To download free or not to be?

For Radiohead fans ‘In Rainbows’ was an important chapter in the bands history, for those with an interest in the future of music it was probably the most important record of the last decade. Radiohead became the first multi-million selling band to let their audience decide the price it legitimately would pay for a piece of the artist’s music. If the music itself was not forward thinking enough, the concept definitely was and had economists and industry-types all in a stir. But since the ‘experiment’ Radiohead’s management have remained quiet on the outcome, choosing not to disclose download figures or profits, especially after signing a multi-million pound deal to get the record a physical release on Xl Recordings a few months later. While Radiohead may be seen as the pioneers behind the experiment, they certainly weren’t the only artist to trial the potential for delivering free content last year.


Lesser-known artist Saul Williams took a very similar idea in 2008 for his release ‘The Inevitable Rise and Liberation of NiggyTardust!’ and shocked the world with the outcome...
American poet and rapper Saul Williams had already much success with two critically acclaimed albums featuring the likes of Zack De La Rocha, The Mars Volta and Serj Tankien. Even then fans found it rather strange when they found out the rapper would be collaborating with industrial metal legend, Nine Inch Nails front man Trent Reznor for his latest effort, and even stranger when they found out they the fans would be deciding the price they paid for the album. The digital download of ‘...Niggy Tardust!” was either free or $5, the buyer had the choice.
The man behind the production and funding of the release, Trent Reznor has been open as of his disappointment with the results. After two months 154,449 people had downloaded NiggyTardust and 28,322 of them paid the $5. Clearly for an artist this was not a profitable scenario and Trent said, “If I could redo everything and start again, I think having a physical product is a good thing.”
However he is the first to admit that the idea wasn’t a total failure, for one a relatively unknown artist like Saul Williams received far more downloads of his new album than if he were to have charged, due mainly to the publicity of the concept and the nature of the free giveaway. It does however pose the question, what do people want to pay for music? In America $5 is about the price of a Big Mac and for us with current rates it’s not much less. The ever increasing levels of illegal downloading show no sign of slowing, yet the move to digital formats and the legitimate internet store has presented encouraging results. The BBC reporting recently that iTunes currently score 500,000 downloads a week.
The negative impact of illegal downloading cannot however be underestimated, music industry body, the IFPI, revealed at the start of this year that more than 40 billion songs were illegally downloaded in 2008. This equates to 95% of all downloads last year, add this to the fact sales for physical formats fell again to their lowest ever in 2008 it’s not surprising record labels are currently cutting back staff and spending budgets. Maybe it’s time then that the industry embraces these experiments and more bands start to think about ‘doing a radiohead’; especially when those few who have already followed suit like Bloc Party and Mcfly have had relatively positive returns.
For Radiohead the results of the experiment were relatively insignificant, it gave them a fresh headline, new record deal, handful of Grammys and sell out tour in 2008. Saul Williams will carry on touring the new record, through which he will make most his money, heading to Europe and the UK this summer. The losers ultimately of the trend for paying less for music will be you and me, the music fans, as new bands sell less, record labels take less risks in signing new and unproven talent, new bands will therefore get less attention and in turn we hear less new music. Artists won’t be prepared to take risks or make niche music in fear of selling less, gone will be challenging art and musical expression as those who make it have to ‘sell out’ to keep food on their tables and shoes on their feet. Paying for the music we listen to or losing the music as we know it today, it must be time we decide which is the lesser of the two evils.