2008 Woodie Awards
You say you want a (musical) revolution...
Brent Busby
Issue date: 4/30/08 Section: Opinion
Record labels have always been viewed as a necessary evil - until now. The history behind the music industry's breakdown starts roughly eight years ago. The now-popular U.K. band Radiohead had yet to have an album crack the Top 20 on the Billboard charts. As the group was set to release its latest album, "Kid A," things weren't looking up for the band. One month before it was released, "Kid A" was leaked onto Napster, where it was the most downloaded album. Despite this, "Kid A" still managed to give the band its first No. 1 debut.
Last year, the band had another album appear online before it reached store shelves, but this time it was willingly. Radiohead started a current trend that is quietly turning into a revolution when the band released its album, "In Rainbows," online, without a record label to back it. The band even let fans decide how much they wanted to pay for the new music. Although the success of the online release is uncertain when the album was finally released in stores months later, it still debuted at No. 1 on the Billboard charts.
The "In Rainbows" release paved the way for other artists to question the necessity of having a record label, and rather than have to answer and possibly compromise to a big shot record exec who knows little about artistic integrity and thinks in terms of dollars and cents, bands are free to get the music directly to the fans. This allows artists a chance to release their true vision and never worry about having to appeal to marketing strategies.
In 2007, rapper Saul Williams released an album allowing fans to download the album for free or pay $5 for a better quality MP3. More than 150,000 fans downloaded the album, with 30,000 deciding to pay. In comparison, Williams' first album was released in 2004 and has sold around 30,000 copies to date.
Nine Inch Nails also recently shed its record label and released a surprise album directly to the fans off of its official Web site. Nine songs were given away for free, with the whole collection of two hours of music available through a $5 download. Within the first week the album, "Ghosts I-IV," accumulated sales of $1.6 million.
It seems frontman Trent Reznor isn't done yet. Just 24 hours after mastering a new song, he sent it out to radio stations nationwide and gave it away for free on the Web site last week.
Even Metallica, who led the fight that would ultimately lead to Napster's end of file-sharing, has started to compromise. The band is set to release its ninth studio album later this year and has set up a Web site for fans to listen to the new album for free before it is released.
In order for this revolution to work, however, it is up to the fans - who constantly complain about the cost of music and use the excuse to reason with themselves and justify stealing music - to start supporting the artists. Five dollars for an album is easy to afford; it's roughly two drinks at a bar.
Last year, the band had another album appear online before it reached store shelves, but this time it was willingly. Radiohead started a current trend that is quietly turning into a revolution when the band released its album, "In Rainbows," online, without a record label to back it. The band even let fans decide how much they wanted to pay for the new music. Although the success of the online release is uncertain when the album was finally released in stores months later, it still debuted at No. 1 on the Billboard charts.
The "In Rainbows" release paved the way for other artists to question the necessity of having a record label, and rather than have to answer and possibly compromise to a big shot record exec who knows little about artistic integrity and thinks in terms of dollars and cents, bands are free to get the music directly to the fans. This allows artists a chance to release their true vision and never worry about having to appeal to marketing strategies.
In 2007, rapper Saul Williams released an album allowing fans to download the album for free or pay $5 for a better quality MP3. More than 150,000 fans downloaded the album, with 30,000 deciding to pay. In comparison, Williams' first album was released in 2004 and has sold around 30,000 copies to date.
Nine Inch Nails also recently shed its record label and released a surprise album directly to the fans off of its official Web site. Nine songs were given away for free, with the whole collection of two hours of music available through a $5 download. Within the first week the album, "Ghosts I-IV," accumulated sales of $1.6 million.
It seems frontman Trent Reznor isn't done yet. Just 24 hours after mastering a new song, he sent it out to radio stations nationwide and gave it away for free on the Web site last week.
Even Metallica, who led the fight that would ultimately lead to Napster's end of file-sharing, has started to compromise. The band is set to release its ninth studio album later this year and has set up a Web site for fans to listen to the new album for free before it is released.
In order for this revolution to work, however, it is up to the fans - who constantly complain about the cost of music and use the excuse to reason with themselves and justify stealing music - to start supporting the artists. Five dollars for an album is easy to afford; it's roughly two drinks at a bar.
Be the first to comment on this story