blogspot.com/2007/05/enlightened-world-of-music.html
    • Pollo, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0There are really AMAZING bands out there, and everywhere.
      I've discovered these In Jamendo: http://xera.com.es and their price is $0!!
  • layeroffrost, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1@syafthegeek

    Trent isn't condemning his fans, he is condemning money hungry record companies who charge outrageous prices for cd's. I got my copy of YZ for $30, and this is about regular price for any CD around where I live (brisbane), and this $30 price tag is why I no longer buy as many CD's as I used to. 10 years ago, no problem, I spent a lot of cash on CD's... but back then I didn't have rent and bills to pay... and now I do. Whereas 10 years ago I used to buy 3 or 4 cd's in a week, now I'm lucky to buy 1 a year.. and that's not just because I have bills to pay or because I'm a cheap mofo.... it's mostly because a lot of music these days simply isn't worth my $30 for a cd. NIN is still worth it to me, because there's so much more than just TR's music, the packaging in itself is always excellent and there's usually something unexpected as well. (Like the thermochrome thing) Now, if CD's here were say, half the price they are, I might consider buying more. It's not piracy alone that turns people away from buying CD's.... it's lack of incentive and the pricing as well. I'm sure there are more people who are in the boat I'm sitting in, and would agree with what I'm saying.
  • db74, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4Trent is the man.
  • cordata, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2In Australia we also get screwed by a record company releasing a "special edition" cd with dvd pack or with some extra crap like stickers or a badge or something.
    These only get released when the artist (if foreign) is on tour or when they win an award (local artists winning at the ARIAs - Australia Recording Industry Awards).
    We also lose on paid(legit) downloaded music. I bought Bloc Party's-Weekend in the City album from bleep.com for less than itunes(Australia) for the same album.
    My local record store decreased their mark-up for the Year Zero album. The owner is fan of NIN and hates the commercial pop(poop) which he stocks less of. Also when NIN release a remix album it is not a pack-in with their current album to boost sales.

    Don't even get me started on remix competitions...........
  • Ticketsmyway, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Strong views on this. I seriously doubt it will effect NIN ticket sales though!
  • Tikkimann, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1What's the problem with Maxi-singles, specifically European ones?
    • mokru, on 10/11/2007, -1/+0I actually agree.

      An economist would say that choice means lower prices. DVD makers lower choice by using technology to bar foreign imports from playing on standard players. I'm sure they are aiming at China's piracy industry, but it doesn't make a difference. Just search eBay for Disney movies if you think it does.
  • ExileMen, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2I guess they already use that strategy on video games. it use to cost $50 now it's up to $60
    • termi, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2video games are costing more because consoles are sold at a loss (not the wii iirc though).

      hence when you buy a console, the only way the console manufacturer is making cash is if you buy 5 (or was it 10 ? ) games for the system in question.

      the console manufacturers get a chunk of the cash from the games you buy for the manufacturer which means they crank up the price so the games distributers, manufacturers and finally, developers can retain the same amount of cash for the game.
  • shiftless, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1I make my own music, and listen to music other people make on their own.

    There's so many free music web sites out there you don't have to steal anything anymore.
  • kkring24, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Well....this explains why I couldn't buy the new Tool album for anything less than 30 dollars when it came out
  • tigger04554, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1As an Irish person, i'm delighted we came last - because our song was dreadful! the ppl who organize the irish entry still haven't learned - ballads rarely score high in the eurovision any more - that might have worked 20 years ago, but these days it's all about the cabaret, glitzy show and theatrics. Serbia this year was an exception but they had an exceptionally good song and an amazing singer, I was rooting for Ukraine to win, but Serbia deserved it in the end.
    • Stephiems, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1Ok, I have to ask why you were voting for Ukraine. They were garbage...and the fact that they were up so high makes me realize that the music industry is in such ***** because people have horrible taste. People don't know trash from talent. I only wish record companies made it their goal to search for good music and distribute that to the public, because the public certainly can't pick decent music on their own. You only have to look at all of the music shows (Eurovision, Idol, etc) to show that people in general have horrible taste.

      I also equate that to this thread. I admire that Trent is trying to speak out against the RIAA, but that doesn't make his music good, and it certainly doesn't make him a musical genius. There are plenty of musical geniuses making progressive music out there, but you won't see them on TV or hear them on the radio. Only a couple of them get close, like Steve Vai and Joe Satriani. Ever heard of Virgil Donati, Mike Mangini or Marco Minnemann, probably not. Different does not always equal good.

      A lot of people would say...well people are allowed to have their own taste, and what is good for some might not be for others. Fine, but that doesn't make it musical genius, it makes it taste, and as I said before, people can have bad taste. Unfortunately, the huge number of people with bad taste, make it so true musicians don't get the chance. The record companies are pushing crap because people buy it. As much as I hate record companies having control, the people having control isn't much better...then the world will just be filled with a whole bunch of crap. I guess that's not any worse then it is right now. Fortunately the talents of the 60s and 70s are still around...I dread to think of what will happen to music once they are gone.
      • tigger04554, on 03/13/2008, -0/+1so basically you're saying most people have bad taste, unlike you who has impeccable taste, and the big bad general public who have a different taste in music to you should not be allowed to have a say in what music gets produced because their taste is wrong (i.e. different to what you like), and we should leave it up to the experts who know what's best.

        ever consider becoming a dictator?
  • 5plic3r, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1I just went to http://yearzero.nin.com/ and the link to listen to the album is gone!
  • bsiviglia9, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1When you drive off in my BMW, I no longer have a BMW.
    When you download my mp3, I still have my mp3.
    Why does the author of the title of this post equate file sharing with theft?
  • QaBOjk, on 10/11/2007, -3/+0static static static Static!
  • asaturn, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2people steal music because:

    1) most new music is unoriginal and boring
    2) most good songs on a CD are accompanied by 13 ***** songs ("filler")
    3) no easy exposure to good music (MTV only plays rap and pop-punk/rock)

    so the good music they DO find is usually via the internet. they would pay for it if they had the option (see: iTunes) but most of it is found via sites like oink or via friends sharing MP3s.

    come on... record companies are just run by old people who don't get it. it isn't the 80s, you can't just throw crap out there and expect people to spend $20 on it. and NIN is not the savior... if anything they're just jumping on the "we hate _____" bandwagon to sell more CDs, otherwise they wouldn't actually BE on a record label.
    • AuntClara, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1No one is claiming NIN to be the savior, the man's been in a contract with these people for over 10 years, surely he could have a change of heart within that amount of time, and he will get off this record label when his contract is up (one more cd). I don't why you say "if anything" as if it can only be one thing. I appreciate Trent's attitude, and I know for a fact that plenty of people would have spent(wasted) money on that single, but Trent opted out on that, and he's also released quite a few things for free, I just don't see Trent as a bandwagon type guy, but I'm just going by what he does for his fans.
    • Stephiems, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3You're right, it isn't the 80s, the 80s still had some decent musicians left, now there isn't anything. Everything is crap. The 80s might not have had depth, but it had entertainment and amazing players. Unless of course you are talking about the British contribution to the 80s...
    • brendanheyu, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1Yup, Steph is at it again. Girl - get it straight, your tastes are _your own_.Millions of others enjoyed music from that era, and millions more enjoyed other music from other eras. Off your bandwagon and get some sense! Who cares what you thought of the 80's? You were barely even there...
  • flamebot, on 10/11/2007, -1/+495% of my music collection is stolen
    • pokerisleuk, on 10/11/2007, -1/+13Darn, I would hate to have that happen to me. Any idea who stole it?
    • AustinMeoang, on 10/11/2007, -3/+1If by stolen you mean downloaded, then me too =D
    • uncledeercamp, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Where did you get that figure? Is it accurate or just something you pulled out of your ass?
  • djdragon, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1@tritonx or anyone else who wants to spew out Audiophile rhetoric.

    Um. Playback/Recording devices that uses 44Khz/16bit or 96Khz/24bit still has to be played though a speaker (yea those iPod ear buds are still a speaker).

    So inherently ALL music being played back at let's say a concert or club, home stereo or magic ear buds comes out at a 33.3 kHz sampling rate. Which amazingly is the same sampling rate as a ***** Record. Wow. No wonder people say Vinyl sound so good!
    Because a record player uses the same physics (um coils/magnets and analog circuitry to reproduce/record audio) to playback or record the music, not digital circuitry. And if you know anything about 'sampling' rates you would understand what that means.

    When you talk about 'compression' you are actually talking about a reduced sampling rate.

    And @poopfrogs was actually more correct than you were.

    So @tritonx where did you get your information from? Blow your 44Khz/16bit or 96Khz/24bit stuff out your alimentary canal.

    Couldn't care less if I get Dug-down for this one.
    • AuntClara, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0I apologize for going off topic, but I'm really curious about this 33.3 khz sampling rate. I have never in all my life heard that all speakers have a sampling rate of 33.3 khz, and, I'm not saying you're wrong, I'd just really like a reference on that. I've heard about frequency response, which I've seen range from 20 hz to 20 khz, but I really want to know more about this fixed 33.3 khz sampling rate across all speakers. A weblink or book citation or anything like that, I'm very curious on this.
    • AuntClara, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0Sorry about the double post but I really want to know about this. First off, if a record sounds so great because it has a sampling rate of 33.3 khz, then why don't they just master cd's at 33.3 khz seeing as how they have a maximum sampling rate of 44.1 khz? Or why wouldn't 44.1 khz sound fine coming out of this 33.3 khz speaker?

      Second, to quote: "No wonder people say Vinyl sound so good! Because a record player uses the same physics (um coils/magnets and analog circuitry to reproduce/record audio) to playback or record the music, not digital circuitry."

      Everything uses the same "physics" because "physics" aren't something that you use. It's a description of how matter and energy interact. And I think when you say "circuitry" you mean "playback".

      Third, to quote again: "And if you know anything about 'sampling' rates you would understand what that means."

      I understand that you are a DJ, but DJ and "Physics Major" don't always go hand in hand, and saying that if people were smart that they would know what you are talking about is an easy excuse to not know yourself. Most speakers have a maximum frequency response of 20 khz, and I've never heard this 33.3 khz statistic before, it's funny to note you asked that first guy where he got his information, if you give me a link or any kind of citation it would take the irony out of that statement

    • fjryan, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Regarding sample rates. Speakers vary but a speaker of any value will sound good. Speakers don't have sample rates. I don,t know what hack engineer you've been talking to but 33.3KHz for a speaker sample rate is just ridiculous. As for records they also don't have a sample rate they are a direct reflection of transduced sound and their "frequency response" is dependent on needle quality and revolution speed. Speakers are analog transducers just as a needle in a groove of a record is a transducer. Sample rates deal with digital audio and are directly related to frequency response. The Nyquist theorem states that a recording sample rate must be 2 times the highest frequency being recorded. Thus a Red Book CD (music CD) at a sample rate of 44.1KHz will produce a frequency response of 22.05KHz. It is true that the general range of human hearing is between 20Hz and 20KHz but only baby's hear that well. Most people hear between 50Hz and 16KHz. So why is a CD lower quality than an old school record? Its true, records have a better frequency response than a CD. They also have a better dynamic range. CD's are 44.1KHz 16 bit. DVD audio disk is 96KHz 24 bit. The bit depth or "dynamic range," is just as important to sound quality. A high dynamic range like 24 bit eliminates the noise floor making noise on audio DVDs non-existent. Do that with a record. I am an audio engineer so I'm trying to put thing in layman's terms. All major studios can record at 192KHz 24 bit. The real problem with getting your hands on high quality recordings is the fact that 99% of Americans are listening to mp3 at 128HZ 16 bit. Remember CD is 44,100Hz 16bit. That's a lot bigger sound quality gap than the gap between a CD and an LP. The real answer is that most people can't hear anyway because they are hearing impaired due to ear buds and mp3s.
      Mp3 are bad for your ears, bad for your speakers, and if you compare them to CD quality they sound just plain bad. In the end you can listen to what ever you want at what ever quality. If speakers are a question, good speakers (studio monitors) are going to run you 25 to 30 thousand dollars, EACH. Hope this clears up some question. Now go check out some good music by Steven Mark for crying out loud.
    • fjryan, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0Regarding sample rates. Speakers vary but a speaker of any value will sound good. Speakers don't have sample rates. I don,t know what hack engineer you've been talking to but 33.3KHz for a speaker sample rate is just ridiculous. As for records they also don't have a sample rate they are a direct reflection of transduced sound and their "frequency response" is dependent on needle quality and revolution speed. Speakers are analog transducers just as a needle in a groove of a record is a transducer. Sample rates deal with digital audio and are directly related to frequency response. The Nyquist theorem states that a recording sample rate must be 2 times the highest frequency being recorded. Thus a Red Book CD (music CD) at a sample rate of 44.1KHz will produce a frequency response of 22.05KHz. It is true that the general range of human hearing is between 20Hz and 20KHz but only baby's hear that well. Most people hear between 50Hz and 16KHz. So why is a CD lower quality than an old school record? Its true, records have a better frequency response than a CD. They also have a better dynamic range. CD's are 44.1KHz 16 bit. DVD audio disk is 96KHz 24 bit. The bit depth or "dynamic range," is just as important to sound quality. A high dynamic range like 24 bit eliminates the noise floor making noise on audio DVDs non-existent. Do that with a record. I am an audio engineer so I'm trying to put thing in layman's terms. All major studios can record at 192KHz 24 bit. The real problem with getting your hands on high quality recordings is the fact that 99% of Americans are listening to mp3 at 128HZ 16 bit. Remember CD is 44,100Hz 16bit. That's a lot bigger sound quality gap than the gap between a CD and an LP. The real answer is that most people can't hear anyway because they are hearing impaired due to ear buds and mp3s.
      Mp3 are bad for your ears, bad for your speakers, and if you compare them to CD quality they sound just plain bad. In the end you can listen to what ever you want at what ever quality. If speakers are a question, good speakers (studio monitors) are going to run you 25 to 30 thousand dollars, EACH. Hope this clears up some question. Now go check out some good music by Steven Mark for crying out loud.

      Want more info
      http://www.audiorecordingschool.com/
  • eclectitech, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1I just bought my first album on iTunes.... and it was NIN's. I applaud the groups approach to the evololution of its consumer base. Principle matters... We all know how easy, effecient, and inexpensive it is for the recording industry to put recordings on these music services. I never bought iTunes before because of the DRM and the fact that I am unable to play purchased music in my car, but in this case, I don't care!
    • mokru, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1The problem with iTunes is you get locked into Apple's iPod. Don't get me wrong; I love mine, but we consumers should insist on some sort of open-source DRM. I don't see a reason why the interests of consumers and producers of music can't be met. Current DRM technologies don't help music consumers or music producers. They help technology producers. How does making a record company sell different DRM equipped songs to different locked in audiences help anyone other than the mp3 player manufacturer?
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 74 of 74 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.