What is Digg?473 Comments
- Artemisian, on 01/04/2008, -6/+93As Reznor said, seems a little disappointing. I bought a 320kbps copy on sheer faith - I'm primarily a big NIN fan, and hadn't heard any of Saul's music prior. But I support the idea. In truth, I haven't even listened to the thing yet - I need to clear some space on my phone, as that's often the only times I get the opportunity to listen to music. But hey, I paid my dues, and it's nice to know I'm on the "loyal paying customer" side of the fence.
Shame on anyone who really enjoyed this record and didn't pay for it. It really perverts the whole idea. - DietMountainDew, on 01/04/2008, -2/+57But you also have to think about how many of those 154,449 people would have purchased the album in a store. A good majority of those I am sure were just discovering new music, didn't like it, removed the songs, and didn't pay.
Just because 154,449 people downloaded it, doesn't mean it would have sold 154,449 in a traditional store. - cunnybungler, on 01/04/2008, -1/+55I'm glad Trent's not being coy like Radiohead. On the other hand, I'm disappointed a bit in the figures, but at the same time, bet that they're a whole lot better than future attempts at something like this might rear, at least in terms of percentage. I wonder how Radiohead's figures compare. Someone should pursue them to open source their stats too :)
- Refrag, on 01/04/2008, -4/+54[reposted from the comment I made on nin.com]
I only liked one song. Which was "Break". Liking one song by an artist is not enough for me to bother cluttering my artist list any further (a new deal I made with myself) so I deleted the entire album. I probably should have kicked a dollar his way for the one song I liked, but since I deleted them all I decided not to.
I don't know what it is about Saul's music as I like NIN (especially the instrumentation -- Year Zero was the first one that I really got into the vocals on as something deeper than just another harmonic instrument) and I like a lot of rap (Beastie Boys, Tribe Called Quest, Mos Def, etc.), so I expected to like the entire album and then want to go back and pay for it. I didn't. I deleted it all.
If you could provide a streaming method to allow people to preview the music without counting them in your metrics for unpaid "downloads" you may realize more people are being honest about supporting you and Saul than that ~18% figure.
Thanks (to Trent) for publishing the facts, anyway. Keep it up, please!
PS -- (Trent,) If you release an instrumental version of "Closer", I'd pay a few dollars for it alone. - Jyushin, on 01/04/2008, -0/+44I paid - I only liked 2 songs , but my $5 went to support the revolution.
"when i say 'how much?' , you say 'nothing' ". - hipnerd, on 01/04/2008, -2/+42The downloaders break down into three groups:
1. Established fans who enjoy the album enough to pay.
2. People who enjoy the album but choose not to pay
3. People who downloaded the album as an experiment and decided it wasn't their thing.
Because the download was 100% free, a lot of people ended up in category three. They do not represent lost sales, they represent new opportunities for sales. Those are people that never would have bought the album just to see if they liked it. A percentage of the people in category three liked the music, moved into category one and paid for it.
The implication that all the downloaders who choose not to pay are "stealing" is ludicrous. I've never heard of Saul Williams, but I might download the album to see if I like it. If I don't, I didn't steal a thing. I'll delete it. If I do like it, Saul Williams will get one more sale that he never would have gotten with a traditional distribution method.
The downloads are not sales or thefts, they are marketing opportunities. An 18.3% pay rate is actually quite good -- especially if the artist gets to keep the lion's share of the money. Williams may have made more money with 28,322 donations than he would have if he sold 154,449 CDs through a traditional label who would be screwing him at every turn. - fahrvergnuugen, on 01/04/2008, -2/+40Maybe the record isn't what people who downloaded it expected?
I'm a die hard NIN fan and gave this album 2 uninterrupted listens - only because of Trent Reznor's involvement with it. I chose not to pay for it because I don't like a single track on it. So in a way, it was marketed to a person who didn't have a taste for it's genre. How many other people did this happen to? - PoopfaceMorty, on 01/04/2008, -9/+40Wow, that is pathetic. $5 can get you a decent sized lunch, yet it is too much for people to spend on an entire album, an entire piece of art. I'm glad I purchased this album, and I would have gladly paid a larger denomination if given a choice.
- allanpat, on 01/04/2008, -2/+30Lesson #1 - if you're going to work off of the donation model, don't host the files on your own server. upload them to bittorrent networks as a zip file with a readme file that links them back to your website if they want to donate. That'll save you tons of money in bandwidth fees and make the experiment more profitable - especially with lesser name artists like Saul Williams
- antler, on 01/04/2008, -0/+28As a former shareware developer, I must say those numbers aren't bad at all. I was lucky to get 1 payment for every 1000 downloads, so 1 in 5 ain't bad. Hell, spammers support themselves off a 1 in 1,000,000 response rate. Plus, are they double-counting the 28,322 who probably downloaded it, liked it, then went back and paid for the higher quality version?
- cw1925, on 01/04/2008, -4/+32It's more about the concerts anyways.
- MisterLeckie, on 01/04/2008, -11/+39Super depressing. I just don't get it; have we really gotten to the point where 5 dollars towards a great piece of work isn't believed to be worth it?
I thought by now the majority of people would have come beyond the capitalistic me first attitude. Hopefully there will be a time when doing the right thing isn't "too expensive." - exomni, on 01/04/2008, -10/+36Please stop using the word "capitalist" as you obviously have no idea what it means.
- laterthandawn, on 01/04/2008, -3/+28That definitely really sucks that so few people are willing to actually "support the artist." So much for idealism...there's always this idea that people who steal music are redeemed by the fact that they're generally stealing from the bloated labels, not the starving artists (stealing from the rich to...give to themselves...ha...)...so much for that!
That said, I really, really respect Williams and Reznor for trying this out, and hopefully others continue to do it and it catches on...perhaps then, eventually completely relieved of the bloated label system we're all used to (and the accompanying mindset), more people will put their dollar where their ideals are. ...hopefully.
Also: 28,322 x $5 = $141,610...which is just under $1 apiece...ironically about what he would have made in royalties from a major. - Olber9999, on 01/04/2008, -17/+38Niggy Tardust is my #1 album of 2007. It reminds me a lot of NIN. I just can't believe people wouldn't pay 5$ for it, especially NIN fans. If a hard copy existed, I would easily pay 20$ or more for it. This is so demoralizing. Please don't tell me you can't afford 5$; a music album is something that will last you YOUR WHOLE LIFE. Ridiculous.
To NIN & Saul fans who downloaded the CD for free: shame on you.
To Saul and Trent: This is an incredible record, and I am so grateful to you for it. Thank you. - anaesthetica, on 01/04/2008, -1/+21You can find an instrumental version of Closer at http://remix.nin.com/ for free, posted by trent_reznor himself.
- redcyren, on 01/04/2008, -1/+20After a full year, I'd like to see the results of this effort, including touring, merch, and any other income Saul can bring in. Then compare it to the income of an artist with a major label to see who has the better margins. I'm *hoping* it's Saul ftw.
- nurvus, on 01/04/2008, -4/+22People act like they can't afford $5! And they all say "***** THE RIAA!!". The contradiction is just blistering.
- TTwoA, on 01/04/2008, -0/+18I paid $5 for it. Didn't like it. At all. Listened to the album through once, haven't touched it since, and most likely never will again. However, I knew going in there was very little chance of me enjoying it, but I was okay with that because I support the cause.
My problem is with the people who digg all the anti-RIAA articles and preach about how much the music industry sucks, but when an opportunity comes along to support a new distribution method without the middleman, they don't man up and give the guys a few dollars. That's really lame. - inactive, on 01/04/2008, -0/+15This blog seems very misguided and doesn't really answer the question is asked itself.
How much was the bottom line compared to his last CD? Did you make more with this way? Less? Can we see some numbers after these expenses? Was Saul's last CD widely available in many record stores? How many of those fans even knew about this CD being released online? How many of those downloaders even knew about this artist before this?
The fact is they don't even know the bottom line yet. No one knows in 3 years from now how much the artist will make from this venture or how much will be lost. I don't really see why he even chose to write this. It's almost like he admitted defeat. - riverstyx, on 01/04/2008, -2/+17More appropriate name for this article: "The Download Spiral". har dee har.
I know Trent reads this site, so I'll be nice :)
I checked out a few songs after downloading it, I didn't much care for it though so I deleted it. Honestly, I haven't listened to a new nine inch nails record ever since The Fragile. I did buy that one though. Along with The Downward Spiral.
But I still respect him and what he did for his friend. Radiohead are still being secretive and stupid, but they have a lot of fans.
20% paid? Doesnt surprise me, like I said I didn't like the album so I deleted it. If Trent releases an album online, his sales will show a different number, same goes for Radiohead since they have a lot more fans then Niggy Tardust. - cwilson, on 01/04/2008, -1/+16What if someone downloaded it and didn't pay for it because they did not like the album? Should they be shamed too?
I didn't hear it, but I saw Saul Williams open for NIN and I did not like his music at all. I'm not saying he's not good. He's just not my style. Everyone I was with that night said the same. I'm not saying that only the 18.3% of the people who downloaded the album liked it but I wouldn't be surprised if many NIN fans checked out the album and just did not care for the music. In that case, do you pay for something you don't like on the principle that you support the distribution method? Seems kind of odd to support art that you don't appreciate.
Olber, I'm not trying to pick you apart or anything. It's clear that you really enjoyed the album and that's great! I'm just taking into consideration the ones who (perhaps) didn't enjoy the music. - harvested, on 01/04/2008, -0/+15Pure profit? Are you kidding me? Did you even read the article?
- xenoputtss, on 01/04/2008, -2/+15I have to say that I can understand why people wouldn't pay $5 for it. I went and listened to 4 of the songs and even though I love NIN, I do not like this album and I will not even download it.
Perhaps the remaining 88% of the people that downloaded it don't like the music, but only downloaded it to listen to it to see if they liked it. - eternal464, on 01/04/2008, -3/+16you must be proud of your moronic ways. If everyone torrents, who pays for the creation and distribution? Your logic would lead to the worldwide destruction of every form of electronic media nearly overnight, even Trent's attempt at fixing the currently broken system.
- bitspace, on 01/04/2008, -2/+14While I agree with your general sentiment, I don't think people are downloading music illegally to show their discontent. I think people are downloading music illegally because they can and they don't want to pay for it. There is no idealism behind most music downloading.
- benitojuarez, on 01/04/2008, -3/+15Well I havent checked it out so I cant judge the quality. Like the whole radiohead rainbows album. I downloaded it from the ranbows site and listened to it....I didnt like the music and I havent listened to it again so I paid them nothing. But there theres going to be some ***** on here that says hey youre a ***** for not paying them money. You can't win no matter what.
- dustinmacdonald, on 01/04/2008, -0/+12What makes you think its pure profit? Pretty sure he has to pay for service and bandwidth fees.
- SiB57, on 01/04/2008, -1/+13Same here. Downloaded the free version with the intent to pay for it after IF I liked it. I didn't like it and won't listen to it again. I may or may not have actually deleted the files, I would have to check, but this wasn't my type of music. And I'm a big NIN fan too.
- verto351, on 01/04/2008, -3/+15The website should have allowed you to preview the songs before downloading. I've never heard of the guy, or any of the songs, so the only way I could see if I liked it was to download it..and hell if I'm gonna pay money blindly.
- mvanhorn, on 01/04/2008, -17/+28I am a big Saul Williams fan and like NIN.. and I paid $5 on the theory. But this album isn't very good
- MisterLeckie, on 01/04/2008, -2/+13Radiohead is more concerned about boosting their physical CD sales than finding a viable new way to distribute art.
- catalysis, on 01/04/2008, -1/+12Do you honestly think bandwidth fees were the main expense? Production costs can easily run in the hundreds of thousands of dollars for a professional album.
- GOVStooge, on 01/04/2008, -1/+11This is all I ever wanted. Give me access to a free lower quality version and if I like it I will go back and buy the high-qual one. Back in the day, this is exactly what I used napster for, Listen, and if I like I go buy the CD.
- OrangeTide, on 01/04/2008, -3/+13I wonder how many people downloaded it to listen to it. and then decided they liked it and paid later? what i'm saying is: Do we trust these raw statistics enough to extract anything meaningful from them?
- Chirp08, on 01/04/2008, -0/+10I didn't download it, or buy it, because its not my thing. I can only imagine how many of the free downloads were people just seeing what his music was all about, and then finding they didn't like it, or didn't feel it was worth paying for. It doesn't necessarily mean the distribution failed, but there are too many factors that can't be accounted for.
- Sajentine, on 01/04/2008, -7/+16No
We've gotten to a point where a lot of people tried it and only %20 liked it.
I haven't tried it and probably won't now because it seems like now I would be looked down on now if then didn't like it and so didn't pay anything. - Jerky1312, on 01/04/2008, -1/+10Now that you have your instrumental of Closer, you will make good on your word and donate the few dollars you were speaking of.
- katrayun, on 01/04/2008, -0/+9So, how much would they have made from physical cd sales through a major label?
- cadmiumpaint, on 01/04/2008, -1/+10ok here's the problem. you have a generation of people who have grown accustomed to being able to DL whatever music you want for free. They hide behind the whole "i won't support major corporations" stance The REALITY of it is that these people just like getting stuff for free and they don't really understand or care that its stealing. And so when indie artists try to use the honor system, everyone is like..."i'm not paying for music. music is free"
I see it all the time on Digg. People complain about artists not being supported, but then say copyright is evil, patents are evil. intellectual property is B.S. well you can't have it both ways.
The biggest problem with the internet and file sharing is that it has taught people that everything is free, even if its not really. As a result no one will pay to support anything worthwhile. Good job everyone. - sgtpppr, on 01/04/2008, -2/+11People also need to consider the fact that many people downloaded it just to see if they liked it. I doubt many people who didn't like it went on to pay for it. I know I've bought games that got decent reviews and looked good, but just didn't do it for me. If I had downloaded a demo and found out I didn't like it, I wouldn't have bought it. I would think the same would go for music.
Also, how can you honestly believe in some 'inherent goodness' in people to pay for something they don't have to? People pirate music like it's going out of style. The vast majority don't pirate out of principle or to stick it to the RIAA. The reason piracy is such a 'problem' now is that it was brought to the layman through Kazaa, Limewire, and now the easy-to-use bittorent clients. Do you honestly believe that the average 16 year old downloading gigs of mp3s as a political statement? Rampant piracy was started by people simply wanting free music at their finger tips 24/7 with hardly any computer knowledge. It grew out of control due to the RIAA being completely oblivious to the wants of their customers. I don't see anyone saying restaurants should allow you to pay if you thought their food was good after eating it. I also don't see changing art into a packaged and marketed mass consumer product as something good either. There is in fact a happy medium if people will honestly sit and think about it and stop being so extremist in their views on the topic. Right now, it's just cool to be on the extreme anti-record company side. Record companies are wrong and people leeching music with no regard for the artist and claiming it's for political reasons are wrong too. - facelesscoward, on 01/04/2008, -0/+8Oh, this reminds me that I need to buy it. I downloaded it for free a while back because I was broke, and it completely slipped my mind that I need to pay for it. I'll make a note and buy it when I get access to a credit card.
- HayString, on 01/04/2008, -1/+9Exactly!
Instead of looking at it as "only 18% of the people paid for it" they should be looking at it as "540% more people were exposed to it than would have been" - Vektuz, on 01/04/2008, -1/+9You nailed this on the head.
If a song is free, a huge amount of people will show up just to try it. Most of those people will not like the song, and would not have purchased it in the first place, so it inflates the numbers.
To get even 18% pay rate is incredible in this case. - wentwj, on 01/04/2008, -0/+818% actually seems fairly high to me. Especially when you take into consideration that the real percentage is probably much higher. I'm not really sure on how they distributed it (didn't download it at all), but I'd wager a few people went and got it for free, and then after they liked it went and purchased it. Meaning they got counted twice, once as a freeloader, and once as a paying customer.
I think the advantage of online distribution for 'free' is that you can get your stuff out to a MUCH larger audience without relying on radio and old school marketing. If something is free people will gladly go and download it, the trick is how many will feel obligated to pay? A good percentage (as evidence from other comments on here), simply didn't like the material. And I don't think anyone can really fault them. They gave it a shot and at least claimed they'd have paid if they liked it.
If this kind of distribution catches on you'll be able to judge the quality of a record by the percentage of people who choose to gave money for it, which... would be interesting. - BrapAllgood, on 01/04/2008, -2/+9EXACTLY. When the word 'free' pops up, you get a lot more people willing to experiment. You end up with number of people downloading the album, but no idea how many *liked* it or how many even *would* like the music in question.
That said, I paid my $5 and I really like the album, though it took a good 6 or 7 listens before that really happened. THAT said, $154,000 sounds like plenty to rake in without a label (or *any manufacturing at all*) in so short a time. That's what I call a green product. - treed, on 01/04/2008, -1/+8I did exactly that. It did send both copies to my e-mail though, so ideally it'd track unique downloaders based on that.
- techmaster, on 01/04/2008, -4/+11I liked the idea they used in the album, and downloaded it to check it out. (in comparison, I didn't even bother downloading radiohead's rubbish) But I truly was unimpressed by what I heard. I listened through the whole album, twice, and it wasn't to my liking. I'm a huge fan of industrial music, and was a massive fan of Trent's first 3 albums. But I've honestly found his later works less inspiring, and the Niggy Tardust album, to me, just sounds very random. I find about as much enjoyment from it as I do from listening to a powernoise album, which is to say not much. So, no I didn't download it. But, you have to be fair. If roughly 20% of the people that downloaded it, paid for it... then that means that some people downloaded it for free, liked what they heard, and went back and paid their $5. So, really it's more than 20% of the total. I'd be willing to go as far as saying it's in thirds. One third of the people paid for it, one third downloaded it and enjoyed it (and should go back and pay their $5), and one third downloaded it, listened to it, and deleted it. When you do the math, that means he made nearly $150,000 off the album so far. I doubt Trent is raping him on the production fees, considering it was more of an experiment on how to bypass the RIAA, so you could probably say $50,000 went to production and distribution (web site and bandwidth fees), and he made $100,000. If it had been published by BMG, Warner, Capital, etc... then he would've been lucky to make $50,000 after they took their "small" cut of the profits. So, I consider it a HUGE success, seeing that he made $100,000 (so far! remember, it will keep selling!) and it cost consumers 1/3 to 1/4 of what it would've been through retail. All that, from a very niche album that most people will honestly not enjoy. I mean seriously, this is not U2 or Britney Spears. If Trent Reznor releases his next album in this way, he will see MUCH larger numbers.
- stealth45, on 01/04/2008, -1/+8Guilty, but i'll purchase a copy to help promote this method of distribution.
- EricVKX, on 01/04/2008, -0/+6Before I even start, I want to dedicate the next paragraph or so to my background and current position on the digital issue. I’m 21. I’m on the edge of the generation gap between those who bought CDs and those who may never even own one. Many of my older friends dislike DRM but purchase music on the internet anyways. My younger friends think paying for music is unheard of, and many of them have never paid for a song in their life.
As I’ve written here before, I’m personally of the opinion that the latter is the future. I think music should primarily be free, and treated as a loss leader for other merchandise. Each newer generation purchases less and less music. I believe not only that this trend will continue until no one pays for music, but also that this can be embraced as a positive marketing strategy.
Having said that, I downloaded NiggyTardust for free hours after it went online and recently downloaded it again for $5. It’s been one of my most listened to albums over the past few months, and I think the “free or $5” strategy is one of the best marketing ideas in the last decade of music.
Alright, so onto the numbers.
I think we have to look at this from a sales standpoint before we talk about artistic merit, so let’s get that out of the way. The big number from the report is 18.3%. That’s the one that makes everyone disappointed. 134,449 people downloaded the record, and only 28,322 payed the $5 for it. 18.3% paid for it, and an overwhelming 81.7% “stole” it. Radiohead’s third party evaluation (although latter claimed to be fraudulent) also reported disappointing sales in comparison to downloads. The old media dinosaurs jumped all over this, pointing at how the model won’t work. I think everyone’s looking at the wrong sets of numbers here.
Let’s ignore the number of downloads for a second and just focus on what sold. Saul’s last record sold 33,897 copies. NiggyTardust “sold” 28,322 copies - that is, 28,322 people payed a sweet price point of $5 for it. To say the last record sold more copies is still a stretch - Niggy Tardust has only been out for two months. Compounded with the fact there was virtually no marketing for album, I think this number is overwhelmingly positive. The album is relying on word of mouth to prosper, and in time I think that will snowball. I’m still meeting Saul Williams fans who haven’t had a chance to check out the album yet. Being a fan of music is a passive and lazy task. Some people leap on it right away, but others take months or longer to get around to listen to something new. Two months is not nearly enough time to judge these numbers.
The numbers also compare the digital sales to CD sales in an environment where CDs actually sold. Had Saul released his last CD in today’s climate, he simply wouldn’t have sold 33,897 copies. I won’t dwell on this point because it’s fairly self evident, but please keep this in mind.
I think the problem with the 18.3% statistic is that it’s a backhanded evaluation of fan morality. This idea hit me when Radiohead’s (again, probably fake) stats came out. Mainstream media headlines had a field day with that. They love to call people thieves. Everyone “stole” the album, no one paid for it. “Radiohead fans universally cheap” was the headline I saw over and over. I cite this not because those stories or statistics had any real meaning, but just to prove my point - they make the argument about morality. They point out how you have to extract money from fans by force because they’ll never pay otherwise. This is really my key point here . . . this just isn’t the right way to look at it. They’re still thinking about album sales in the old model. The next phase is a whole new beast.
So back to the numbers. 106,127 people did NOT pay for the record. Let’s try to understand who these people are. Rather than looking at these people as freeloaders, I think we should compare them to radio listeners. They’re comparable, at least in part, to people who went to their local record store and listened to the album in headphones before buying it. Some of these people are the trial users. I’m one of them! I’d never heard of Saul Williams - in fact, someone had even burned me an unlabeled Saul Williams CD that sat unloved on my shelf for years. I thought I would give NiggyTardust a listen, and I’d keep it if I liked it. At first I wasn’t really into it, but after a few listens I really started to enjoy it. Despite my beliefs on marketing, I even gave five dollars - just to show my support for what I think is an excellent transitional model.
But as far as the report goes, my paying $5 doesn’t go 100% into the statistic. I downloaded the album for free, and then I downloaded it again and paid. If I was the only person in that pool of numbers, the statistics would say only a lousy half of the people who downloaded the album paid for it! This isn’t the case - I downloaded to sample it, and then I paid to keep it. How many others are there like me? How much are these numbers skewed because of it? When you think about it like that, you might start to wonder . . . why would anyone pay for their first download when they could get a free sample first? While I don’t think this is the case for all the paid downloads, I think it’s a safe assumption for a large portion of them.
My point here is that releasing the album online did not cause 106,127 people to not purchase it - it actually did the opposite. It led tens of thousands of people who never would have heard this album to download it IN ITS ENTIRETY. That’s a pretty big deal, especially on an artistic level. If this had been done via radio, a single, or streaming it would have most likely resulted in people only listening to a few tracks. The fact that people now had the entire album on their computers gave them a bigger reason to really hear it first. Even if they didn’t like it, they’ve heard it. Judging by a lot of statements made on his self titled record, that seems like something Saul would really love. While I know the latest hip-hop mainstream froth track, I have no idea what the other tracks on those albums sound like. I knew NiggyTardust from day one, whether or not I wanted to keep it after that.
There’s some other artistically satisfying points, too.
My biggest reason for promoting music as a loss leader has always been complete label freedom. No one owns my rights. I can put the album online for free. I can encourage people to download it, guilt free. I can let people remix it, and do whatever they want with those remixes. I can give people the rights to put it in their YouTube video, their podcast, their radio show, their film, or even sample it on their own album. NO FAN GETS SUED. People know they can burn or share with their friends, for free. These aren’t just generally cool things to let your fans do, but they also help promote your album. Free promotion. No third party, no marketing, no label. Just fans talking about music.
Trent Reznor himself is a constant victim of these issues. He wants to put out a DVD, but it get shelved by his ***** label. He wants to put up a remix site, but his label is afraid of pending legal pressures. He seems to have trouble every time he has some kind of innovative idea. The only reason I don’t think his label complained about his viral campaign is because they were afraid and annoyed by him.
Alright, that was long as *****, so let’s review. The numbers seem to suggest NiggyTardust is doing just fine financially. I know they had really high hopes for the record, but that’s going to take some time. I still think Saul Williams has potential to become a household name. It is, after all, an amazing record.
Those people who didn’t download the album? They’re not freeloaders. They’re far more complicated than that. Some of them are trial users. Some tried it and didn’t like, and some tried it first and later bought it. Some of them downloaded it and will never give you cent, but you should love those people most of all. They’re the future. They will come to your concerts and buy your tshirts. These kids will make you.
Free music lends itself so well to the new model. Let people pay for your music if you’d like, but don’t be so discouraged when it’s not the main source of your profits. Take chances. Do things without bloated, outdated labels. This old model has too many hands in the pot. This causes all sorts of nightmares when you have a new creative endeavor, and further stifles that creativity. New innovations are the most exciting part of music! We can get to them so much faster if move forward, and this is a bold step in the right direction.
Best,
Eric Ingrum -
Show 51 - 100 of 468 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is