nin.com— As of 1/2/08,154,449 people chose to download Saul's new record.28,322 of those people chose to pay $5 for it, meaning:18.3% chose to pay.
Jan 3, 2008View in Crawl 4
Radiohead was repressing you? That makes no sense at all. And how much does a pawn shop pay for a used CD - like a quarter? Jeez, man - for a 'grown-up' with enough money to buy anything he wants, that seems like some serious penny-pinching.
Yanno it wouldn't hurt if the tracks could be sampled on Last.fm...all of Saul's other stuff can be sampled there.BTW the cover of Sunday Bloody Sunday is outstanding!
Seriously, this is a great album. I've been listening to it religiously ever since I bought it - for $5 - which is a helluva price to pay for such a great piece of artwork. I'm fighting every war at once and I'm winning
i heard saul before he released this on nins sight. downloaded the free version, listened loved and then downloaded the 5$ flacc versionI WILL NOT PAY FOR MP3's. they teh suck.
Ok. I loved the cd, and i plan to buy it when i get my own money on the computer simply because my parents won't let me purchase things over the internet (lack to trust for the internet) which I do not blame. Whether or not I bought it or not doesn't completely rule me out that I am any less of a fan, if I could, I would. I'm sure this situation may apply to few, but not all. and think of it this way, if Saul put it out on cd, I would never even heard of the man before, and I plan on buying his earlier cds, knowing they do not have the touch of TR for the FX. I don't think this is a depressing situation at all.. Paying $17 for his cd while he only gets.. the bare minimum, maybe even below a dollar per cd? I think this is a great idea.
it seems that no one looks at the obvious. the general public cannot tell the difference between 128 and 320k. why pay when its free? i do hear the small differences, but i am an audio engineer. TR should know this too. even $5 is too much, when its free. The album is great and I bought the the 320 version, but why question it, when very few actually pay for something free?; free is free, plain and simple.I work in the industry and we are all assh**es. TR knows this too. I promoted and pushed the purchase of Niggy at a college in Houston; the result was the same. all this shows is that this style of sales does not work! TR should have seen this. and maybe he did, his first thought was to sell his own at $4 per album, but he did not. Why? this is an easy way to get Saul noticed by the public, and an easy way for TR to cause more controversy. I'm looking forward to find out why Saul's album is free and what TR has in store next. At least for now I know the RIAA took blow. And that is good for all.
You are 100% correct. Its absolutely ridiculous that someone's intentions are judged based on whether they pay a measely 5 dollars or not. Some people support music with their ears and minds and not their wallets. Alot of kids cant afford to pay but absolutely adore the artists work and then get thrown into some s**tty "cheap assh**e" category. I , myself make plenty of money and buy albums for sentimental purposes and never open them bc ive already downloaded a free version, or paid a quick 99 cents. Its nothing personal or financial.... just the reality to todays music culture. so yes... props to you for not stereotyping people. Its too damn bad we don't have more open minded individuals like yourself. :) haha.. a definite DIGG!
I thought the album was great, but honestly - f**king piss poor for only 18% of listeners to be willing to pay $5 for it. With statistics like that, we can expect and probably deserve to continually be arse rapped by the record companies.If people don't start supporting bands efforts to try and "break down the system" of the record companies, you can expect all your bands to a) release drivel music with no shelf life & b) the antics we are currently seeing from the Smashing Pumpkins will be common place.so ask yourself, do you want to see YOUR favorite band releasing a new album 8 times all with one different b-side on it, or an extended booklet?do you want to see YOUR favorite band flogging off framed band equipment for $200 - or $300 if they sign it for ya?Support these bands trying to help you, for f**ks sake!
yes. we've gotten to the point where ppl will pay the cheapest price possible. free < $5. if he had sold the the download for $5, it would've cut bandwidth costs and increased the profit margin. then again, it almost certainly increased saul's fan base.
wingo123Jan 4, 2008
Radiohead was repressing you? That makes no sense at all. And how much does a pawn shop pay for a used CD - like a quarter? Jeez, man - for a 'grown-up' with enough money to buy anything he wants, that seems like some serious penny-pinching.
ghostfreemanJan 6, 2008
Yanno it wouldn't hurt if the tracks could be sampled on Last.fm...all of Saul's other stuff can be sampled there.BTW the cover of Sunday Bloody Sunday is outstanding!
beeradgJan 12, 2008
Seriously, this is a great album. I've been listening to it religiously ever since I bought it - for $5 - which is a helluva price to pay for such a great piece of artwork. I'm fighting every war at once and I'm winning
drbyatchJan 12, 2008
i heard saul before he released this on nins sight. downloaded the free version, listened loved and then downloaded the 5$ flacc versionI WILL NOT PAY FOR MP3's. they teh suck.
mikeexplosivoJan 12, 2008
Ok. I loved the cd, and i plan to buy it when i get my own money on the computer simply because my parents won't let me purchase things over the internet (lack to trust for the internet) which I do not blame. Whether or not I bought it or not doesn't completely rule me out that I am any less of a fan, if I could, I would. I'm sure this situation may apply to few, but not all. and think of it this way, if Saul put it out on cd, I would never even heard of the man before, and I plan on buying his earlier cds, knowing they do not have the touch of TR for the FX. I don't think this is a depressing situation at all.. Paying $17 for his cd while he only gets.. the bare minimum, maybe even below a dollar per cd? I think this is a great idea.
nsidethemindJan 16, 2008
it seems that no one looks at the obvious. the general public cannot tell the difference between 128 and 320k. why pay when its free? i do hear the small differences, but i am an audio engineer. TR should know this too. even $5 is too much, when its free. The album is great and I bought the the 320 version, but why question it, when very few actually pay for something free?; free is free, plain and simple.I work in the industry and we are all assh**es. TR knows this too. I promoted and pushed the purchase of Niggy at a college in Houston; the result was the same. all this shows is that this style of sales does not work! TR should have seen this. and maybe he did, his first thought was to sell his own at $4 per album, but he did not. Why? this is an easy way to get Saul noticed by the public, and an easy way for TR to cause more controversy. I'm looking forward to find out why Saul's album is free and what TR has in store next. At least for now I know the RIAA took blow. And that is good for all.
d1sassoc1ateJan 16, 2008
You are 100% correct. Its absolutely ridiculous that someone's intentions are judged based on whether they pay a measely 5 dollars or not. Some people support music with their ears and minds and not their wallets. Alot of kids cant afford to pay but absolutely adore the artists work and then get thrown into some s**tty "cheap assh**e" category. I , myself make plenty of money and buy albums for sentimental purposes and never open them bc ive already downloaded a free version, or paid a quick 99 cents. Its nothing personal or financial.... just the reality to todays music culture. so yes... props to you for not stereotyping people. Its too damn bad we don't have more open minded individuals like yourself. :) haha.. a definite DIGG!
jukeboxfuckupJan 17, 2008
I thought the album was great, but honestly - f**king piss poor for only 18% of listeners to be willing to pay $5 for it. With statistics like that, we can expect and probably deserve to continually be arse rapped by the record companies.If people don't start supporting bands efforts to try and "break down the system" of the record companies, you can expect all your bands to a) release drivel music with no shelf life & b) the antics we are currently seeing from the Smashing Pumpkins will be common place.so ask yourself, do you want to see YOUR favorite band releasing a new album 8 times all with one different b-side on it, or an extended booklet?do you want to see YOUR favorite band flogging off framed band equipment for $200 - or $300 if they sign it for ya?Support these bands trying to help you, for f**ks sake!
notcarljungJan 18, 2008
yes. we've gotten to the point where ppl will pay the cheapest price possible. free < $5. if he had sold the the download for $5, it would've cut bandwidth costs and increased the profit margin. then again, it almost certainly increased saul's fan base.